Erdafitinib or Chemotherapy in Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Erdafitinib is a pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor approved for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma in adults with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations who have progression after platinum-containing chemotherapy. The effects of erdafitinib in patients with FGFR-altered metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progression during or after treatment with checkpoint inhibitors (anti-programmed cell death protein 1 [PD-1] or anti-programmed death ligand 1 [PD-L1] agents) are unclear. METHODS: We conducted a global phase 3 trial of erdafitinib as compared with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma with susceptible FGFR3/2 alterations who had progression after one or two previous treatments that included an anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive erdafitinib or the investigator's choice of chemotherapy (docetaxel or vinflunine). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 266 patients underwent randomization: 136 to the erdafitinib group and 130 to the chemotherapy group. The median follow-up was 15.9 months. The median overall survival was significantly longer with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (12.1 months vs. 7.8 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.88; P = 0.005). The median progression-free survival was also longer with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (5.6 months vs. 2.7 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.78; P<0.001). The incidence of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was similar in the two groups (45.9% in the erdafitinib group and 46.4% in the chemotherapy group). Treatment-related adverse events that led to death were less common with erdafitinib than with chemotherapy (in 0.7% vs. 5.4% of patients). CONCLUSIONS: Erdafitinib therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy among patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma and FGFR alterations after previous anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 treatment. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; THOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03390504.).

Talazoparib plus enzalutamide in men with first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (TALAPRO-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Co-inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) and androgen receptor activity might result in antitumour efficacy irrespective of alterations in DNA damage repair genes involved in homologous recombination repair (HRR). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of talazoparib (a PARP inhibitor) plus enzalutamide (an androgen receptor blocker) versus enzalutamide alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: TALAPRO-2 is a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial of talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide as first-line therapy in men (age ≥18 years [≥20 years in Japan]) with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic mCRPC receiving ongoing androgen deprivation therapy. Patients were enrolled from 223 hospitals, cancer centres, and medical centres in 26 countries in North America, Europe, Israel, South America, South Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients were prospectively assessed for HRR gene alterations in tumour tissue and randomly assigned (1:1) to talazoparib 0·5 mg or placebo, plus enzalutamide 160 mg, administered orally once daily. Randomisation was stratified by HRR gene alteration status (deficient vs non-deficient or unknown) and previous treatment with life-prolonging therapy (docetaxel or abiraterone, or both: yes vs no) in the castration-sensitive setting. The sponsor, patients, and investigators were masked to talazoparib or placebo, while enzalutamide was open-label. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) by blinded independent central review, evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03395197) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2019, and Sept 17, 2020, 805 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (402 to the talazoparib group and 403 to the placebo group). Median follow-up for rPFS was 24·9 months (IQR 21·9-30·2) for the talazoparib group and 24·6 months (14·4-30·2) for the placebo group. At the planned primary analysis, median rPFS was not reached (95% CI 27·5 months-not reached) for talazoparib plus enzalutamide and 21·9 months (16·6-25·1) for placebo plus enzalutamide (hazard ratio 0·63; 95% CI 0·51-0·78; p<0·0001). In the talazoparib group, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia, neutropenia, and fatigue; the most common grade 3-4 event was anaemia (185 [46%] of 398 patients), which improved after dose reduction, and only 33 (8%) of 398 patients discontinued talazoparib due to anaemia. Treatment-related deaths occurred in no patients in the talazoparib group and two patients (<1%) in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Talazoparib plus enzalutamide resulted in clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in rPFS versus standard of care enzalutamide as first-line treatment for patients with mCRPC. Final overall survival data and additional long-term safety follow-up will further clarify the clinical benefit of the treatment combination in patients with and without tumour HRR gene alterations. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Enfortumab Vedotin in Previously Treated Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma have poor overall survival after platinum-containing chemotherapy and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor treatment. METHODS: We conducted a global, open-label, phase 3 trial of enfortumab vedotin for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had previously received platinum-containing chemotherapy and had had disease progression during or after treatment with a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive enfortumab vedotin (at a dose of 1.25 mg per kilogram of body weight on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle) or investigator-chosen chemotherapy (standard docetaxel, paclitaxel, or vinflunine), administered on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 608 patients underwent randomization; 301 were assigned to receive enfortumab vedotin and 307 to receive chemotherapy. As of July 15, 2020, a total of 301 deaths had occurred (134 in the enfortumab vedotin group and 167 in the chemotherapy group). At the prespecified interim analysis, the median follow-up was 11.1 months. Overall survival was longer in the enfortumab vedotin group than in the chemotherapy group (median overall survival, 12.88 vs. 8.97 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.89; P = 0.001). Progression-free survival was also longer in the enfortumab vedotin group than in the chemotherapy group (median progression-free survival, 5.55 vs. 3.71 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.75; P<0.001). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was similar in the two groups (93.9% in the enfortumab vedotin group and 91.8% in the chemotherapy group); the incidence of events of grade 3 or higher was also similar in the two groups (51.4% and 49.8%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Enfortumab vedotin significantly prolonged survival as compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had previously received platinum-based treatment and a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. (Funded by Astellas Pharma US and Seagen; EV-301 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03474107.).

