TBD Meeting (4663-19)

SAN FRANCISCO – Dual targeting of the androgen signaling axis in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer improves outcomes and is well tolerated, according to results of the phase 3 ARCHES trial reported at the 2019 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, ASTRO, and the Society of Urologic Oncology.

“Androgen-deprivation therapy [ADT] has been the mainstay of therapy for men who present with metastatic disease for many years. But generally, progression to castration-resistant diseases is observed within approximately 3 years,” said lead investigator Andrew J. Armstrong, MD, a professor of medicine in medical oncology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

“Thus the advent of improving outcomes with the [additional] use of early docetaxel, abiraterone, and now radiation to the primary in the face of oligometastatic disease has been shown to improve survival,” he added. “However, the most recent studies have really not studied the sequential use of docetaxel and have largely excluded patients who had had prior docetaxel chemotherapy in the hormone-sensitive setting.”

The investigators in the ARCHES trial (NCT02677896) randomized 1,150 men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer to enzalutamide (Xtandi) plus ADT or placebo plus ADT.

With a median follow-up of 14.4 months, radiographic progression-free survival – the trial’s primary endpoint – was prolonged in the enzalutamide arm. Risk of progression or death was reduced by a relative 61% with enzalutamide versus placebo. There were also significant relative reductions in risks of other important outcomes such as time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (81% reduction), time to new antineoplastic therapy (72% reduction), and time to castration resistance (72% reduction).

Meanwhile, the enzalutamide group had somewhat more fatigue, hot flashes, and hypertension, but most of these events were grade 1 or 2. Rates of adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal were similar and low.

“Following the success of this study, all patients in the placebo group will be offered participation in an open-label extension protocol where they’ll be offered enzalutamide and the opportunity to receive a clinically beneficial treatment,” Dr. Armstrong reported.
 

Ready for prime time?

The ARCHES findings are probably not yet sufficient to be implemented in real-world practice, according to invited discussant Ian D. Davis, MBBS, PhD, a professor at Monash University, Melbourne.

The condition studied in the trial – metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer – certainly needs treatment, but it is unclear whether radiographic progression-free survival is a meaningful endpoint, he said. “We know in the CRPC [castration-resistant prostate cancer] setting for enzalutamide in the PREVAIL study, radiographic progression-free survival was correlated with overall survival, but we haven’t actually proven that yet in the CSPC [castration-sensitive prostate cancer] setting.”

Toxicity was acceptable, but information about the efficacy of subsequent treatment is lacking. “This is where progression-free survival 2 [PFS2] information would be useful if we had it,” Dr. Davis noted. Cost-effectiveness in terms of overall survival is likewise still unknown.

“Cautiously, and I’m conscious of my conflict of interest here because I’m doing a similar trial, I’d say that the ARCHES trial should probably not yet change practice,” he said. However, he qualified that statement by pointing to recently announced results from the phase 3 TITAN trial (NCT02489318) of apalutamide (Erleada), showing significant radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival benefit in this patient population. “So we await those data with interest.”

The first interim analysis of the enzalutamide trial he is cochairing, ANZUP ENZAMET (NCT02446405), is imminent, according to Dr. Davis. “The differences here are the primary endpoint of ENZAMET is overall survival and there was an early amendment to allow concurrent docetaxel, so a significant proportion of patients on this study will have received concurrent docetaxel with enzalutamide or ADT,” he noted.

Men enrolled in ARCHES were allowed to have received prior ADT for up to 3 months or, if they had received docetaxel, for up to 6 months, Dr. Armstrong noted at the symposium.

About two-thirds each had high disease volume and had distant metastasis at their initial diagnosis. Overall, median duration of prior ADT was 1.6 months.

Radiographic progression-free survival was not reached with enzalutamide versus 19.45 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.39; P less than .0001). Corresponding 12-month rates were 84% and 64%. Findings were essentially the same across diverse subgroups, including among the 18% of patients who had received prior docetaxel (HR, 0.53).

Median time to PSA progression – typically one of the first indications of castration resistance – was not reached in either group, but the 12-month rate was 91% with enzalutamide versus 63% with placebo (HR, 0.19; P less than .0001), Dr. Armstrong reported. Median time to castration resistance was not reached with enzalutamide versus 13.9 months with placebo (HR, 0.28; P less than .0001).

There also were significant differences in favor of enzalutamide on the rate of achievement of undetectable PSA (68.1% vs. 17.6%; P less than .0001), the objective response rate (83.1% vs. 63.7%; P less than .0001), and the time to initiation of new antineoplastic therapy (not reached vs. 30.19 months; HR, 0.28; P less than .0001).

Quality of life was very high in both groups at study baseline and remained similarly so during follow-up. An interim analysis showed overall survival had not been reached in either group, although there was a nonsignificant trend favoring enzalutamide.

Safety was much the same, with the enzalutamide and placebo groups having similar rates of grade 3 or worse adverse events (24.3% vs. 25.6%), as well as similar rates of adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal (7.2% vs. 5.2%) and death (2.4% vs. 1.7%).

In terms of adverse events of special interest, the groups were comparable on rates of grade 3 or 4 convulsion, ischemic heart disease, falls, and fractures.

Dr. Armstrong disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with, receives research funding (institutional) from, and receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Astellas – among other disclosures. The trial was sponsored by Astellas.

SOURCE: Armstrong AJ et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 687.

SAN FRANCISCO – Dual targeting of the androgen signaling axis in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer improves outcomes and is well tolerated, according to results of the phase 3 ARCHES trial reported at the 2019 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, ASTRO, and the Society of Urologic Oncology.

“Androgen-deprivation therapy [ADT] has been the mainstay of therapy for men who present with metastatic disease for many years. But generally, progression to castration-resistant diseases is observed within approximately 3 years,” said lead investigator Andrew J. Armstrong, MD, a professor of medicine in medical oncology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

“Thus the advent of improving outcomes with the [additional] use of early docetaxel, abiraterone, and now radiation to the primary in the face of oligometastatic disease has been shown to improve survival,” he added. “However, the most recent studies have really not studied the sequential use of docetaxel and have largely excluded patients who had had prior docetaxel chemotherapy in the hormone-sensitive setting.”

The investigators in the ARCHES trial (NCT02677896) randomized 1,150 men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer to enzalutamide (Xtandi) plus ADT or placebo plus ADT.

With a median follow-up of 14.4 months, radiographic progression-free survival – the trial’s primary endpoint – was prolonged in the enzalutamide arm. Risk of progression or death was reduced by a relative 61% with enzalutamide versus placebo. There were also significant relative reductions in risks of other important outcomes such as time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (81% reduction), time to new antineoplastic therapy (72% reduction), and time to castration resistance (72% reduction).

Meanwhile, the enzalutamide group had somewhat more fatigue, hot flashes, and hypertension, but most of these events were grade 1 or 2. Rates of adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal were similar and low.

“Following the success of this study, all patients in the placebo group will be offered participation in an open-label extension protocol where they’ll be offered enzalutamide and the opportunity to receive a clinically beneficial treatment,” Dr. Armstrong reported.
 

Ready for prime time?

The ARCHES findings are probably not yet sufficient to be implemented in real-world practice, according to invited discussant Ian D. Davis, MBBS, PhD, a professor at Monash University, Melbourne.

The condition studied in the trial – metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer – certainly needs treatment, but it is unclear whether radiographic progression-free survival is a meaningful endpoint, he said. “We know in the CRPC [castration-resistant prostate cancer] setting for enzalutamide in the PREVAIL study, radiographic progression-free survival was correlated with overall survival, but we haven’t actually proven that yet in the CSPC [castration-sensitive prostate cancer] setting.”

Toxicity was acceptable, but information about the efficacy of subsequent treatment is lacking. “This is where progression-free survival 2 [PFS2] information would be useful if we had it,” Dr. Davis noted. Cost-effectiveness in terms of overall survival is likewise still unknown.

“Cautiously, and I’m conscious of my conflict of interest here because I’m doing a similar trial, I’d say that the ARCHES trial should probably not yet change practice,” he said. However, he qualified that statement by pointing to recently announced results from the phase 3 TITAN trial (NCT02489318) of apalutamide (Erleada), showing significant radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival benefit in this patient population. “So we await those data with interest.”

The first interim analysis of the enzalutamide trial he is cochairing, ANZUP ENZAMET (NCT02446405), is imminent, according to Dr. Davis. “The differences here are the primary endpoint of ENZAMET is overall survival and there was an early amendment to allow concurrent docetaxel, so a significant proportion of patients on this study will have received concurrent docetaxel with enzalutamide or ADT,” he noted.

