Explore the vast range of titles available.

Standard therapy for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is androgen-deprivation therapy, usually with docetaxel. A large, multinational, phase 3 trial assessed the addition of the androgen-receptor blocker darolutamide to standard therapy. At 4 years, survival was higher with darolutamide than with placebo (62.7% vs. 50.4%), with no major differences in the frequency of adverse events.

PROpel met its primary endpoint showing statistically significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in patients with first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) unselected by homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) status, with benefit observed in all prespecified subgroups. Here we report the final prespecified overall survival analysis. This was a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial done at 126 centres in 17 countries worldwide. Patients with mCRPC aged at least 18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1, a life expectancy of at least 6 months, with no previous systemic treatment for mCRPC and unselected by HRRm status were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by means of an interactive voice response system–interactive web response system to abiraterone acetate (orally, 1000 mg once daily) plus prednisone or prednisolone with either olaparib (orally, 300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The patients, the investigator, and study centre staff were masked to drug allocation. Stratification factors were site of metastases and previous docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive cancer stage. Radiographic progression-free survival was the primary endpoint and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint with alpha-control (alpha-threshold at prespecified final analysis: 0·0377 [two-sided]), evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03732820, and is completed and no longer recruiting. Between Oct 31, 2018 and March 11, 2020, 1103 patients were screened, of whom 399 were randomly assigned to olaparib plus abiraterone and 397 to placebo plus abiraterone. Median follow-up for overall survival in patients with censored data was 36·6 months (IQR 34·1–40·3) for olaparib plus abiraterone and 36·5 months (33·8–40·3) for placebo plus abiraterone. Median overall survival was 42·1 months (95% CI 38·4–not reached) with olaparib plus abiraterone and 34·7 months (31·0–39·3) with placebo plus abiraterone (hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·67–1·00; p=0·054). The most common grade 3–4 adverse event was anaemia reported in 64 (16%) of 398 patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone and 13 (3%) of 396 patients in the placebo plus abiraterone group. Serious adverse events were reported in 161 (40%) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and 126 (32%) in the placebo plus abiraterone group. One death in the placebo plus abiraterone group, from interstitial lung disease, was considered treatment related. Overall survival was not significantly different between treatment groups at this final prespecified analysis. Supported by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

The interim analysis of the ENZAMET trial of testosterone suppression plus either enzalutamide or standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy showed an early overall survival benefit with enzalutamide. Here, we report the planned primary overall survival analysis, with the aim of defining the benefit of enzalutamide treatment in different prognostic subgroups (synchronous and metachronous high-volume or low-volume disease) and in those who received concurrent docetaxel. ENZAMET is an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial conducted at 83 sites (including clinics, hospitals, and university centres) in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA. Eligible participants were males aged 18 years or older with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate adenocarcinoma evident on CT or bone scanning with 99mTc and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0–2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a centralised web-based system and stratified by volume of disease, planned use of concurrent docetaxel and bone antiresorptive therapy, comorbidities, and study site, to receive testosterone suppression plus oral enzalutamide (160 mg once per day) or a weaker standard oral non-steroidal antiandrogen (bicalutamide, nilutamide, or flutamide; control group) until clinical disease progression or prohibitive toxicity. Testosterone suppression was allowed up to 12 weeks before randomisation and for up to 24 months as adjuvant therapy. Concurrent docetaxel (75 mg/m2 intravenously) was allowed for up to six cycles once every 3 weeks, at the discretion of participants and physicians. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This planned analysis was triggered by reaching 470 deaths. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02446405, ANZCTR, ACTRN12614000110684, and EudraCT, 2014-003190-42. Between March 31, 2014, and March 24, 2017, 1125 participants were randomly assigned to receive non-steroidal antiandrogen (n=562; control group) or enzalutamide (n=563). The median age was 69 years (IQR 63–74). This analysis was triggered on Jan 19, 2022, and an updated survival status identified a total of 476 (42%) deaths. After a median follow-up of 68 months (IQR 67–69), the median overall survival was not reached (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·58–0·84]; p<0·0001), with 5-year overall survival of 57% (0·53–0·61) in the control group and 67% (0·63–0·70) in the enzalutamide group. Overall survival benefits with enzalutamide were consistent across predefined prognostic subgroups and planned use of concurrent docetaxel. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia associated with docetaxel use (33 [6%] of 558 in the control group vs 37 [6%] of 563 in the enzalutamide group), fatigue (four [1%] vs 33 [6%]), and hypertension (31 [6%] vs 59 [10%]). The incidence of grade 1–3 memory impairment was 25 (4%) versus 75 (13%). No deaths were attributed to study treatment. The addition of enzalutamide to standard of care showed sustained improvement in overall survival for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and should be considered as a treatment option for eligible patients. Astellas Pharma.