TALAPRO-3 clinical trial protocol: phase III study of talazoparib plus enzalutamide in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer.

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in combination with androgen-receptor signaling inhibitors are a promising therapeutic option for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations. Here, we describe the design and rationale of the multinational, phase III, TALAPRO-3 study comparing talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide in patients with mCSPC and HRR gene alterations. The primary end point is investigator-assessed radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) per RECIST 1.1 in soft tissue, or per PCWG3 criteria in bone. The TALAPRO-3 study will demonstrate whether the addition of talazoparib can improve the efficacy of enzalutamide as assessed by rPFS in patients with mCSPC and HRR gene alterations undergoing androgen deprivation therapy. Clinical Trial Registration:NCT04821622 (ClinicalTrials.gov) Registry Name: Study of Talazoparib With Enzalutamide in Men With DDR Gene Mutated mCSPC. Date of Registration: 29 March 2021.

The TALAPRO-3 study design: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary is about the ongoing research study called TALAPRO-3. This study is testing the use of two medicines called talazoparib and enzalutamide. The two medicines are being used together as a treatment for patients with a type of cancer called metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer and changes in specific DNA repair genes within their tumors. The study began in May 2021, and includes 599 patients from 27 countries. WHAT IS METASTATIC CASTRATION-SENSITIVE PROSTATE CANCER?: Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer is known as mCSPC for short. It is cancer that has started in the prostate and spread to other body parts. The prostate is a gland below the bladder and helps make semen (the liquid that contains sperm). Castration-sensitive means that the cancer responds to treatments that lower testosterone in the blood. WHICH MEDICINES ARE BEING TESTED?: In this study, some patients will take talazoparib plus enzalutamide while others will take a placebo plus enzalutamide. Talazoparib and enzalutamide are two different cancer medicines. Talazoparib is not currently used to treat patients with mCSPC. Enzalutamide is used to treat patients with prostate cancer. Talazoparib plus enzalutamide is being compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide to see if patients live longer without their cancer getting worse, or them dying, when taking talazoparib plus enzalutamide or when taking a placebo plus enzalutamide. WHAT ARE THE AIMS OF THE TALAPRO-3 STUDY?: This study aims to find out if treatment with talazoparib plus enzalutamide increases the length of time the patients in the study live without their cancer getting worse, or them dying, compared with treatment with a placebo plus enzalutamide. The study will also measure how long the patients in the study live, the number and types of side effects they have, their general health and quality of life, and whether there are changes in how patients report their pain.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03395197 (TALAPRO-2) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Plain language summary of the results from the TALAPRO-2 study: Talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide for patients with advanced prostate cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary describes the results from the TALAPRO-2 research study (also known as a clinical trial). The TALAPRO-2 study tested the combination of two medicines called talazoparib plus enzalutamide. This combination of medicines was used as the first treatment for adult patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The combination of talazoparib plus enzalutamide was compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide. WHAT IS METASTATIC CASTRATION-RESISTANT PROSTATE CANCER?: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is a type of cancer that starts in the prostate and has spread to other parts of the body. Castration-resistant means that the cancer continues to grow even when testosterone levels in the blood are reduced to very low levels. Taking medicines to lower testosterone levels in the blood is a standard treatment for men with advanced prostate cancer. WHAT ARE THE AIMS OF THE TALAPRO-2 TRIAL?: TALAPRO-2 looked at if combining talazoparib plus enzalutamide would increase the length of time patients lived before their cancer got worse or they died compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide. Researchers looked at how treatment affected the size and number of tumors and the length of time before patients needed to change to a new cancer medicine. Researchers also looked at any side effects patients had during the study. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: A total of 805 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer took part in the study. Compared with patients who took a placebo plus enzalutamide, the group of patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide had a 37% reduced risk of their cancer getting worse or dying. Some patients had tumors that at the start of the study could be measured with scans. Sixty-two percent of patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide had their tumors decrease or shrink to the point that they could no longer be seen on scans versus 44% of patients who took a placebo plus enzalutamide. Patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide were more likely to have a longer time before they needed to change to a new cancer medicine. The most common side effects of talazoparib plus enzalutamide were low levels of red blood cells (66% of patients) and neutrophils (36% of patients), and excessive tiredness or exhaustion (34% of patients).Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03395197 (TALAPRO-2) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Baseline characteristics may impact treatment duration of cabazitaxel in patients with mCRPC: a subanalysis of data from a post-marketing surveillance.