Men enrolled in ARCHES were allowed to have received prior ADT for up to 3 months or, if they had received docetaxel, for up to 6 months, Dr. Armstrong noted at the symposium.

About two-thirds each had high disease volume and had distant metastasis at their initial diagnosis. Overall, median duration of prior ADT was 1.6 months.

Radiographic progression-free survival was not reached with enzalutamide versus 19.45 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.39; P less than .0001). Corresponding 12-month rates were 84% and 64%. Findings were essentially the same across diverse subgroups, including among the 18% of patients who had received prior docetaxel (HR, 0.53).

Median time to PSA progression – typically one of the first indications of castration resistance – was not reached in either group, but the 12-month rate was 91% with enzalutamide versus 63% with placebo (HR, 0.19; P less than .0001), Dr. Armstrong reported. Median time to castration resistance was not reached with enzalutamide versus 13.9 months with placebo (HR, 0.28; P less than .0001).

There also were significant differences in favor of enzalutamide on the rate of achievement of undetectable PSA (68.1% vs. 17.6%; P less than .0001), the objective response rate (83.1% vs. 63.7%; P less than .0001), and the time to initiation of new antineoplastic therapy (not reached vs. 30.19 months; HR, 0.28; P less than .0001).

Quality of life was very high in both groups at study baseline and remained similarly so during follow-up. An interim analysis showed overall survival had not been reached in either group, although there was a nonsignificant trend favoring enzalutamide.

Safety was much the same, with the enzalutamide and placebo groups having similar rates of grade 3 or worse adverse events (24.3% vs. 25.6%), as well as similar rates of adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal (7.2% vs. 5.2%) and death (2.4% vs. 1.7%).

In terms of adverse events of special interest, the groups were comparable on rates of grade 3 or 4 convulsion, ischemic heart disease, falls, and fractures.

Dr. Armstrong disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with, receives research funding (institutional) from, and receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Astellas – among other disclosures. The trial was sponsored by Astellas.

SOURCE: Armstrong AJ et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 687.

SAN FRANCISCO – Dual targeting of the androgen signaling axis in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer improves outcomes and is well tolerated, according to results of the phase 3 ARCHES trial reported at the 2019 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, ASTRO, and the Society of Urologic Oncology.

“Androgen-deprivation therapy [ADT] has been the mainstay of therapy for men who present with metastatic disease for many years. But generally, progression to castration-resistant diseases is observed within approximately 3 years,” said lead investigator Andrew J. Armstrong, MD, a professor of medicine in medical oncology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

“Thus the advent of improving outcomes with the [additional] use of early docetaxel, abiraterone, and now radiation to the primary in the face of oligometastatic disease has been shown to improve survival,” he added. “However, the most recent studies have really not studied the sequential use of docetaxel and have largely excluded patients who had had prior docetaxel chemotherapy in the hormone-sensitive setting.”

The investigators in the ARCHES trial (NCT02677896) randomized 1,150 men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer to enzalutamide (Xtandi) plus ADT or placebo plus ADT.

With a median follow-up of 14.4 months, radiographic progression-free survival – the trial’s primary endpoint – was prolonged in the enzalutamide arm. Risk of progression or death was reduced by a relative 61% with enzalutamide versus placebo. There were also significant relative reductions in risks of other important outcomes such as time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (81% reduction), time to new antineoplastic therapy (72% reduction), and time to castration resistance (72% reduction).

Meanwhile, the enzalutamide group had somewhat more fatigue, hot flashes, and hypertension, but most of these events were grade 1 or 2. Rates of adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal were similar and low.

“Following the success of this study, all patients in the placebo group will be offered participation in an open-label extension protocol where they’ll be offered enzalutamide and the opportunity to receive a clinically beneficial treatment,” Dr. Armstrong reported.
 

Ready for prime time?

The ARCHES findings are probably not yet sufficient to be implemented in real-world practice, according to invited discussant Ian D. Davis, MBBS, PhD, a professor at Monash University, Melbourne.

The condition studied in the trial – metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer – certainly needs treatment, but it is unclear whether radiographic progression-free survival is a meaningful endpoint, he said. “We know in the CRPC [castration-resistant prostate cancer] setting for enzalutamide in the PREVAIL study, radiographic progression-free survival was correlated with overall survival, but we haven’t actually proven that yet in the CSPC [castration-sensitive prostate cancer] setting.”

Toxicity was acceptable, but information about the efficacy of subsequent treatment is lacking. “This is where progression-free survival 2 [PFS2] information would be useful if we had it,” Dr. Davis noted. Cost-effectiveness in terms of overall survival is likewise still unknown.

“Cautiously, and I’m conscious of my conflict of interest here because I’m doing a similar trial, I’d say that the ARCHES trial should probably not yet change practice,” he said. However, he qualified that statement by pointing to recently announced results from the phase 3 TITAN trial (NCT02489318) of apalutamide (Erleada), showing significant radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival benefit in this patient population. “So we await those data with interest.”

The first interim analysis of the enzalutamide trial he is cochairing, ANZUP ENZAMET (NCT02446405), is imminent, according to Dr. Davis. “The differences here are the primary endpoint of ENZAMET is overall survival and there was an early amendment to allow concurrent docetaxel, so a significant proportion of patients on this study will have received concurrent docetaxel with enzalutamide or ADT,” he noted.

Men enrolled in ARCHES were allowed to have received prior ADT for up to 3 months or, if they had received docetaxel, for up to 6 months, Dr. Armstrong noted at the symposium.

About two-thirds each had high disease volume and had distant metastasis at their initial diagnosis. Overall, median duration of prior ADT was 1.6 months.

Radiographic progression-free survival was not reached with enzalutamide versus 19.45 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.39; P less than .0001). Corresponding 12-month rates were 84% and 64%. Findings were essentially the same across diverse subgroups, including among the 18% of patients who had received prior docetaxel (HR, 0.53).

Median time to PSA progression – typically one of the first indications of castration resistance – was not reached in either group, but the 12-month rate was 91% with enzalutamide versus 63% with placebo (HR, 0.19; P less than .0001), Dr. Armstrong reported. Median time to castration resistance was not reached with enzalutamide versus 13.9 months with placebo (HR, 0.28; P less than .0001).

There also were significant differences in favor of enzalutamide on the rate of achievement of undetectable PSA (68.1% vs. 17.6%; P less than .0001), the objective response rate (83.1% vs. 63.7%; P less than .0001), and the time to initiation of new antineoplastic therapy (not reached vs. 30.19 months; HR, 0.28; P less than .0001).

Quality of life was very high in both groups at study baseline and remained similarly so during follow-up. An interim analysis showed overall survival had not been reached in either group, although there was a nonsignificant trend favoring enzalutamide.

Safety was much the same, with the enzalutamide and placebo groups having similar rates of grade 3 or worse adverse events (24.3% vs. 25.6%), as well as similar rates of adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal (7.2% vs. 5.2%) and death (2.4% vs. 1.7%).

In terms of adverse events of special interest, the groups were comparable on rates of grade 3 or 4 convulsion, ischemic heart disease, falls, and fractures.

Dr. Armstrong disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with, receives research funding (institutional) from, and receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Astellas – among other disclosures. The trial was sponsored by Astellas.

SOURCE: Armstrong AJ et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 687.

SAN FRANCISCO – The risk-benefit profile of the novel vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor tivozanib when used as later-line therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) appears to be similar to when it is used earlier, according to eagerly awaited results of the TIVO-3 trial.

Susan London/MDedge News

Study details

About 60% of patients in TIVO-3 had received two prior lines of therapy, Dr. Rini reported at the symposium. The proportion stopping study treatment because of adverse events was 13% in the tivozanib group and 23% in the sorafenib group.

Median progression-free survival according to an independent review committee was 5.6 months and 3.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.73; P = .0165). Corresponding 1-year rates were 28% and 11%.

Among patients previously treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor, median progression-free survival according to an independent review committee was 7.3 months with tivozanib and 5.1 months with sorafenib (hazard ratio, 0.55; P = .028). Corresponding 1-year rates were 35% and 4%.

In the entire trial population, the overall response rate was 18% for tivozanib versus 8% for sorafenib (P = .02). Median duration of response was not reached, compared with 5.7 months.

An interim analysis showed a median overall survival of 16.4 months in the tivozanib group and 19.7 months in the sorafenib group.

The rate of any-grade treatment-related adverse events was 84% with tivozanib and 94% with sorafenib. Tivozanib had a higher rate of grade 3 or 4 hypertension (20% vs. 14%), but lower rates of grade 3 or 4 diarrhea (2% vs. 9%), hand-foot syndrome (1% vs. 10%), and rash (0% vs. 8%).

