Explore the vast range of titles available.

Up to 30% of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have deleterious mutations in genes involved in homologous recombination repair of DNA damage. The use of the PARP inhibitor olaparib in such patients was associated with longer progression-free survival and a longer time to pain progression than control therapy.

The PROfound trial showed that olaparib prolonged imaging-based progression-free survival among patients whose tumors contained defects in the homologous recombination repair genes BRCA1 , BRCA2 , or ATM . With longer follow-up, the trial now shows that olaparib prolonged overall survival in these patients. Toxic effects included anemia, nausea, and asthenia.

Background While open‐label randomized controlled trials (RCT) are common in oncology, some concerns have been expressed with regard to Patient‐Reported Outcomes (PRO)‐based claims stemming from these studies. We aimed to investigate the impact of open‐label design in the context of prostate cancer (PCa) RCTs with PRO data. Methods Randomized controlled trials of PCa with a PRO endpoint published between 2004 and 2018 were considered. RCTs were systematically evaluated on the basis of previously defined criteria, including international PRO reporting quality standards and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing Risk of Bias. The rate of concordance was estimated and compared between traditional clinical outcomes (eg, survival or tumor response) and PRO in open and blinded RCTs. Results We identified 110 RCTs published between 2004 and 2018, of which 62% (n = 68) were open‐label. The general characteristics of PCa RCTs were not different according to their design (open‐label vs blinded). The proportion of PCa RCTs with high‐quality PRO reporting was not different between open‐label RCTs and blinded RCTs (41.2% vs 38.1%; P = .75). No statistically significant difference was found between PRO results and concordance with traditional clinical outcomes according to the study design. Conclusion Our findings suggest that there is no evidence of significant bias for PROs due to the absence of blinding in the context of PCa RCTs. Further analyses should be conducted in other cancer disease sites. The systematic review of phase III in prostate cancer suggests that there is no evidence of significant bias on PRO results due to the absence of blinding.

Introduction: DNA damage repair genes are altered in 20–35% of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Poly-ADP (Adénosine Diphosphate)-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) showed significant activity for these selected tumors, especially with homologous recombination repair (HRR) deficiency. These alterations could also predict platinum sensitivity. Although carboplatin was inconclusive in unselected mCRPC, the literature suggests an anti-tumoral activity in mCRPC with HHR gene alterations. We aimed to assess the efficacy of carboplatin monotherapy in mCRPC patients with HRR deficiency. Methods: This prospective multicenter single-arm two-stage phase II addressed mCRPC men with HRR somatic and/or germline alterations, pretreated with ⩾2 taxane chemotherapy regimens and one androgen receptor pathway inhibitor. Prior PARPi treatment was allowed. Enrolled patients received intravenous carboplatin (AUC5) every 21 days for 6–9 cycles. The primary endpoint was the best response rate according to adapted PCWG3 guidelines: radiological response (RECIST 1.1 criteria) and/or biological response [⩾50% prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline]. Results: A total of 15 out of 16 enrolled patients started carboplatin treatment. Genomic alterations were identified for BRCA2 (n = 5), CDK12 (n = 3), ATM (n = 3) CHEK2 (n = 2), CHEK1 (n = 1), and BRCA1 (n = 1) genes. Objective response (partial biological response + stable radiological response) was achieved in one patient (6.7%), carrying a BRCA2 mutation and not pre-treated with PARPi; stable disease was observed for five patients (33.5%). Among seven patients (46.7%) with previous PARPi treatment, four patients (57.1%) had a stable disease. The median progression-free and overall survivals were 1.9 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.8–9.5] and 8.6 months (95% CI, 4.3–19.5), respectively. The most common severe (grade 3–4) treatment-related toxicities were thrombocytopenia (66.7%), anemia (66.7%), and nausea (60%). Overall, 8 (53.3%) patients experienced a severe hematological event. Conclusion: The study was prematurely stopped as pre-planned considering the limited activity of carboplatin monotherapy in heavily pre-treated, HHR-deficient mCRPC patients. Larger experience is needed in mCRPC with BRCA alterations. Trial registration: NCT03652493, EudraCT ID number 2017-004764-35.