OBJECTIVE: Cabazitaxel has demonstrated improvements in overall survival among patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the pivotal comparison clinical trials TROPIC, PROSELICA and CARD. However, these trials include mCRPC patients with similar characteristics, and there are limited data on how baseline characteristics affect treatment discontinuation in the patient population. METHODS: To assess individual factors that may impact the discontinuation rate of cabazitaxel treatment, we conducted a post hoc analysis of data from a nationwide all-case, post-marketing surveillance of cabazitaxel in Japan. Patients were grouped according to the number of cabazitaxel treatment cycles received (1-2 and ≥3 cycles). Predictive factors were identified through multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Across 660 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, 70.2% received ≥3 cycles of cabazitaxel treatment. Those receiving 1-2 cycles of cabazitaxel had a greater proportion of patients with poorer Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, presence of lung and liver metastases, higher prostate-specific antigen level and prior radiation therapy at baseline. Regardless of the number of cabazitaxel cycles received, the primary reason for discontinuation was progression of disease rather than adverse events. Compared with those receiving 1-2 cycles, a lower proportion of patients receiving 3-10 and ≥11 cycles of cabazitaxel treatment experienced adverse events. Multivariate analysis showed a significant association between early discontinuation and presence of liver lesions, poorer Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status and higher prostate-specific antigen level at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Post-marketing surveillance data suggest physicians should individualize cabazitaxel treatment based on certain patient characteristics at baseline.

Phase 3 THOR Japanese subgroup analysis: erdafitinib in advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer and fibroblast growth factor receptor alterations.

BACKGROUND: In the THOR trial (NCT03390504) Cohort 1, erdafitinib demonstrated significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) (median 12.1 versus 7.8 months) and reduced risk of death by 36% (hazard ratio 0.64, P = 0.005) compared with chemotherapy in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) patients with FGFR alterations who progressed after ≥ 1 prior treatments, including anti-PD-(L)1. There have been no reports of the Japanese subgroup results yet. METHODS: THOR Cohort 1 randomized patients to erdafitinib once daily or docetaxel/vinflunine once every 3 weeks. Primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). No specific statistical power was set for this Japanese subgroup analysis. RESULTS: Of 266 patients randomized, 27 (14 erdafitinib; 13 chemotherapy) were Japanese. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between treatments and to the overall population, except for more males, lower body weight, and more upper tract primary tumors among Japanese patients. Compared with chemotherapy, erdafitinib showed improved OS (median 25.4 versus 12.4 months), PFS (median 8.4 versus 2.9 months) and ORR (57.1% versus 15.4%). Any grade treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in all patients from both arms but Grade 3/4 AEs and AEs leading to discontinuation were lower in the erdafitinib arm. No new safety signals were observed in the Japanese subgroup. CONCLUSION: In the Japanese subgroup, erdafitinib showed improved survival and response compared to chemotherapy, with no new safety concerns. These results support erdafitinib as a treatment option for Japanese mUC patients with FGFR alterations, and early FGFR testing after diagnosis of mUC should be considered.

Phase I study of the irreversible fibroblast growth factor receptor 1-4 inhibitor futibatinib in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors.

This phase I study was designed to: (1) determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose (RD) of the fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor futibatinib in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors, and (2) examine the antitumor activity of the RD in patients with gastric cancer (GC) or other advanced solid tumors who have FGFR or FGF/FGFR abnormalities, respectively. In the dose-escalation phase, patients were assigned to 21-day cycles of oral futibatinib 8-160 mg three times a week (TIW) or 16 or 20 mg once daily (QD). In the expansion phase, patients received oral futibatinib 56, 80, or 120 mg TIW, or 16 or 20 mg QD. Eighty-three patients received futibatinib TIW (n = 40) or QD (n = 43). No dose-limiting toxicities were observed according to the final study protocol definition, and the MTD was not reached. The most common adverse events with both regimens were hyperphosphatemia (TIW, 82.5%; QD, 100.0%) and decreased appetite (TIW, 40.0%; QD, 58.1%). Hyperphosphatemia was asymptomatic, not leading to futibatinib discontinuation. The overall response rate (ORR) was 11.5% in patients with FGF/FGFR abnormalities. Notably, in GC patients harboring FGFR2 copy number (CN) ≥10, the ORR was 36.4% versus 0 in patients with CN <10. Therefore, futibatinib had a generally predictable and manageable safety profile in patients with advanced solid tumors. Antitumor activity was seen in patients with FGF/FGFR abnormalities, particularly those with GC and high FGFR2 CNs. Thus, futibatinib 20 mg QD was chosen as the RD for phase II studies.