Dr. Rini reported that he has a consulting role with Aveo, which sponsored the trial, and financial relationships with several other companies.

SOURCE: Rini BI et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 541.

SAN FRANCISCO – The risk-benefit profile of the novel vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor tivozanib when used as later-line therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) appears to be similar to when it is used earlier, according to eagerly awaited results of the TIVO-3 trial.

Susan London/MDedge News

Study details

About 60% of patients in TIVO-3 had received two prior lines of therapy, Dr. Rini reported at the symposium. The proportion stopping study treatment because of adverse events was 13% in the tivozanib group and 23% in the sorafenib group.

Median progression-free survival according to an independent review committee was 5.6 months and 3.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.73; P = .0165). Corresponding 1-year rates were 28% and 11%.

Among patients previously treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor, median progression-free survival according to an independent review committee was 7.3 months with tivozanib and 5.1 months with sorafenib (hazard ratio, 0.55; P = .028). Corresponding 1-year rates were 35% and 4%.

In the entire trial population, the overall response rate was 18% for tivozanib versus 8% for sorafenib (P = .02). Median duration of response was not reached, compared with 5.7 months.

An interim analysis showed a median overall survival of 16.4 months in the tivozanib group and 19.7 months in the sorafenib group.

The rate of any-grade treatment-related adverse events was 84% with tivozanib and 94% with sorafenib. Tivozanib had a higher rate of grade 3 or 4 hypertension (20% vs. 14%), but lower rates of grade 3 or 4 diarrhea (2% vs. 9%), hand-foot syndrome (1% vs. 10%), and rash (0% vs. 8%).

Dr. Rini reported that he has a consulting role with Aveo, which sponsored the trial, and financial relationships with several other companies.

SOURCE: Rini BI et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 541.

SAN FRANCISCO – The risk-benefit profile of the novel vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor tivozanib when used as later-line therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) appears to be similar to when it is used earlier, according to eagerly awaited results of the TIVO-3 trial.

Susan London/MDedge News

Study details

About 60% of patients in TIVO-3 had received two prior lines of therapy, Dr. Rini reported at the symposium. The proportion stopping study treatment because of adverse events was 13% in the tivozanib group and 23% in the sorafenib group.

Median progression-free survival according to an independent review committee was 5.6 months and 3.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.73; P = .0165). Corresponding 1-year rates were 28% and 11%.

Among patients previously treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor, median progression-free survival according to an independent review committee was 7.3 months with tivozanib and 5.1 months with sorafenib (hazard ratio, 0.55; P = .028). Corresponding 1-year rates were 35% and 4%.

In the entire trial population, the overall response rate was 18% for tivozanib versus 8% for sorafenib (P = .02). Median duration of response was not reached, compared with 5.7 months.

An interim analysis showed a median overall survival of 16.4 months in the tivozanib group and 19.7 months in the sorafenib group.

The rate of any-grade treatment-related adverse events was 84% with tivozanib and 94% with sorafenib. Tivozanib had a higher rate of grade 3 or 4 hypertension (20% vs. 14%), but lower rates of grade 3 or 4 diarrhea (2% vs. 9%), hand-foot syndrome (1% vs. 10%), and rash (0% vs. 8%).

Dr. Rini reported that he has a consulting role with Aveo, which sponsored the trial, and financial relationships with several other companies.

SOURCE: Rini BI et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 541.

SAN FRANCISCO – When used as first-line therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the combination of avelumab and axitinib has better efficacy than does single-agent sunitinib, which is the current standard of care, across a wide range of patients, subgroup analyses of the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial have shown. Results were reported at the 2019 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, ASTRO, and the Society of Urologic Oncology.

Previous research had shown that avelumab (Bavencio), an immune checkpoint inhibitor targeting programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), is active when used alone for advanced RCC, noted lead investigator Toni K. Choueiri, MD, director of the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. And axitinib (Inlyta), a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is approved for use in the second line. In an early-phase trial among patients being treated in the first line, a combination of the two drugs led to an impressive 58% objective response rate (ORR) and had a favorable safety profile (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Apr;19(4):451-60).

JAVELIN Renal 101 (NCT02684006), a phase 3 randomized, controlled trial, enrolled 886 patients with treatment-naive advanced RCC having a clear cell component regardless of their tumor’s PD-L1 status. They were randomized to the combination of avelumab/axitinib or to the VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib (Sutent) alone.

Full trial results, published during the symposium in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Feb 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816047), showed significant progression-free and overall survival benefits of avelumab/axitinib over sunitinib in the 63.2% of patients with PD-L1–positive tumors – the trial’s primary endpoints – as well as a progression-free survival benefit in the entire trial population.

In the subgroup analyses reported at the symposium, the combination reduced risk of progression or death by roughly 20%-50% across patients having different statuses in regard to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk group, and tumor PD-L1, as well as other characteristics. Findings were similar for ORR, with the combination roughly doubling to quadrupling the odds of response, irrespective of patient and disease characteristics.

“The progression-free survival and response rate benefit was observed in all patients, regardless of PD-L1 status, regardless of prognostic risk group. At this time, the study continues to follow up for overall survival,” Dr. Choueiri commented. Taken together, “the results do support avelumab plus axitinib as a new first-line standard of care for patients with advanced RCC.”

When it comes to selecting among the three combinations above, “I don’t think PD-L1 expression is going to help us at all,” she said. In contrast, IMDC risk category is likely still helpful because, in CheckMate 214, there was no progression-free or overall survival benefit of ipilimumab/nivolumab in patients with favorable-risk disease.

Differences in rates of discontinuation of all treatment because of treatment-related adverse events are hard to assess because CheckMate 214 had restrictions on allowing patients in the combination group to receive single-agent nivolumab, according to Dr. Wood. Financial costs are a major consideration, but so are time and staffing costs: Compared with single-agent sunitinib, the combinations as much as triple physician visits, nurse visits, infusions, and unscheduled visits.

SOURCE: Choueiri TK et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 544.

SAN FRANCISCO – When used as first-line therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the combination of avelumab and axitinib has better efficacy than does single-agent sunitinib, which is the current standard of care, across a wide range of patients, subgroup analyses of the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial have shown. Results were reported at the 2019 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, ASTRO, and the Society of Urologic Oncology.

Previous research had shown that avelumab (Bavencio), an immune checkpoint inhibitor targeting programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), is active when used alone for advanced RCC, noted lead investigator Toni K. Choueiri, MD, director of the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. And axitinib (Inlyta), a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is approved for use in the second line. In an early-phase trial among patients being treated in the first line, a combination of the two drugs led to an impressive 58% objective response rate (ORR) and had a favorable safety profile (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Apr;19(4):451-60).

JAVELIN Renal 101 (NCT02684006), a phase 3 randomized, controlled trial, enrolled 886 patients with treatment-naive advanced RCC having a clear cell component regardless of their tumor’s PD-L1 status. They were randomized to the combination of avelumab/axitinib or to the VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib (Sutent) alone.

Full trial results, published during the symposium in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Feb 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816047), showed significant progression-free and overall survival benefits of avelumab/axitinib over sunitinib in the 63.2% of patients with PD-L1–positive tumors – the trial’s primary endpoints – as well as a progression-free survival benefit in the entire trial population.

In the subgroup analyses reported at the symposium, the combination reduced risk of progression or death by roughly 20%-50% across patients having different statuses in regard to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk group, and tumor PD-L1, as well as other characteristics. Findings were similar for ORR, with the combination roughly doubling to quadrupling the odds of response, irrespective of patient and disease characteristics.

“The progression-free survival and response rate benefit was observed in all patients, regardless of PD-L1 status, regardless of prognostic risk group. At this time, the study continues to follow up for overall survival,” Dr. Choueiri commented. Taken together, “the results do support avelumab plus axitinib as a new first-line standard of care for patients with advanced RCC.”

When it comes to selecting among the three combinations above, “I don’t think PD-L1 expression is going to help us at all,” she said. In contrast, IMDC risk category is likely still helpful because, in CheckMate 214, there was no progression-free or overall survival benefit of ipilimumab/nivolumab in patients with favorable-risk disease.

Differences in rates of discontinuation of all treatment because of treatment-related adverse events are hard to assess because CheckMate 214 had restrictions on allowing patients in the combination group to receive single-agent nivolumab, according to Dr. Wood. Financial costs are a major consideration, but so are time and staffing costs: Compared with single-agent sunitinib, the combinations as much as triple physician visits, nurse visits, infusions, and unscheduled visits.