Background Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) levels correlate with poor outcomes in urothelial carcinoma (UC). IDO1 and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) are often co-expressed. Epacadostat is a potent and highly selective inhibitor of IDO1. In a subgroup analysis of patients with advanced UC participating in a phase I/II study, epacadostat-pembrolizumab treatment produced an objective response rate (ORR) of 35%. Methods ECHO-303/KEYNOTE-698 was a double-blinded, randomized phase III study of adults with metastatic or unresectable locally advanced UC with recurrence or progression following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Participants were randomized to epacadostat 100 mg twice daily (BID) plus pembrolizumab or placebo plus pembrolizumab until completion of 35 pembrolizumab infusions, disease progression, or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed ORR per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Results Target enrollment was 648 patients; enrollment was halted early based on efficacy results from the phase III ECHO-301/KEYNOTE-252 study in metastatic melanoma. Forty-two patients were randomized to each treatment arm. Median duration of follow-up was 62 days in each arm. The investigator-assessed ORR (unconfirmed) was 26.2% (95% CI 16.35–48.11) for epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 11.9% (95% CI 4.67–29.50) for placebo plus pembrolizumab. Two complete responses were reported, both in the placebo-plus-pembrolizumab arm. Circulating kynurenine levels increased from C1D1 to C2D1 in the placebo-plus-pembrolizumab arm and numerically decreased in the epacadostat-plus-pembrolizumab arm. The safety profile of epacadostat plus pembrolizumab was similar to that of pembrolizumab monotherapy, although a numerically greater proportion of patients in the combination vs. control arm experienced treatment-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events (16.7% vs. 7.3%). One patient in each arm died due to cardiovascular events, which were not deemed drug-related. No new safety concerns were identified for either agent. Conclusions Epacadostat plus pembrolizumab demonstrated anti-tumor activity and was generally tolerable as second-line treatment of patients with unresectable locally advanced or recurrent/progressive metastatic UC. Epacadostat 100 mg BID, when administered with pembrolizumab, did not normalize circulating kynurenine in most patients. Further study of combined IDO1/PD-L1 inhibition in this patient population, particularly with epacadostat doses that result in durable normalization of circulating kynurenine, may be warranted. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03374488. Registered 12/15/2017.

Background Indoleamine 2,3- dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) is an immunosuppressive enzyme that has been correlated with shorter disease-specific survival in patients with urothelial carcinoma (UC). IDO1 may counteract the antitumor effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Epacadostat is a potent and highly selective inhibitor of IDO1. In the phase I/II ECHO-202/KEYNOTE-037 study, epacadostat plus pembrolizumab resulted in a preliminary objective response rate (ORR) of 35% in a cohort of patients with advanced UC. Methods ECHO-307/KEYNOTE-672 was a double-blinded, randomized, phase III study. Eligible adults had confirmed locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic UC of the urinary tract and were ineligible to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive epacadostat (100 mg twice daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) or placebo plus pembrolizumab for up to 35 pembrolizumab infusions. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed ORR per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1). Results A total of 93 patients were randomized (epacadostat plus pembrolizumab, n  = 44; placebo plus pembrolizumab, n  = 49). Enrollment was stopped early due to emerging data from the phase III ECHO-301/KEYNOTE-252 study. The median duration of follow-up was 64 days in both arms. Based on all available data at cutoff, ORR (unconfirmed) was 31.8% (95% CI, 22.46–55.24%) for epacadostat plus pembrolizumab and 24.5% (95% CI, 15.33–43.67%) for placebo plus pembrolizumab. Circulating kynurenine levels numerically increased from C1D1 to C2D1 in the placebo-plus-pembrolizumab arm and decreased in the epacadostat-plus-pembrolizumab arm. Epacadostat-plus-pembrolizumab combination treatment was well tolerated with a safety profile similar to the placebo arm. Treatment discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse events were more frequent with epacadostat (11.6% vs. 4.1%). Conclusions Treatment with epacadostat plus pembrolizumab resulted in a similar ORR and safety profile as placebo plus pembrolizumab in cisplatin-ineligible patients with previously untreated locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic UC. At a dose of 100 mg twice daily, epacadostat did not appear to completely normalize circulating kynurenine levels when administered with pembrolizumab. Larger studies with longer follow-up and possibly testing higher doses of epacadostat, potentially in different therapy settings, may be warranted. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03361865, retrospectively registered December 5, 2017.