First-in-human study of E7130 (a tumor microenvironment-ameliorating microtubule inhibitor) in patients with advanced solid tumors: Primary results of the dose-escalation part.

BACKGROUND: E7130 is a novel anticancer agent created from a total synthetic study of norhalichondrin B. The authors report the E7130 dose-escalation part of a first-in-human study of patients with advanced solid tumors (NCT03444701). METHODS: Japanese patients ≥20 years of age were enrolled. E7130 was administered intravenously in two cycles: day 1 of a 21-day cycle (Q3W) or days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle (Q2W). Doses were escalated from 270 to 550 µg/m2 for the Q3W group or 25-400 µg/m2 for the Q2W group. The primary end point of the dose-escalation phase was safety and tolerability as assessed by the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and adverse events. Other end points included determination of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were enrolled: 15 in the E7130 Q3W group and 29 in the Q2W group. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in all patients; the most common TEAE overall was leukopenia (78.6%). Grade 3-4 TEAEs occurred in 93.3% of patients in the Q3W group and 86.2% of patients in the Q2W group. None had a TEAE resulting in study drug discontinuation, and no treatment-related deaths were reported. Per the DLT evaluation, the MTDs were determined as 480 µg/m2 Q3W and 300 µg/m2 Q2W. Significant changes in multiple plasma biomarkers, including vascular endothelial growth factor 3 and matrix metallopeptidase 9, were dose-dependent after initial doses of 350-480 µg/m2 . CONCLUSIONS: E7130 480 µg/m2 Q3W was chosen for the dose-expansion part over 300 µg/m2 Q2W primarily per dose-dependent biomarker results.

Real-world effectiveness of third-line cabazitaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: CARD-like analysis of data from a post-marketing surveillance in Japan.

BACKGROUND: The CARD trial was conducted in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had received docetaxel and experienced disease progression within 1 year on an androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapy (ARAT). Subsequent treatment with cabazitaxel had improved clinical outcomes compared with an alternative ARAT. This study aims to confirm the effectiveness of cabazitaxel in real-world patients in Japan and compare their characteristics with those of patients from the CARD trial. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of a nationwide post-marketing surveillance registering all patients who were prescribed cabazitaxel in Japan between September 2014 and June 2015. Included patients had received docetaxel and ≤ 1 year of an ARAT (abiraterone or enzalutamide) prior to receiving cabazitaxel or an alternative ARAT, as their third-line therapy. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the time to treatment failure (TTF) of the third-line therapy. Patients were matched (1:1) from the cabazitaxel and second ARAT arms based on propensity score (PS). RESULTS: Of the 535 patients analysed, 247 received cabazitaxel and 288 the alternative ARAT as their third-line therapy, of which, 91.3% (n = 263/288) received abiraterone and 8.7% (n = 25/288) received enzalutamide as their second third-line ARAT. Patients in the cabazitaxel and second ARAT arms had TNM classification of M1 or MX in 73.3% and 68.1%, Gleason score of 8-10 in 78.5% and 79.2% and mean (standard deviation) serum PSA levels of 483 (1370) and 594 (1241) ng/mL, respectively. Initial cabazitaxel dose was ≤ 20 mg/m2 in 61.9% (n = 153/247) of the patients in the cabazitaxel arm. The median TTF (95% confidence interval [CI]) of the third-line therapy was 109 (94-128) days for cabazitaxel and 58 (57-66) days for the second ARAT, with a hazard ratio (95% CI) of 0.339 (0.279-0.413) favouring cabazitaxel. Similar results were obtained after PS-matching, with a hazard ratio (95% CI) of 0.323 (95% CI 0.258-0.402) favouring cabazitaxel. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the CARD trial, cabazitaxel demonstrated superior effectiveness over a second alternative ARAT in a real-world patient population in Japan, despite the population having more advanced disease status and a lower dose of cabazitaxel being more frequently administered, than in the CARD trial.