SOURCE: Choueiri TK et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 544.

SAN FRANCISCO – When used as first-line therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the combination of avelumab and axitinib has better efficacy than does single-agent sunitinib, which is the current standard of care, across a wide range of patients, subgroup analyses of the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial have shown. Results were reported at the 2019 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, ASTRO, and the Society of Urologic Oncology.

Previous research had shown that avelumab (Bavencio), an immune checkpoint inhibitor targeting programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), is active when used alone for advanced RCC, noted lead investigator Toni K. Choueiri, MD, director of the Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. And axitinib (Inlyta), a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is approved for use in the second line. In an early-phase trial among patients being treated in the first line, a combination of the two drugs led to an impressive 58% objective response rate (ORR) and had a favorable safety profile (Lancet Oncol. 2018 Apr;19(4):451-60).

JAVELIN Renal 101 (NCT02684006), a phase 3 randomized, controlled trial, enrolled 886 patients with treatment-naive advanced RCC having a clear cell component regardless of their tumor’s PD-L1 status. They were randomized to the combination of avelumab/axitinib or to the VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib (Sutent) alone.

Full trial results, published during the symposium in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Feb 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816047), showed significant progression-free and overall survival benefits of avelumab/axitinib over sunitinib in the 63.2% of patients with PD-L1–positive tumors – the trial’s primary endpoints – as well as a progression-free survival benefit in the entire trial population.

In the subgroup analyses reported at the symposium, the combination reduced risk of progression or death by roughly 20%-50% across patients having different statuses in regard to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) risk group, and tumor PD-L1, as well as other characteristics. Findings were similar for ORR, with the combination roughly doubling to quadrupling the odds of response, irrespective of patient and disease characteristics.

“The progression-free survival and response rate benefit was observed in all patients, regardless of PD-L1 status, regardless of prognostic risk group. At this time, the study continues to follow up for overall survival,” Dr. Choueiri commented. Taken together, “the results do support avelumab plus axitinib as a new first-line standard of care for patients with advanced RCC.”

When it comes to selecting among the three combinations above, “I don’t think PD-L1 expression is going to help us at all,” she said. In contrast, IMDC risk category is likely still helpful because, in CheckMate 214, there was no progression-free or overall survival benefit of ipilimumab/nivolumab in patients with favorable-risk disease.

Differences in rates of discontinuation of all treatment because of treatment-related adverse events are hard to assess because CheckMate 214 had restrictions on allowing patients in the combination group to receive single-agent nivolumab, according to Dr. Wood. Financial costs are a major consideration, but so are time and staffing costs: Compared with single-agent sunitinib, the combinations as much as triple physician visits, nurse visits, infusions, and unscheduled visits.

SOURCE: Choueiri TK et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 544.

SAN FRANCISCO – Darolutamide, a novel investigational antiandrogen agent, is efficacious and well tolerated when used to treat nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), according to results of the phase 3, randomized, controlled ARAMIS trial.

Susan London/MDedge News

“In men with high-risk M0 CRPC, two next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors, namely, enzalutamide (Xtandi) and apalutamide (Erleada), were recently shown to improve metastasis-free survival, although they were associated with increased cognitive impairment, falls, and other side effects,” commented lead investigator Karim Fizazi, MD, PhD, head of the department of cancer medicine at the Institut Gustave Roussy in Paris. “Enzalutamide and apalutamide are chemically very similar, while darolutamide is structurally distinct. Also, darolutamide does not cross the blood-brain barrier, which may result in less CNS-related side effects.”

ARAMIS enrolled 1,509 men with nmCRPC who had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time of 10 months or less and were on and continued androgen deprivation therapy. The men were randomized 2:1 to receive darolutamide or placebo.

With a median follow-up of 17.9 months, median metastasis-free survival was almost 2 years longer with darolutamide, corresponding to a 59% reduction in the risk of distant metastases or death, relative to placebo, according to results reported at the symposium and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Feb 14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1815671). There was also a 29% reduction in risk of death (in an interim analysis), a 35% reduction in risk of pain progression, and 57% reductions each in need for chemotherapy and first symptomatic skeletal events. Meanwhile, the drug had a good safety and tolerability profile, with rates and types of events similar to those seen with placebo.

“We believe that darolutamide should become a new standard of care for men with high-risk nmCRPC,” Dr. Fizazi concluded.

Practice-changing results?

The ARAMIS findings meet some – but not all – of a set of criteria that would support a change in current practice to using darolutamide, according to invited discussant Ian D. Davis, MBBS, PhD, a professor at Monash University, Melbourne.

The first criterion, whether the disease is a condition needing treatment, is likely met, as 69% of patients had a PSA doubling time of 6 months or less, and previous research suggests that this subset, at least, has high risk for bone metastases or death.

SOURCE: Fizazi K et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 140.

SAN FRANCISCO – Darolutamide, a novel investigational antiandrogen agent, is efficacious and well tolerated when used to treat nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), according to results of the phase 3, randomized, controlled ARAMIS trial.

Susan London/MDedge News

“In men with high-risk M0 CRPC, two next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors, namely, enzalutamide (Xtandi) and apalutamide (Erleada), were recently shown to improve metastasis-free survival, although they were associated with increased cognitive impairment, falls, and other side effects,” commented lead investigator Karim Fizazi, MD, PhD, head of the department of cancer medicine at the Institut Gustave Roussy in Paris. “Enzalutamide and apalutamide are chemically very similar, while darolutamide is structurally distinct. Also, darolutamide does not cross the blood-brain barrier, which may result in less CNS-related side effects.”

ARAMIS enrolled 1,509 men with nmCRPC who had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time of 10 months or less and were on and continued androgen deprivation therapy. The men were randomized 2:1 to receive darolutamide or placebo.

With a median follow-up of 17.9 months, median metastasis-free survival was almost 2 years longer with darolutamide, corresponding to a 59% reduction in the risk of distant metastases or death, relative to placebo, according to results reported at the symposium and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Feb 14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1815671). There was also a 29% reduction in risk of death (in an interim analysis), a 35% reduction in risk of pain progression, and 57% reductions each in need for chemotherapy and first symptomatic skeletal events. Meanwhile, the drug had a good safety and tolerability profile, with rates and types of events similar to those seen with placebo.

“We believe that darolutamide should become a new standard of care for men with high-risk nmCRPC,” Dr. Fizazi concluded.

Practice-changing results?

The ARAMIS findings meet some – but not all – of a set of criteria that would support a change in current practice to using darolutamide, according to invited discussant Ian D. Davis, MBBS, PhD, a professor at Monash University, Melbourne.

The first criterion, whether the disease is a condition needing treatment, is likely met, as 69% of patients had a PSA doubling time of 6 months or less, and previous research suggests that this subset, at least, has high risk for bone metastases or death.

SOURCE: Fizazi K et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 140.

SAN FRANCISCO – Darolutamide, a novel investigational antiandrogen agent, is efficacious and well tolerated when used to treat nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), according to results of the phase 3, randomized, controlled ARAMIS trial.

Susan London/MDedge News

“In men with high-risk M0 CRPC, two next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors, namely, enzalutamide (Xtandi) and apalutamide (Erleada), were recently shown to improve metastasis-free survival, although they were associated with increased cognitive impairment, falls, and other side effects,” commented lead investigator Karim Fizazi, MD, PhD, head of the department of cancer medicine at the Institut Gustave Roussy in Paris. “Enzalutamide and apalutamide are chemically very similar, while darolutamide is structurally distinct. Also, darolutamide does not cross the blood-brain barrier, which may result in less CNS-related side effects.”

ARAMIS enrolled 1,509 men with nmCRPC who had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time of 10 months or less and were on and continued androgen deprivation therapy. The men were randomized 2:1 to receive darolutamide or placebo.

With a median follow-up of 17.9 months, median metastasis-free survival was almost 2 years longer with darolutamide, corresponding to a 59% reduction in the risk of distant metastases or death, relative to placebo, according to results reported at the symposium and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 Feb 14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1815671). There was also a 29% reduction in risk of death (in an interim analysis), a 35% reduction in risk of pain progression, and 57% reductions each in need for chemotherapy and first symptomatic skeletal events. Meanwhile, the drug had a good safety and tolerability profile, with rates and types of events similar to those seen with placebo.

“We believe that darolutamide should become a new standard of care for men with high-risk nmCRPC,” Dr. Fizazi concluded.

Practice-changing results?

The ARAMIS findings meet some – but not all – of a set of criteria that would support a change in current practice to using darolutamide, according to invited discussant Ian D. Davis, MBBS, PhD, a professor at Monash University, Melbourne.