Results of this double-blind, phase 2 trial showed patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer given olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone had significantly improved progression-free survival. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of pain and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial was conducted across 41 urological oncology sites in 11 countries in Europe and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and had previously received docetaxel and up to one additional line of previous chemotherapy. Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was defined as increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration or other signs of disease progression despite androgen-deprivation therapy and serum testosterone concentrations at castrate levels (≤50 ng/dL), and with at least one metastatic lesion on bone scan, CT, or MRI. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral olaparib (300 mg twice per day) plus oral abiraterone (1000 mg once a day) and oral prednisone or prednisolone (5 mg twice a day) or placebo plus abiraterone (1000 mg once a day) and prednisone or prednisolone (5 mg twice a day). Randomisation was done without stratification and by use of an interactive voice or web response system. A randomised treatment kit ID number was assigned sequentially to each patient as they became eligible. The primary endpoint (radiographic progression-free survival) has previously been reported. HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory patient-reported outcome. Patients were asked to complete the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF), single-item worst bone pain, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire, and EuroQol-5 five-dimension five level (EQ-5D-5L) assessment at baseline, at weeks 4, 8, and 12, then every 12 weeks until treatment discontinuation. Prespecified outcomes were change from baseline in BPI-SF worst pain, single-item worst bone pain and FACT-P Total Outcome Index (TOI) scale scores, time to deterioration in BPI-SF worst pain and worst bone pain, and assessment of the EQ-5D-5L pain and discomfort domain. All analyses were exploratory and done in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned patients, including patients who were randomly assigned but did not subsequently go on to receive study treatment), with the exception of mean baseline and total change from baseline analyses, for which we used the population who had a valid baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01972217, and is no longer recruiting patients. Between Nov 25, 2014, and July 14, 2015, 171 patients were assessed for eligibility. 29 patients were excluded, and 142 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive olaparib and abiraterone (n=71) or placebo and abiraterone (n=71). Data cutoff was Sept 22, 2017. Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 8·1–25·5) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and 24·5 months (8·1–27·6) in the placebo plus abiraterone group. Questionnaire compliance was generally high (43–100%). Least-squares mean changes from baseline in BPI-SF worst pain, single-item worst bone pain, and FACT-P TOI remained stable across all visits for patients in both treatment groups. Adjusted mean change in FACT-P TOI from baseline across all visits was −0·10 (95% CI −2·50 to 2·71) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and −1·20 (−4·15 to 1·74) in the placebo plus abiraterone group (difference 1·30, 95% CI −2·70 to 5·30; p=0·52). Time to deterioration in pain was similar in both groups (BPI-SF worst pain HR 0·90 [95% CI 0·62–1·32], p=0·30; worst bone pain HR 0·85 [0·59–1·22], p=0·18). Improvement rates in the pain and discomfort domain of the EQ-5D-5L were similar in both groups from baseline to week 48, beyond which a higher proportion of patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm reported an improvement compared to the placebo plus abiraterone group. In these prespecified exploratory analyses, there was no significant difference in pain or HRQOL when olaparib was added to abiraterone. In this phase 2 trial, a statistically significant radiographic progression-free survival benefit was observed with the olaparib plus abiraterone combination. These results suggest that the improved survival benefits observed when combining olaparib with abiraterone does not result in different HRQOL compared with placebo plus abiraterone. Phase 3 studies are required to validate these results. AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.

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. 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. 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). 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. AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Background In patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) enrolled in the phase III KEYNOTE-564 trial (NCT03142334), disease-free survival (DFS) following nephrectomy was prolonged with use of adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy versus placebo. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide an important measure of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and can complement efficacy and safety results. Patients and Methods In KEYNOTE-564, 994 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg (n = 496) or placebo (n = 498) intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤17 cycles. Patients who received ≥1 dose of treatment and completed ≥1 HRQoL assessment were included in this analysis. HRQoL end points were assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30, FKSI-DRS, and EQ VAS. Prespecified and exploratory PRO end points were mean change from baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL score, EORTC QLQ-C30 physical function subscale score, and FKSI-DRS score. Results No clinically meaningful difference in least squares mean scores for pembrolizumab versus placebo were observed at week 52 for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL (–2.5; 95% CI –5.2 to 0.1), EORTC QLQ-C30 physical functioning (–0.87; 95% CI –2.7 to 1.0), and FKSI-DRS (–0.7; 95% CI –1.2 to –0.1). Most PRO scores remained stable or improved for the EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL (pembrolizumab, 54.3%; placebo, 67.5%), EORTC QLQ-C30 physical functioning (pembrolizumab, 64.7%; placebo, 68.8%), and FKSI-DRS (pembrolizumab, 58.2%; placebo, 66.3%). Conclusions Adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab did not result in deterioration of HRQoL. These findings together with the safety and efficacy findings support adjuvant pembrolizumab treatment following nephrectomy. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03142334 Patient-reported outcomes provide an important measure of health-related quality of life and can complement efficacy and safety results. This article presents analyses of health-related quality of life in patients enrolled in the KEYNOTE-564 trial.