Clinical features of CDK4/6 inhibitor-related interstitial lung disease in patients with breast cancer: a case series study.

BACKGROUND: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors are the standard treatment for advanced hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Although interstitial lung disease is a rare (1-3.3%) but serious adverse event associated with CDK4/6 inhibitors, the incidence of interstitial lung disease in Japanese patients in the real world and the risk factors of interstitial lung disease are not clear. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated the incidence of interstitial lung disease in 224 patients with advanced breast cancer who received CDK4/6 inhibitors at our hospital between 31 January 2017 and 31 January 2021. The correlation of age (>50 vs ≤50 years), presence or absence of previous history of interstitial lung disease, lung metastasis, smoking history and chest radiation with the development of interstitial lung disease was evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 177 cases received palbociclib, 39 cases received abemaciclib and 8 cases received both palbociclib and abemaciclib, constituting a palbociclib group (n = 185) and an abemaciclib group (n = 47). At a median observation period of 607 days, 8.0% (18/224) cases (13 definite and 5 probable cases) had interstitial lung disease; 6.5% (12/185) of palbociclib-treated and 13% (6/47) of abemaciclib-treated cases. The median time to interstitial lung disease onset was 178 (range, 14-750) days. There was no significant correlation between the background factors studied and the development of interstitial lung disease. CONCLUSION: The frequency of CDK4/6 inhibitor-induced interstitial lung disease was higher than that reported in clinical trials. We did not identify any risk factors for the development of interstitial lung disease in this study, and thus, larger studies that include patient predisposition are required.

Prognostic value of PD-L1 expression in recurrent renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy: a secondary analysis of the ARCHERY study.

BACKGROUND: Nephrectomy is a curative treatment for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC), but patients with poor prognostic features may experience relapse. Understanding the prognostic impact of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in patients who underwent nephrectomy for RCC may aid in future development of adjuvant therapy. METHODS: Of 770 surgical specimens collected from Japanese patients enrolled in the ARCHERY study, only samples obtained from patients with recurrent RCC after nephrectomy were examined for this secondary analysis. Patients were categorized into low- and high-risk groups based on clinical stage and Fuhrman grade. Time to recurrence (TTR) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. RESULTS: Both TTR and OS were shorter in patients with PD-L1-positive than -negative tumors (median TTR 12.1 vs. 21.9 months [HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17, 1.81]; median OS, 75.8 vs. 97.7 months [HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00, 1.75]). TTR and OS were shorter in high-risk patients with PD-L1-positive than -negative tumors (median TTR 7.6 vs. 15.3 months [HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.11, 2.00]; median OS, 55.2 vs. 83.5 months [HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.06, 2.21]) but not in low-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: This ARCHERY secondary analysis suggests that PD-L1 expression may play a role in predicting OS and risk of recurrence in high-risk patients with localized RCC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN000034131.

Comprehensive investigation of clinicopathological and immunological features to determine prognostic impact in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The JEWEL study.

OBJECTIVES: Current prognostic models for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are likely inaccurate due to recent treatment advances and improved survival outcomes. The JEWEL study used a data set from patients who received tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) to explore the prognostic impact of the tumor immune environment in the absence of immune checkpoint inhibitor intervention. METHODS: The primary analysis population comprised 569 of the 770 Japanese patients enrolled in the ARCHERY study who received first-line TKIs. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify factors associated with the primary (overall survival [OS]) and secondary outcomes (treatment duration) using 34 candidate explanatory variables. RESULTS: Median OS was 34.1 months (95% CI, 30.4-37.6) in the primary analysis population. A considerable negative prognostic impact (descriptive p ≤ 0.0005) on OS was seen with lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) >1.5 × upper limit of normal (adjusted HR [aHR], 3.30; 95% CI, 2.19-4.98), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≥2 (aHR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.56-2.94), World Health Organization (WHO)/International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade 4 (aHR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.43-2.51), C-reactive protein (CRP) level ≥0.3 (aHR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.40-2.26), and age ≥75 years (aHR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.24-2.18) in the multivariable analysis. PD-L1 and immunophenotype affected OS in univariable analyses but were not selected in the multivariable model as explanatory variables. CONCLUSIONS: JEWEL identified sex, age, ECOG PS, liver and bone metastases, CRP levels, WHO/ISUP grade, LDH, and albumin levels as key prognostic factors for OS after first-line TKI therapy for mRCC.