The first criterion, whether the disease is a condition needing treatment, is likely met, as 69% of patients had a PSA doubling time of 6 months or less, and previous research suggests that this subset, at least, has high risk for bone metastases or death.

SOURCE: Fizazi K et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 140.

SAN FRANCISCO – When given the same hormonal therapy for chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), African American men live about 4 months longer than do white men, finds a retrospective cohort study being reported at the 2019 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

“We know that African American men have a higher risk of mCRPC and worse survival than white men,” said lead study author Megan McNamara, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C. “However, despite this, there is also evidence to suggest that African Americans with advanced prostate cancer actually have better outcomes in response to several prostate cancer treatments compared to Caucasians.”

She and her colleagues analyzed data from the Veterans Health Administration database for a 5-year period (2013-2018), focusing on 2,123 white and 787 African American male veterans with chemotherapy-naive mCRPC who were treated with the anti-androgen abiraterone (Zytiga) or the androgen receptor inhibitor enzalutamide (Xtandi). Overall survival was measured from the first prescription claim for either drug following medical or surgical castration.

Main results reported in a presscast leading up to the symposium showed that with a median follow-up of about 1.6 years, median overall survival was 30 months for African American men, compared with 26 months for white men. The difference corresponded to a significantly lower risk of death for African American men in both univariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.887; P = .0435) and multivariate analysis adjusted for age and comorbidities (HR, 0.826; P = .0020).

“When controlling for access to care through a single-payer system – in this case, the VA Health System – in chemotherapy-naive mCRPC patients, African Americans may have better overall survival than Caucasians when treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide,” Dr. McNamara summarized. “These results are consistent with what we have seen in prior studies in this population involving docetaxel (Taxotere), sipuleucel-T (Provenge), and abiraterone.”

Importantly, the data expand on previous findings for abiraterone in the Abi Race study, she noted. That study established that African American men had a better prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response to the drug (J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jun 7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.36.18_suppl.LBA5009).

The new findings do not alter but rather reinforce current clinical practice, according to Dr. McNamara. “These are standard-of-care treatments, and it’s important that we have real-world studies that show that the standard-of-care treatments really work,” she elaborated. “So I don’t think that they necessarily change what we are doing. But they reinforce what we are already doing, and that it’s important that we make sure that every African American who is eligible for these medicines gets them.

“Our study is retrospective,” she acknowledged. “But it emphasizes the need for prospective trials in order to validate these findings and in order to try to understand the mechanism that underlies these differences in survival outcomes between African Americans and Caucasians with mCRPC when treated with these novel hormone therapies.”

The data are “very provocative, and it adds to an emerging database that if confirmed prospectively, really changes the way we think about racial differences,” said ASCO expert and presscast moderator Robert Dreicer, MD, MS, MACP, FASCO, deputy director and associate director of clinical research at the University of Virginia Cancer Center and professor of medicine and urology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Full results of the study will be reported at the symposium, which is sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, ASTRO, and the Society of Urologic Oncology.

Dr. McNamara disclosed that she receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Clovis Oncology; honoraria from Bayer and Exelixis; and research funding (institutional) from Bayer, Seattle Genetics/Astellas, Agensys, Clovis Oncology, and Janssen. The study was funded by Pfizer.
 

SOURCE: McNamara MA et al. Abstract 212.

SAN FRANCISCO – When given the same hormonal therapy for chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), African American men live about 4 months longer than do white men, finds a retrospective cohort study being reported at the 2019 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

“We know that African American men have a higher risk of mCRPC and worse survival than white men,” said lead study author Megan McNamara, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C. “However, despite this, there is also evidence to suggest that African Americans with advanced prostate cancer actually have better outcomes in response to several prostate cancer treatments compared to Caucasians.”

She and her colleagues analyzed data from the Veterans Health Administration database for a 5-year period (2013-2018), focusing on 2,123 white and 787 African American male veterans with chemotherapy-naive mCRPC who were treated with the anti-androgen abiraterone (Zytiga) or the androgen receptor inhibitor enzalutamide (Xtandi). Overall survival was measured from the first prescription claim for either drug following medical or surgical castration.

Main results reported in a presscast leading up to the symposium showed that with a median follow-up of about 1.6 years, median overall survival was 30 months for African American men, compared with 26 months for white men. The difference corresponded to a significantly lower risk of death for African American men in both univariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.887; P = .0435) and multivariate analysis adjusted for age and comorbidities (HR, 0.826; P = .0020).

“When controlling for access to care through a single-payer system – in this case, the VA Health System – in chemotherapy-naive mCRPC patients, African Americans may have better overall survival than Caucasians when treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide,” Dr. McNamara summarized. “These results are consistent with what we have seen in prior studies in this population involving docetaxel (Taxotere), sipuleucel-T (Provenge), and abiraterone.”

Importantly, the data expand on previous findings for abiraterone in the Abi Race study, she noted. That study established that African American men had a better prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response to the drug (J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jun 7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.36.18_suppl.LBA5009).

The new findings do not alter but rather reinforce current clinical practice, according to Dr. McNamara. “These are standard-of-care treatments, and it’s important that we have real-world studies that show that the standard-of-care treatments really work,” she elaborated. “So I don’t think that they necessarily change what we are doing. But they reinforce what we are already doing, and that it’s important that we make sure that every African American who is eligible for these medicines gets them.

“Our study is retrospective,” she acknowledged. “But it emphasizes the need for prospective trials in order to validate these findings and in order to try to understand the mechanism that underlies these differences in survival outcomes between African Americans and Caucasians with mCRPC when treated with these novel hormone therapies.”

The data are “very provocative, and it adds to an emerging database that if confirmed prospectively, really changes the way we think about racial differences,” said ASCO expert and presscast moderator Robert Dreicer, MD, MS, MACP, FASCO, deputy director and associate director of clinical research at the University of Virginia Cancer Center and professor of medicine and urology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Full results of the study will be reported at the symposium, which is sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, ASTRO, and the Society of Urologic Oncology.

Dr. McNamara disclosed that she receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Clovis Oncology; honoraria from Bayer and Exelixis; and research funding (institutional) from Bayer, Seattle Genetics/Astellas, Agensys, Clovis Oncology, and Janssen. The study was funded by Pfizer.
 

SOURCE: McNamara MA et al. Abstract 212.

SAN FRANCISCO – When given the same hormonal therapy for chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), African American men live about 4 months longer than do white men, finds a retrospective cohort study being reported at the 2019 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

“We know that African American men have a higher risk of mCRPC and worse survival than white men,” said lead study author Megan McNamara, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C. “However, despite this, there is also evidence to suggest that African Americans with advanced prostate cancer actually have better outcomes in response to several prostate cancer treatments compared to Caucasians.”

She and her colleagues analyzed data from the Veterans Health Administration database for a 5-year period (2013-2018), focusing on 2,123 white and 787 African American male veterans with chemotherapy-naive mCRPC who were treated with the anti-androgen abiraterone (Zytiga) or the androgen receptor inhibitor enzalutamide (Xtandi). Overall survival was measured from the first prescription claim for either drug following medical or surgical castration.

Main results reported in a presscast leading up to the symposium showed that with a median follow-up of about 1.6 years, median overall survival was 30 months for African American men, compared with 26 months for white men. The difference corresponded to a significantly lower risk of death for African American men in both univariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.887; P = .0435) and multivariate analysis adjusted for age and comorbidities (HR, 0.826; P = .0020).

“When controlling for access to care through a single-payer system – in this case, the VA Health System – in chemotherapy-naive mCRPC patients, African Americans may have better overall survival than Caucasians when treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide,” Dr. McNamara summarized. “These results are consistent with what we have seen in prior studies in this population involving docetaxel (Taxotere), sipuleucel-T (Provenge), and abiraterone.”

Importantly, the data expand on previous findings for abiraterone in the Abi Race study, she noted. That study established that African American men had a better prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response to the drug (J Clin Oncol. 2018 Jun 7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.36.18_suppl.LBA5009).

The new findings do not alter but rather reinforce current clinical practice, according to Dr. McNamara. “These are standard-of-care treatments, and it’s important that we have real-world studies that show that the standard-of-care treatments really work,” she elaborated. “So I don’t think that they necessarily change what we are doing. But they reinforce what we are already doing, and that it’s important that we make sure that every African American who is eligible for these medicines gets them.

“Our study is retrospective,” she acknowledged. “But it emphasizes the need for prospective trials in order to validate these findings and in order to try to understand the mechanism that underlies these differences in survival outcomes between African Americans and Caucasians with mCRPC when treated with these novel hormone therapies.”