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of avelumab first-line (1L) maintenance therapy plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) that had not progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy in France. A three-state partitioned survival model was developed to assess the lifetime costs and effects of avelumab plus BSC versus BSC alone. Data from the phase 3 JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial (NCT02603432) were used to inform estimates of clinical and utility values considering a 10-year time horizon and a weekly cycle length. Cost data were estimated from a collective perspective and included treatment acquisition, administration, follow-up, adverse event-related hospitalization, transport, post-progression, and end-of-life costs. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and life-years gained. Costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 2.5% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were used to compare cost-effectiveness and willingness to pay in France. Uncertainty was assessed using a range of sensitivity analyses. Avelumab plus BSC was associated with a gain of 2.49 QALYs and total discounted costs of €136,917; BSC alone was associated with 1.82 QALYs and €39,751. Although avelumab plus BSC was associated with increased acquisition costs compared with BSC alone, offsets of -€20,424 and -€351 were observed for post-progression and end-of-life costs, respectively. The base case analysis ICER was €145,626/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the reference case and showed that efficacy parameters (overall survival, time to treatment discontinuation), post-progression time on immunotherapy, and post-progression costs had the largest impact on the ICER. This analysis demonstrated that avelumab plus BSC is associated with a favorable cost-effectiveness profile for patients with la/mUC who are eligible for 1L maintenance therapy in France.

Background Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is the ninth most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide, with a 3.8/1 male to female ratio. Platinum-based chemotherapy is the first line standard of care for fit patients with advanced UC. However, despite a response rate (RR) for approximately half of patients receiving standard chemotherapy, durable responses are rare (median progression-free progression (PFS) around 8 months). Recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have emerged as new therapeutic options. Among them, Avelumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, was assessed in maintenance treatment, demonstrating an overall survival improvement in the JAVELIN Bladder-100 phase III trial. These findings led to its approval as first line maintenance therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC who have not progressed on prior platinum-containing chemotherapy. However, disease progression as best response was noticed for 37% of patients under Avelumab as maintenance treatment. UC has targetable genomic alterations, including DNA damage repair (DDR) alterations. DDR deficiency is known to major sensitivity to both platinum-based chemotherapy and PD-1/PD-L1 blockade and the combination of ICI and PARP inhibitors showed promising results. It therefore warrants to assess the interest of combining ICI plus PARP inhibitors as maintenance treatment in UC patients. Methods The TALASUR trial is a single-arm multicenter phase 2 study aiming to assess the antitumor activity of the combination of Avelumab with Talazoparib among patients with locally advanced/metastatic UC in maintenance therapy after platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary objective is to determine the efficacy of the combination, assessed through PFS. Secondary objectives are as follows: safety profile of the association, objective response, duration of tumoral response, disease control rate, time to subsequent therapy, quality of life. A blood and tumor collections will be also constituted. Patient will receive the combination therapy of daily oral Talazoparib (1 mg/day) and intra-venous Avelumab 800 mg on days 1 and 15, in a 28-day cycle. Fifty patients will be enrolled. Discussion Talazoparib with Avelumab combination may have additive activity when administrated jointly. We hypothesize that combination will increase the antitumor activity in UC first line maintenance setting with an acceptable safety profile. Trial registration NCT04678362, registered December 21, 2020. Protocol version: Version 1.3 dated from 2020 09 11.

ObjectivesScientific advances in the last decade have highlighted the use of immunotherapy, especially immune checkpoint inhibitors, to be an effective strategy in cancer therapy. However, these immunotherapeutic agents are expensive, and their use must take into account economic criteria. Thus, the objective of the present study was to systematically identify and review published EE related to the use of ipilimumab, nivolumab or pembrolizumab in melanoma, lung cancer, head and neck cancer or renal cell carcinoma, and to assess their quality.MethodsThe systematic literature research was conducted on Medline via PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify economic evaluations published before July 2018. The quality of each selected economic evaluation was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Drummond checklist.ResultsOur systematic review was based on 32 economic evaluations using different methodological approaches, different perspectives and different time horizons. Three-quarters of the economic evaluations are full (n = 24) with a Drummond score ≥ 7, synonymous of “high quality”. Among them, 66% reported a strategy that was cost-effective. The most assessed immunotherapeutic agent was nivolumab. In patients with renal cell carcinoma or head and neck cancer, it was less likely to be cost-effective than in patients with melanoma or lung cancer.ConclusionsWhether or not these findings will be confirmed remains to be seen when market approval to cover more indications is extended and new effective immunotherapeutic agents become available.