Pain and health-related quality of life with olaparib versus physician's choice of next-generation hormonal drug in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with homologous recombination repair gene alterations (PROfound): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The PROfound study showed significantly improved radiographical progression-free survival and overall survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with alterations in homologous recombination repair genes and disease progression on a previous next-generation hormonal drug who received olaparib then those who received control. We aimed to assess pain and patient-centric health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures in patients in the trial. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and gene alterations to one of 15 genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM [cohort A] and BRIP1, BARD1, CDK12, CHEK1, CHEK2, FANCL, PALB2, PPP2R2A, RAD51B, RAD51C, RAD51D, and RAD54L [cohort B]) and disease progression after a previous next-generation hormonal drug were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg orally twice daily) or a control drug (enzalutamide tablets [160 mg orally once daily] or abiraterone tablets [1000 mg orally once daily] plus prednisone tablets [5 mg orally twice daily]), stratified by previous taxane use and measurable disease. The primary endpoint (radiographical progression-free survival in cohort A) has been previously reported. The prespecified secondary endpoints reported here are on pain, HRQOL, symptomatic skeletal-related events, and time to first opiate use for cancer-related pain in cohort A. Pain was assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form, and HRQOL was assessed with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P). All endpoints were analysed in patients in cohort A by modified intention-to-treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02987543. FINDINGS: Between Feb 6, 2017, and June 4, 2019, 245 patients were enrolled in cohort A and received study treatment (162 [66%] in the olaparib group and 83 [34%] in the control group). Median duration of follow-up at data cutoff in all patients was 6·2 months (IQR 2·2-10·4) for the olaparib group and 3·5 months (1·7-4·9) for the control group. In cohort A, median time to pain progression was significantly longer with olaparib than with control (median not reached [95% CI not reached-not reached] with olaparib vs 9·92 months [5·39-not reached] with control; HR 0·44 [95% CI 0·22-0·91]; p=0·019). Pain interference scores were also better in the olaparib group (difference in overall adjusted mean change from baseline score -0·85 [95% CI -1·31 to -0·39]; pnominal=0·0004). Median time to progression of pain severity was not reached in either group (95% CI not reached-not reached for both groups; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·25-1·34]; pnominal=0·17). In patients who had not used opiates at baseline (113 in the olaparib group, 58 in the control group), median time to first opiate use for cancer-related pain was 18·0 months (95% CI 12·8-not reached) in the olaparib group versus 7·5 months (3·2-not reached) in the control group (HR 0·61; 95% CI 0·38-0·99; pnominal=0·044). The proportion of patients with clinically meaningful improvement in FACT-P total score during treatment was higher for the olaparib group than the control group: 15 (10%) of 152 evaluable patients had a response in the olaparib group compared with one (1%) of evaluable 77 patients in the control group (odds ratio 8·32 [95% CI 1·64-151·84]; pnominal=0·0065). Median time to first symptomatic skeletal-related event was not reached for either treatment group (olaparib group 95% CI not reached-not reached; control group 7·8-not reached; HR 0·37 [95% CI 0·20-0·70]; pnominal=0·0013). INTERPRETATION: Olaparib was associated with reduced pain burden and better-preserved HRQOL compared with the two control drugs in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and homologous recombination repair gene alterations who had disease progression after a previous next-generation hormonal drug. Our findings support the clinical benefit of improved radiographical progression-free survival and overall survival identified in PROfound. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Ipatasertib plus abiraterone and prednisolone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (IPATential150): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The PI3K/AKT and androgen-receptor pathways are dysregulated in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers (mCRPCs); tumours with functional PTEN-loss status have hyperactivated AKT signalling. Dual pathway inhibition with AKT inhibitor ipatasertib plus abiraterone might have greater benefit than abiraterone alone. We aimed to compare ipatasertib plus abiraterone with placebo plus abiraterone in patients with previously untreated mCRPC with or without tumour PTEN loss. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial at 200 sites across 26 countries or regions. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic mCRPC who had progressive disease and Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1; permuted block method) to receive ipatasertib (400 mg once daily orally) plus abiraterone (1000 mg once daily orally) and prednisolone (5 mg twice a day orally) or placebo plus abiraterone and prednisolone (with the same dosing schedule). Patients received study treatment until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, withdrawal from the study, or study completion. Stratification factors were previous taxane-based therapy for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, type of progression, presence of visceral metastasis, and tumour PTEN-loss status by immunohistochemistry. Patients, investigators, and the study sponsor were masked to the treatment allocation. The coprimary endpoints were investigator-assessed radiographical progression-free survival in the PTEN-loss-by-immunohistochemistry population and in the intention-to-treat population. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03072238. FINDINGS: Between June 30, 2017, and Jan 17, 2019, 1611 patients were screened for eligibility and 1101 (68%) were enrolled; 554 (50%) were assigned to the placebo-abiraterone group and 547 (50%) to the ipatasertib-abiraterone group. At data cutoff (March 16, 2020), median follow-up duration was 19 months (range 0-33). In the 521 (47%) patients who had tumours with PTEN loss by immunohistochemistry (261 in the placebo-abiraterone group and 260 in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group), median radiographical progression-free survival was 16·5 months (95% CI 13·9-17·0) in the placebo-abiraterone group and 18·5 months (16·3-22·1) in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·77 [95% CI 0·61-0·98]; p=0·034; significant at α=0·04). In the intention-to-treat population, median progression-free survival was 16·6 months (95% CI 15·6-19·1) in the placebo-abiraterone group and 19·2 months (16·5-22·3) in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·71-0·99]; p=0·043; not significant at α=0·01). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 213 (39%) of 546 patients in the placebo-abiraterone group and in 386 (70%) of 551 patients in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group; adverse events leading to discontinuation of placebo or ipatasertib occurred in 28 (5%) in the placebo-abiraterone group and 116 (21%) in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group. Deaths due to adverse events deemed related to treatment occurred in two patients (<1%; acute myocardial infarction [n=1] and lower respiratory tract infection [n=1]) in the placebo-abiraterone group and in two patients (<1%; hyperglycaemia [n=1] and chemical pneumonitis [n=1]) in the ipastasertb-abiraterone group. INTERPRETATION: Ipatasertib plus abiraterone significantly improved radiographical progression-free survival compared with placebo plus abiraterone among patients with mCRPC with PTEN-loss tumours, but there was no significant difference between the groups in the intention-to-treat population. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of each agent. These data suggest that combined AKT and androgen-receptor signalling pathway inhibition with ipatasertib and abiraterone is a potential treatment for men with PTEN-loss mCRPC, a population with a poor prognosis. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