The data are “very provocative, and it adds to an emerging database that if confirmed prospectively, really changes the way we think about racial differences,” said ASCO expert and presscast moderator Robert Dreicer, MD, MS, MACP, FASCO, deputy director and associate director of clinical research at the University of Virginia Cancer Center and professor of medicine and urology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Full results of the study will be reported at the symposium, which is sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, ASTRO, and the Society of Urologic Oncology.

Dr. McNamara disclosed that she receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Clovis Oncology; honoraria from Bayer and Exelixis; and research funding (institutional) from Bayer, Seattle Genetics/Astellas, Agensys, Clovis Oncology, and Janssen. The study was funded by Pfizer.
 

SOURCE: McNamara MA et al. Abstract 212.

SAN FRANCISCO – When used as first-line therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the combination of pembrolizumab and axitinib has similar safety and better efficacy than single-agent sunitinib, the current standard of care, according to findings of the KEYNOTE-426 trial that will be reported at the 2019 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium sponsored by the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Urologic Oncology.

“Axitinib is usually licensed and usually used in sunitinib-refractory disease. However, there is data for both pembrolizumab and axitinib in the frontline setting,” said lead author Thomas Powles, MBBS, MRCP, MD, of Barts Health and the Royal Free NHS Trusts, Barts Cancer Institute, and Queen Mary University of London. A phase 1b trial testing the combination showed an impressive 73% objective response rate and acceptable toxicity (Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:405-15), prompting further investigation.

The 861 patients in KEYNOTE-426, a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial, were evenly assigned to combination therapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda), which targets programmed death–1, plus the tyrosine kinase inhibitor axitinib (Inlyta), which targets vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor, or to monotherapy with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib (Sutent), which also targets those growth factors.

Main results reported in a presscast held before the symposium showed that, with a median follow-up of 12.8 months, pembrolizumab-axitinib reduced the risk of progression-free survival events by a relative 31% and the risk of death by a relative 47%, compared with sunitinib. The combination had a rate of grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events similar to the rate with sunitinib alone.

“The benefit of pembrolizumab plus axitinib was seen irrespective of IMDC [International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium] risk group or PD-L1 [programmed death–ligand 1] status,” Dr. Powles noted. “Pembrolizumab and axitinib should be a standard of care in this setting, in my opinion.”

“This is a very significant trial, and it’s going to impact on patient management going forward, as it works through the regulatory process,” commented ASCO Expert and presscast moderator Robert Dreicer, MD, MS, MACP, FASCO, who is also deputy director and associate director of clinical research at the University of Virginia Cancer Center and a professor of medicine and urology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Study details

Patients in KEYNOTE-426 had newly diagnosed or recurrent stage IV clear cell RCC and had not received any previous systemic treatment for their advanced disease. They were randomized to pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks up to 35 cycles) plus axitinib (5 mg orally twice daily), or to sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily for first 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle).

Median overall survival was not reached in either group, but the 12-month rate was 89.9% with pembrolizumab-axitinib versus 78.3% with sunitinib, Dr. Powles reported in the presscast. The difference corresponded to a near halving of the risk of death with the combination (hazard ratio, 0.53; P less than .0001).

Median progression-free survival was 15.1 months with pembrolizumab-axitinib and 11.1 months with sunitinib. The difference corresponded to a nearly one-third reduction in the risk of events with the combination (HR, 0.69; P = .0001). “The 11.1 months is quite long for a control arm, so there’s nothing from these data to suggest that sunitinib underperformed in this trial,” he noted.

Pembrolizumab-axitinib was also associated with a higher objective response rate (59.3% vs. 35.7%; P less than .0001). The median duration of response was not reached with the former, compared with 15.2 months with the latter.

“Pembrolizumab and axitinib had a manageable safety profile,” Dr. Powles said. The rate of grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events was 62.9% with the combination and 58.1% with sunitinib monotherapy.

The rate of events leading to death was similar at 0.9% and 1.6%, respectively. The rate of events leading to discontinuation of any treatment was 25.9% for pembrolizumab-axitinib and 10.1% for sunitinib, and the rate of events leading to discontinuation of both drugs in the combination was 8.2%.

Dr. Powles reported that he has a consulting or advisory role with Genentech/Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, and AstraZeneca; has a nonspecified relationship with Ipsen and Bristol-Myers Squibb; receives honoraria from Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck; and receives research funding from Astra-Zeneca/MedImmune and Roche/Genentech. The study was funded by Merck.

SOURCE: Powles T et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 543.

SAN FRANCISCO – When used as first-line therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the combination of pembrolizumab and axitinib has similar safety and better efficacy than single-agent sunitinib, the current standard of care, according to findings of the KEYNOTE-426 trial that will be reported at the 2019 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium sponsored by the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Urologic Oncology.

“Axitinib is usually licensed and usually used in sunitinib-refractory disease. However, there is data for both pembrolizumab and axitinib in the frontline setting,” said lead author Thomas Powles, MBBS, MRCP, MD, of Barts Health and the Royal Free NHS Trusts, Barts Cancer Institute, and Queen Mary University of London. A phase 1b trial testing the combination showed an impressive 73% objective response rate and acceptable toxicity (Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:405-15), prompting further investigation.

The 861 patients in KEYNOTE-426, a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial, were evenly assigned to combination therapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda), which targets programmed death–1, plus the tyrosine kinase inhibitor axitinib (Inlyta), which targets vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor, or to monotherapy with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib (Sutent), which also targets those growth factors.

Main results reported in a presscast held before the symposium showed that, with a median follow-up of 12.8 months, pembrolizumab-axitinib reduced the risk of progression-free survival events by a relative 31% and the risk of death by a relative 47%, compared with sunitinib. The combination had a rate of grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events similar to the rate with sunitinib alone.

“The benefit of pembrolizumab plus axitinib was seen irrespective of IMDC [International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium] risk group or PD-L1 [programmed death–ligand 1] status,” Dr. Powles noted. “Pembrolizumab and axitinib should be a standard of care in this setting, in my opinion.”

“This is a very significant trial, and it’s going to impact on patient management going forward, as it works through the regulatory process,” commented ASCO Expert and presscast moderator Robert Dreicer, MD, MS, MACP, FASCO, who is also deputy director and associate director of clinical research at the University of Virginia Cancer Center and a professor of medicine and urology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Study details

Patients in KEYNOTE-426 had newly diagnosed or recurrent stage IV clear cell RCC and had not received any previous systemic treatment for their advanced disease. They were randomized to pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks up to 35 cycles) plus axitinib (5 mg orally twice daily), or to sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily for first 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle).

Median overall survival was not reached in either group, but the 12-month rate was 89.9% with pembrolizumab-axitinib versus 78.3% with sunitinib, Dr. Powles reported in the presscast. The difference corresponded to a near halving of the risk of death with the combination (hazard ratio, 0.53; P less than .0001).

Median progression-free survival was 15.1 months with pembrolizumab-axitinib and 11.1 months with sunitinib. The difference corresponded to a nearly one-third reduction in the risk of events with the combination (HR, 0.69; P = .0001). “The 11.1 months is quite long for a control arm, so there’s nothing from these data to suggest that sunitinib underperformed in this trial,” he noted.

Pembrolizumab-axitinib was also associated with a higher objective response rate (59.3% vs. 35.7%; P less than .0001). The median duration of response was not reached with the former, compared with 15.2 months with the latter.

“Pembrolizumab and axitinib had a manageable safety profile,” Dr. Powles said. The rate of grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events was 62.9% with the combination and 58.1% with sunitinib monotherapy.

The rate of events leading to death was similar at 0.9% and 1.6%, respectively. The rate of events leading to discontinuation of any treatment was 25.9% for pembrolizumab-axitinib and 10.1% for sunitinib, and the rate of events leading to discontinuation of both drugs in the combination was 8.2%.

Dr. Powles reported that he has a consulting or advisory role with Genentech/Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, and AstraZeneca; has a nonspecified relationship with Ipsen and Bristol-Myers Squibb; receives honoraria from Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck; and receives research funding from Astra-Zeneca/MedImmune and Roche/Genentech. The study was funded by Merck.

SOURCE: Powles T et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 543.

SAN FRANCISCO – When used as first-line therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), the combination of pembrolizumab and axitinib has similar safety and better efficacy than single-agent sunitinib, the current standard of care, according to findings of the KEYNOTE-426 trial that will be reported at the 2019 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium sponsored by the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Urologic Oncology.