Background Haematuria and pelvic pain are recognized and documented adverse reactions related to Cabazitaxel use. To date there has not been any documentation of imaging findings in patients with this presentation. Cases We report a case series of five patients who experienced these symptoms while on Cabazitaxel and were all found to have very similar urothelial changes on CT. The patients were noted to have ureteric and renal pelvic dilatation along with urothelial enhancement (in those who had post contrast imaging). All of these changes were noted to be reversible in those who had follow up imaging after cessation of Cabazitaxel and initiation of a short course of steroids. Conclusion This case series helps demonstrate the pathological reversible urothelial inflammatory changes that may be occurring in patients experiencing haematuria and pelvic pain on Cabazitaxel therapy. These changes may relate to direct toxic effect of drug metabolites, a radiation recall type phenomenon or a combination of both.

Introduction Several systemic therapies have demonstrated a survival advantage in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Access to these medications varies significantly worldwide. In Australia until recently, patients must have received docetaxel first, unless unsuitable for chemotherapy, despite no evidence suggesting superiority over androgen receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSIs). Our study investigated real‐world systemic treatment patterns in Australian patients with mCRPC. Methods The electronic CRPC Australian Database (ePAD) was interrogated to identify mCRPC patients. Clinicopathological features, treatment and outcome data, stratified by first‐line systemic therapies, were extracted. Comparisons between groups utilised Kruskal–Wallis tests and Chi‐Square analyses. Time‐to‐event data were calculated using Kaplan–Meier methods and groups compared using log‐rank tests. Factors influencing overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) were analysed through Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results We identified 578 patients who received first‐line systemic therapy for mCRPC. Enzalutamide (ENZ) was most commonly prescribed (n = 240, 41%), followed by docetaxel (DOC, n = 164, 28%) and abiraterone (AA, n = 100, 17%). Patients receiving ENZ or AA were older (79, 78.5 years respectively) compared with DOC (71 years, p = 0.001) and less likely to have ECOG performance status 0 (45%, 44%, 59% in ENZ, AA and DOC groups respectively p < 0.0001). Median TTF was significantly higher in those receiving ENZ (12.4 months) and AA (11.9 months) compared to DOC (8.3 months, p < 0.001). PSA50 response rates and OS were not statistically different. Time to developing CRPC > 12 months was independently associated with longer TTF (HR 0.67, p < 0.001) and OS (HR 0.49, p = 0.002). Conclusion In our real‐world population, ENZ and AA were common first‐line systemic therapy choices, particularly among older patients and those with poorer performance status. Patients receiving ENZ and AA demonstrated superior TTF compared to DOC, while OS was not statistically different. Our findings highlight the important role of ARSIs, given the variability of access worldwide.

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

In men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer who were receiving testosterone suppression, the addition of enzalutamide led to significantly longer progression-free and overall survival than the addition of standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy. The better outcome was less clear among patients who had received docetaxel.

A phase 2 trial showed improved progression-free survival for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who express programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). Here, we report results of IMmotion151, a phase 3 trial comparing atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sunitinib in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma. In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial, patients with a component of clear cell or sarcomatoid histology and who were previously untreated, were recruited from 152 academic medical centres and community oncology practices in 21 countries, mainly in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region, and were randomly assigned 1:1 to either atezolizumab 1200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks or sunitinib 50 mg orally once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. A permuted-block randomisation (block size of 4) was applied to obtain a balanced assignment to each treatment group with respect to the stratification factors. Study investigators and participants were not masked to treatment allocation. Patients, investigators, independent radiology committee members, and the sponsor were masked to PD-L1 expression status. Co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the PD-L1 positive population and overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02420821. Of 915 patients enrolled between May 20, 2015, and Oct 12, 2016, 454 were randomly assigned to the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 461 to the sunitinib group. 362 (40%) of 915 patients had PD-L1 positive disease. Median follow-up was 15 months at the primary progression-free survival analysis and 24 months at the overall survival interim analysis. In the PD-L1 positive population, the median progression-free survival was 11·2 months in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group versus 7·7 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·57–0·96]; p=0·0217). In the ITT population, median overall survival had an HR of 0·93 (0·76–1·14) and the results did not cross the significance boundary at the interim analysis. 182 (40%) of 451 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 240 (54%) of 446 patients in the sunitinib group had treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events: 24 (5%) in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 37 (8%) in the sunitinib group had treatment-related all-grade adverse events, which led to treatment-regimen discontinuation. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab prolonged progression-free survival versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and showed a favourable safety profile. Longer-term follow-up is necessary to establish whether a survival benefit will emerge. These study results support atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line treatment option for selected patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. F Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd and Genentech Inc.