Comprehensive analysis of the associations between clinical factors and outcomes by machine learning, using post marketing surveillance data of cabazitaxel in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate relationships between clinical outcomes and explanatory variables by network clustering analysis using data from a post marketing surveillance (PMS) study of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients. METHODS: The PMS was a prospective, multicenter, observational study of patients with metastatic, docetaxel-refractory CRPC treated with cabazitaxel in Japan after its launch in 2014. Graphical Markov (GM) model-based simulations and network clustering in 'R' package were conducted to identify correlations between clinical factors and outcomes. Factors shown to be associated with overall survival (OS) in the machine learning analysis were confirmed according to the clinical outcomes observed in the PMS. RESULTS: Among the 660 patients analyzed, median patient age was 70.0 years, and median OS and time-to-treatment failure (TTF) were 319 and 116 days, respectively. In GM-based simulations, factors associated with OS were liver metastases, performance status (PS), TTF, and neutropenia (threshold 0.05), and liver metastases, PS, and TTF (threshold 0.01). Factors associated with TTF were OS and relative dose intensity (threshold 0.05), and OS (threshold 0.01). In network clustering in 'R' package, factors associated with OS were number of treatment cycles, discontinuation due to disease progression, and TTF (threshold 0.05), and liver and lung metastases, PS, discontinuation due to adverse events, and febrile neutropenia (threshold 0.01). Kaplan-Meier analysis of patient subgroups demonstrated that visceral metastases and poor PS at baseline were associated with worse OS, while neutropenia or febrile neutropenia and higher number of cabazitaxel cycles were associated with better OS. CONCLUSIONS: Neutropenia may be a predictive factor for treatment efficacy in terms of survival. Poor PS and distant metastases to the liver and lungs were shown to be associated with worse outcomes, while factors related to treatment duration were shown to positively correlate with better OS.

IMAGENE trial: multicenter, proof-of-concept, phase II study evaluating the efficacy and safety of combination therapy of niraparib with PD-1 inhibitor in solid cancer patients with homologous recombination repair genes mutation.