“Axitinib is usually licensed and usually used in sunitinib-refractory disease. However, there is data for both pembrolizumab and axitinib in the frontline setting,” said lead author Thomas Powles, MBBS, MRCP, MD, of Barts Health and the Royal Free NHS Trusts, Barts Cancer Institute, and Queen Mary University of London. A phase 1b trial testing the combination showed an impressive 73% objective response rate and acceptable toxicity (Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:405-15), prompting further investigation.

The 861 patients in KEYNOTE-426, a phase 3, randomized, controlled trial, were evenly assigned to combination therapy with the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab (Keytruda), which targets programmed death–1, plus the tyrosine kinase inhibitor axitinib (Inlyta), which targets vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor, or to monotherapy with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib (Sutent), which also targets those growth factors.

Main results reported in a presscast held before the symposium showed that, with a median follow-up of 12.8 months, pembrolizumab-axitinib reduced the risk of progression-free survival events by a relative 31% and the risk of death by a relative 47%, compared with sunitinib. The combination had a rate of grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events similar to the rate with sunitinib alone.

“The benefit of pembrolizumab plus axitinib was seen irrespective of IMDC [International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium] risk group or PD-L1 [programmed death–ligand 1] status,” Dr. Powles noted. “Pembrolizumab and axitinib should be a standard of care in this setting, in my opinion.”

“This is a very significant trial, and it’s going to impact on patient management going forward, as it works through the regulatory process,” commented ASCO Expert and presscast moderator Robert Dreicer, MD, MS, MACP, FASCO, who is also deputy director and associate director of clinical research at the University of Virginia Cancer Center and a professor of medicine and urology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Study details

Patients in KEYNOTE-426 had newly diagnosed or recurrent stage IV clear cell RCC and had not received any previous systemic treatment for their advanced disease. They were randomized to pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks up to 35 cycles) plus axitinib (5 mg orally twice daily), or to sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily for first 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle).

Median overall survival was not reached in either group, but the 12-month rate was 89.9% with pembrolizumab-axitinib versus 78.3% with sunitinib, Dr. Powles reported in the presscast. The difference corresponded to a near halving of the risk of death with the combination (hazard ratio, 0.53; P less than .0001).

Median progression-free survival was 15.1 months with pembrolizumab-axitinib and 11.1 months with sunitinib. The difference corresponded to a nearly one-third reduction in the risk of events with the combination (HR, 0.69; P = .0001). “The 11.1 months is quite long for a control arm, so there’s nothing from these data to suggest that sunitinib underperformed in this trial,” he noted.

Pembrolizumab-axitinib was also associated with a higher objective response rate (59.3% vs. 35.7%; P less than .0001). The median duration of response was not reached with the former, compared with 15.2 months with the latter.

“Pembrolizumab and axitinib had a manageable safety profile,” Dr. Powles said. The rate of grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events was 62.9% with the combination and 58.1% with sunitinib monotherapy.

The rate of events leading to death was similar at 0.9% and 1.6%, respectively. The rate of events leading to discontinuation of any treatment was 25.9% for pembrolizumab-axitinib and 10.1% for sunitinib, and the rate of events leading to discontinuation of both drugs in the combination was 8.2%.

Dr. Powles reported that he has a consulting or advisory role with Genentech/Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, and AstraZeneca; has a nonspecified relationship with Ipsen and Bristol-Myers Squibb; receives honoraria from Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck; and receives research funding from Astra-Zeneca/MedImmune and Roche/Genentech. The study was funded by Merck.

SOURCE: Powles T et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 543.

SAN FRANCISCO – Men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who have exhausted conventional treatment options have very good outcomes when treated with the novel targeted radioligand lutetium-177 PSMA-617 (LuPSMA), finds a single-center phase 2 trial to be reported at the 2019 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, ASTRO, and the Society of Urologic Oncology.

“Whilst there have been major advances in the last few years with several drugs that prolong survival in these men, the disease remains fatal in a relatively short period of time, and there is an urgent need for new effective therapies,” said lead study author Michael Hofman, MBBS, professor of nuclear medicine at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne.

LuPSMA is a radiolabeled small molecule that binds with high affinity to PSMA (prostate-specific membrane antigen), enabling targeted delivery of beta radiation to lesions throughout the body. To be eligible for the trial, patients had to have PSMA-positive disease. Results among the first 30 patients treated showed good activity and acceptable toxicity (Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:825-33), leading to enrollment of an expansion cohort of 20 patients.

With a median follow-up of 23.5 months among all 50 patients, nearly two-thirds achieved a 50% or greater reduction in their PSA level, Dr. Hofman reported in a presscast held before the symposium. Median overall survival exceeded 12 months for the whole cohort and was especially good for the subset achieving that level of PSA reduction, at 18 months.

“This is a single-arm study with no control arm. So whilst my impression is that this is a life-prolonging therapy, this is not a claim that we can make yet because there is no comparator arm with an existing treatment or therapy,” he acknowledged. However, data from the literature suggest that in the absence of this novel radioligand, the patients would likely have survived only about 6-9 months.

“These results in 50 men provide further confidence to our previously published 30-patient cohort, demonstrating high response rates and low toxicity in men with mCRPC who have progressed after multiple conventional therapies,” Dr. Hofman said. The findings also “support a novel mechanism of action for this therapy compared to existing therapies.”

The favorable data have led to initiation of two randomized controlled trials: the phase 2 TheraP trial (NCT03392428) comparing LuPSMA with cabazitaxel (Jevtana), and the phase 3 VISION trial (NCT03511664), comparing LuPSMA with best standard of care. “We really need the larger trials ... to get a confident assessment on whether it improves survival and by how much,” he maintained. “But my impression, seeing these patients come into the clinic very sick and seeing them improve on the therapy, and knowing those averages [for survival without this therapy], is that these trials are likely to be positive.”

“As a clinician, I will tell you that this is a very intriguing agent, and the VISION study, which is a registration trial, is open in the U.S.,” said ASCO expert and presscast moderator Robert Dreicer, MD, MS, MACP, FASCO, deputy director and associate director of clinical research at the University of Virginia Cancer Center and professor of medicine and urology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
 

Study details

Of the 76 patients screened for the LuPSMA trial, 16 (21%) were ineligible because of insufficient PSMA uptake on a PSMA–FDG PET scan. “The majority of patients with this disease are suitable. Probably somewhere in the range of 20% to 30%, depending on how you measure it, may not be suitable,” Dr. Hofman said.

The 50 patients ultimately enrolled had aggressive disease, as indicated by a median PSA doubling time of 2.6 months. Most had previously received abiraterone (Zytiga), enzalutamide (Xtandi), or both (90%), as well as docetaxel (84%) or cabazitaxel (48%). “Many of these men had no further treatment options, and without this study open, they probably would have received end-of-life palliative care,” he said.

The median number of LuPSMA cycles administered was four, according to data reported in the presscast leading up to the symposium. Eight patients received fewer than four cycles because they had an exceptional response, while 10 patients did not complete all planned cycles because of disease progression.

Main results showed that PSA levels fell by at least 30% in 74% of patients, at least 50% in 64% of patients, and at least 80% in 44% of patients. Only two patients did not see any reduction. “We think this is probably a feature of our careful selection of patients with the PET scanning up front to really enrich the study for patients who are likely to benefit from the treatment,” Dr. Hofman said. The reductions in PSA were accompanied by reductions in positive lesions on PSMA–FDG PET.

For the entire cohort, median overall survival was 13.3 months. But it was significantly longer for those with versus without at least a 50% PSA decline (18.0 vs. 8.7 months; P = .001).

Fourteen patients who experienced progression on LuPSMA were given additional doses after the trial ended, as part of an off-trial expanded-access program. Fully 64% of these patients achieved a PSA reduction of at least 50%, and median overall survival in all of the retreated patients was 33 months.

Dr. Hofman disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Endocyte; receives research funding (institutional) from Endocyte; and receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Ipsen and Sanofi. The trial received research funding from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre.
 

SOURCE: Hofman M et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 228.
 

SAN FRANCISCO – Men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who have exhausted conventional treatment options have very good outcomes when treated with the novel targeted radioligand lutetium-177 PSMA-617 (LuPSMA), finds a single-center phase 2 trial to be reported at the 2019 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, ASTRO, and the Society of Urologic Oncology.

“Whilst there have been major advances in the last few years with several drugs that prolong survival in these men, the disease remains fatal in a relatively short period of time, and there is an urgent need for new effective therapies,” said lead study author Michael Hofman, MBBS, professor of nuclear medicine at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne.

LuPSMA is a radiolabeled small molecule that binds with high affinity to PSMA (prostate-specific membrane antigen), enabling targeted delivery of beta radiation to lesions throughout the body. To be eligible for the trial, patients had to have PSMA-positive disease. Results among the first 30 patients treated showed good activity and acceptable toxicity (Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:825-33), leading to enrollment of an expansion cohort of 20 patients.

With a median follow-up of 23.5 months among all 50 patients, nearly two-thirds achieved a 50% or greater reduction in their PSA level, Dr. Hofman reported in a presscast held before the symposium. Median overall survival exceeded 12 months for the whole cohort and was especially good for the subset achieving that level of PSA reduction, at 18 months.

“This is a single-arm study with no control arm. So whilst my impression is that this is a life-prolonging therapy, this is not a claim that we can make yet because there is no comparator arm with an existing treatment or therapy,” he acknowledged. However, data from the literature suggest that in the absence of this novel radioligand, the patients would likely have survived only about 6-9 months.

“These results in 50 men provide further confidence to our previously published 30-patient cohort, demonstrating high response rates and low toxicity in men with mCRPC who have progressed after multiple conventional therapies,” Dr. Hofman said. The findings also “support a novel mechanism of action for this therapy compared to existing therapies.”

The favorable data have led to initiation of two randomized controlled trials: the phase 2 TheraP trial (NCT03392428) comparing LuPSMA with cabazitaxel (Jevtana), and the phase 3 VISION trial (NCT03511664), comparing LuPSMA with best standard of care. “We really need the larger trials ... to get a confident assessment on whether it improves survival and by how much,” he maintained. “But my impression, seeing these patients come into the clinic very sick and seeing them improve on the therapy, and knowing those averages [for survival without this therapy], is that these trials are likely to be positive.”

“As a clinician, I will tell you that this is a very intriguing agent, and the VISION study, which is a registration trial, is open in the U.S.,” said ASCO expert and presscast moderator Robert Dreicer, MD, MS, MACP, FASCO, deputy director and associate director of clinical research at the University of Virginia Cancer Center and professor of medicine and urology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
 

Study details

Of the 76 patients screened for the LuPSMA trial, 16 (21%) were ineligible because of insufficient PSMA uptake on a PSMA–FDG PET scan. “The majority of patients with this disease are suitable. Probably somewhere in the range of 20% to 30%, depending on how you measure it, may not be suitable,” Dr. Hofman said.

The 50 patients ultimately enrolled had aggressive disease, as indicated by a median PSA doubling time of 2.6 months. Most had previously received abiraterone (Zytiga), enzalutamide (Xtandi), or both (90%), as well as docetaxel (84%) or cabazitaxel (48%). “Many of these men had no further treatment options, and without this study open, they probably would have received end-of-life palliative care,” he said.

The median number of LuPSMA cycles administered was four, according to data reported in the presscast leading up to the symposium. Eight patients received fewer than four cycles because they had an exceptional response, while 10 patients did not complete all planned cycles because of disease progression.

Main results showed that PSA levels fell by at least 30% in 74% of patients, at least 50% in 64% of patients, and at least 80% in 44% of patients. Only two patients did not see any reduction. “We think this is probably a feature of our careful selection of patients with the PET scanning up front to really enrich the study for patients who are likely to benefit from the treatment,” Dr. Hofman said. The reductions in PSA were accompanied by reductions in positive lesions on PSMA–FDG PET.

For the entire cohort, median overall survival was 13.3 months. But it was significantly longer for those with versus without at least a 50% PSA decline (18.0 vs. 8.7 months; P = .001).

Fourteen patients who experienced progression on LuPSMA were given additional doses after the trial ended, as part of an off-trial expanded-access program. Fully 64% of these patients achieved a PSA reduction of at least 50%, and median overall survival in all of the retreated patients was 33 months.

Dr. Hofman disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Endocyte; receives research funding (institutional) from Endocyte; and receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Ipsen and Sanofi. The trial received research funding from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre.
 

SOURCE: Hofman M et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 228.
 

SAN FRANCISCO – Men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who have exhausted conventional treatment options have very good outcomes when treated with the novel targeted radioligand lutetium-177 PSMA-617 (LuPSMA), finds a single-center phase 2 trial to be reported at the 2019 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium sponsored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, ASTRO, and the Society of Urologic Oncology.

“Whilst there have been major advances in the last few years with several drugs that prolong survival in these men, the disease remains fatal in a relatively short period of time, and there is an urgent need for new effective therapies,” said lead study author Michael Hofman, MBBS, professor of nuclear medicine at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne.

LuPSMA is a radiolabeled small molecule that binds with high affinity to PSMA (prostate-specific membrane antigen), enabling targeted delivery of beta radiation to lesions throughout the body. To be eligible for the trial, patients had to have PSMA-positive disease. Results among the first 30 patients treated showed good activity and acceptable toxicity (Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:825-33), leading to enrollment of an expansion cohort of 20 patients.

With a median follow-up of 23.5 months among all 50 patients, nearly two-thirds achieved a 50% or greater reduction in their PSA level, Dr. Hofman reported in a presscast held before the symposium. Median overall survival exceeded 12 months for the whole cohort and was especially good for the subset achieving that level of PSA reduction, at 18 months.

“This is a single-arm study with no control arm. So whilst my impression is that this is a life-prolonging therapy, this is not a claim that we can make yet because there is no comparator arm with an existing treatment or therapy,” he acknowledged. However, data from the literature suggest that in the absence of this novel radioligand, the patients would likely have survived only about 6-9 months.

“These results in 50 men provide further confidence to our previously published 30-patient cohort, demonstrating high response rates and low toxicity in men with mCRPC who have progressed after multiple conventional therapies,” Dr. Hofman said. The findings also “support a novel mechanism of action for this therapy compared to existing therapies.”

The favorable data have led to initiation of two randomized controlled trials: the phase 2 TheraP trial (NCT03392428) comparing LuPSMA with cabazitaxel (Jevtana), and the phase 3 VISION trial (NCT03511664), comparing LuPSMA with best standard of care. “We really need the larger trials ... to get a confident assessment on whether it improves survival and by how much,” he maintained. “But my impression, seeing these patients come into the clinic very sick and seeing them improve on the therapy, and knowing those averages [for survival without this therapy], is that these trials are likely to be positive.”

“As a clinician, I will tell you that this is a very intriguing agent, and the VISION study, which is a registration trial, is open in the U.S.,” said ASCO expert and presscast moderator Robert Dreicer, MD, MS, MACP, FASCO, deputy director and associate director of clinical research at the University of Virginia Cancer Center and professor of medicine and urology at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
 

Study details

Of the 76 patients screened for the LuPSMA trial, 16 (21%) were ineligible because of insufficient PSMA uptake on a PSMA–FDG PET scan. “The majority of patients with this disease are suitable. Probably somewhere in the range of 20% to 30%, depending on how you measure it, may not be suitable,” Dr. Hofman said.

The 50 patients ultimately enrolled had aggressive disease, as indicated by a median PSA doubling time of 2.6 months. Most had previously received abiraterone (Zytiga), enzalutamide (Xtandi), or both (90%), as well as docetaxel (84%) or cabazitaxel (48%). “Many of these men had no further treatment options, and without this study open, they probably would have received end-of-life palliative care,” he said.

The median number of LuPSMA cycles administered was four, according to data reported in the presscast leading up to the symposium. Eight patients received fewer than four cycles because they had an exceptional response, while 10 patients did not complete all planned cycles because of disease progression.

Main results showed that PSA levels fell by at least 30% in 74% of patients, at least 50% in 64% of patients, and at least 80% in 44% of patients. Only two patients did not see any reduction. “We think this is probably a feature of our careful selection of patients with the PET scanning up front to really enrich the study for patients who are likely to benefit from the treatment,” Dr. Hofman said. The reductions in PSA were accompanied by reductions in positive lesions on PSMA–FDG PET.

For the entire cohort, median overall survival was 13.3 months. But it was significantly longer for those with versus without at least a 50% PSA decline (18.0 vs. 8.7 months; P = .001).

Fourteen patients who experienced progression on LuPSMA were given additional doses after the trial ended, as part of an off-trial expanded-access program. Fully 64% of these patients achieved a PSA reduction of at least 50%, and median overall survival in all of the retreated patients was 33 months.

Dr. Hofman disclosed that he has a consulting or advisory role with Endocyte; receives research funding (institutional) from Endocyte; and receives travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Ipsen and Sanofi. The trial received research funding from the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre.
 

SOURCE: Hofman M et al. GUCS 2019, Abstract 228.