BACKGROUND: Previous clinical trials have demonstrated the potential efficacy of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPis) in patients with cancer involving homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene-mutation. Moreover, HRR gene-mutated cancers are effectively treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) with the increase in tumor mutation burden. We have proposed to conduct a multicenter, single-arm phase II trial (IMAGENE trial) for evaluating the efficacy and safety of niraparib (PARPi) plus programmed cell death-1 inhibitor combination therapy in patients with HRR gene-mutated cancers who are refractory to ICIs therapy using a next generation sequencing-based circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and tumor tissue analysis. METHODS: Key eligibility criteria for this trial includes HRR gene-mutated tumor determined by any cancer gene tests; progression after previous ICI treatment; and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status ≤ 1. The primary endpoint is the confirmed objective response rate (ORR) in all patients. The secondary endpoints include the confirmed ORR in patients with HRR gene-mutation of ctDNA using the Caris Assure (CARIS, USA). The target sample size of the IMAGENE trial is 57 patients. Biomarker analyses will be performed in parallel using the Caris Assure, proteome analysis, and T cell repertoire analysis to reveal tumor immunosurveillance in peripheral blood. EXPECTED OUTCOME: Our trial aims to confirm the clinical benefit of PARPi plus ICI combination therapy in ICI-resistant patients. Furthermore, through translational research, our trial will shed light on which patients would benefit from the targeted combination therapy for patients with HRR gene-mutated tumor even after the failure of ICIs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The IMAGENE trial: jRCT, Clinical trial no.: jRCT2051210120, Registered date: November 9, 2021.

Exposure-response relationship of ramucirumab in RANGE, a randomized phase III trial in advanced urothelial carcinoma refractory to platinum therapy.

AIMS: Patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) who progress after platinum-based chemotherapy have a poor prognosis, and there is a medical need to improve current treatment options. Ramucirumab plus docetaxel significantly improved progression-free survival but not overall survival (OS) in platinum-refractory advanced UC (RANGE trial; NCT02426125). Here, we report the exposure-response (ER) of ramucirumab plus docetaxel using data from the RANGE trial. METHODS: Pharmacokinetic (PK) samples were collected (cycle 1-3, 5, 9 [day 1] and 30 days from treatment discontinuation), and PK data were analysed using population PK (popPK) analysis. The minimum ramucirumab concentration after first dose administration (Cmin,1 , or trough concentration immediately prior to the second dose) was derived by popPK analysis and used as the exposure parameter for ER analysis. Cox proportional hazards regression models and matched case-control analyses were used to evaluate the relationship between Cmin,1 and OS. The Cmin,1 relationship with safety was assessed descriptively. RESULTS: Several poor prognostic factors (ECOG 1, haemoglobin concentration <100 g/L, presence of liver metastases) appeared more frequently in the lower exposure quartiles, suggesting a possible disease-PK interaction. A significant association was identified between Cmin,1 and OS (P = .0108). Higher exposure quartiles were associated with longer survival and smaller hazard ratios compared to placebo. No new exposure-safety trends were observed within the exposure range (ramucirumab 10 mg/kg once every 3 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: This prespecified ER analyses suggests a positive relationship between efficacy and ramucirumab exposure, with an imbalance associated with disease prognostic factors. Further investigation may elucidate a possible disease-PK relationship.

Olaparib in patients with mCRPC with homologous recombination repair gene alterations: PROfound Asian subset analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Phase III PROfound study (NCT02987543) evaluated olaparib versus abiraterone or enzalutamide (control; randomized 2:1 to olaparib or control) in men with homologous recombination repair gene alterations and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer whose disease progressed on prior next-generation hormonal agent. METHODS: We present efficacy and safety data from an exploratory post hoc analysis of olaparib in the PROfound Asian subset. Analyses were not planned, alpha controlled or powered. Of 101 Asian patients enrolled in Japan (n=57), South Korea (n=29) and Taiwan (n=15), 66 and 35 patients received olaparib and control, respectively. RESULTS: Radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) favored olaparib versus control in Cohort A [rPFS 7.2 vs. 4.5 months, HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.29-1.21, P = 0.14 (nominal); OS 23.4 vs. 17.8 months, HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.40-1.74, P = 0.57 (nominal)] and Cohorts A+B [rPFS 5.8 vs. 3.5 months, HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.42-1.16, P = 0.13 (nominal); OS 18.6 vs. 16.2 months, HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.56-1.70, P = 0.9 (nominal)]. Olaparib showed greatest improvement in patients harboring BRCA alterations [rPFS 9.3 vs. 3.5 months, HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06-0.49, P = 0.0003 (nominal); OS 26.8 vs. 14.3 months, HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.24-1.79, P = 0.34 (nominal)]. Safety data were consistent with the known profile of olaparib, with no new safety signals identified. CONCLUSION: In PROfound, there was a statistically significant improvement in outcomes reported in the global population of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and alterations in homologous recombination repair genes whose disease progressed on prior next-generation hormonal agent compared with control. For the subset of Asian patients reported here, exploratory analysis suggested that there was also an improvement in outcomes versus control. The safety and tolerability of olaparib in Asian patients were similar to that of the PROfound global population. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02987543.