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.

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.

A randomized trial involving patients with metastatic prostate cancer whose disease progressed after receipt of docetaxel and hormonal therapy showed that cabazitaxel was superior to an androgen-signaling–targeted agent in extending imaging-based progression-free survival, overall survival, and PSA response.

Niclosamide has preclinical activity against a wide range of cancers. In prostate cancer, it inhibits androgen receptor variant 7 and synergizes with abiraterone. The approved niclosamide formulation has poor oral bioavailability. The primary objective of this phase Ib trial was to identify a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of a novel reformulated orally-bioavailable niclosamide/PDMX1001 in combination with abiraterone and prednisone in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Eligible patients had progressing CRPC, adequate end-organ function, and no prior treatment with abiraterone or ketoconazole. Patients were treated with escalating doses of niclosamide/PDMX1001 and standard doses of abiraterone and prednisone. Peak and trough niclosamide plasma levels were measured. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.0 and Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria were used to evaluate toxicities and responses. Nine patients with metastatic CRPC were accrued, with no dose-limiting toxicities observed at all dose levels. The recommended Phase II dose of niclosamide/PDMX1001 was 1200 mg orally (PO) three times daily plus abiraterone 1000 mg PO once daily and prednisone 5 mg PO twice daily. Trough and peak niclosamide concentrations exceeded the therapeutic threshold of > 0.2 µM. The combination was well tolerated with most frequent adverse effects of diarrhea. Five out of eight evaluable patients achieved a PSA response; two achieved undetectable PSA and radiographic response. A novel niclosamide/PDMX1001 reformulation achieved targeted plasma levels when combined with abiraterone and prednisone, and was well tolerated. Further study of niclosamide/PDMX1001 with this combination is warranted.

In the CARD study, cabazitaxel significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. Here, we report the quality-of-life outcomes from the CARD study. CARD was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study involving 62 clinical sites across 13 European countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2) with confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of an interactive voice–web response system to receive cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks, 10 mg daily prednisone, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg orally once daily plus 5 mg prednisone twice daily) or enzalutamide (160 mg orally daily). Stratification factors were ECOG performance status, time to disease progression on the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor, and timing of the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival; here, we present more detailed analyses of pain (assessed using item 3 on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF]) and symptomatic skeletal events, alongside preplanned patient-reported outcomes, assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire and the EuroQoL—5 dimensions, 5 level scale (EQ-5D-5L). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Pain response was analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of BPI-SF item 3, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of either FACT-P or EQ-5D-5L (PRO population). Analyses of skeletal-related events were also done in the intention-to-treat population. The CARD study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02485691, and is no longer enrolling. Between Nov 17, 2015, and Nov 28, 2018, of 303 patients screened, 255 were randomly assigned to cabazitaxel (n=129) or abiraterone or enzalutamide (n=126). Median follow-up was 9·2 months (IQR 5·6–13·1). Pain response was observed in 51 (46%) of 111 patients with cabazitaxel and 21 (19%) of 109 patients with abiraterone or enzalutamide (p<0·0001). Median time to pain progression was not estimable (NE; 95% CI NE–NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·5 months (4·9–NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·55, 95% CI 0·32–0·97; log-rank p=0·035). Median time to symptomatic skeletal events was NE (95% CI 20·0–NE) with cabazitaxel and 16·7 months (10·8–NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·35–1·01; log-rank p=0·050). Median time to FACT-P total score deterioration was 14·8 months (95% CI 6·3–NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·9 months (6·3–NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·72, 95% CI 0·44–1·20; log-rank p=0·21). There was a significant treatment effect seen in changes from baseline in EQ-5D-5L utility index score in favour of cabazitaxel over abiraterone or enzalutamide (p=0·030) but no difference between treatment groups for change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (p=0·060). Since cabazitaxel improved pain response, time to pain progression, time to symptomatic skeletal events, and EQ-5D-5L utility index, clinicians and patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer can be reassured that cabazitaxel will not reduce quality of life when compared with treatment with a second androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. Sanofi.

Background While the cardiovascular risks of androgen receptor pathway inhibitors have been studied, they were seldom compared directly. This study compares the risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) between enzalutamide and abiraterone among prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Methods Adult PCa patients receiving either enzalutamide or abiraterone in addition to androgen deprivation therapy in Hong Kong between 1 December 1999 and 31 March 2021 were identified in this retrospective cohort study. Patients who switched between enzalutamide and abiraterone, initiated abiraterone used without steroids, or experienced prior cardiac events were excluded. Patients were followed-up until 30 September 2021. The primary outcomes were MACE, a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), Heart failure (HF), or all-cause mortality and a composite of adverse cardiovascular events (CACE) not including all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were individual components of MACE. Inverse probability treatment weighting was used to balance covariates between treatment groups. Results In total, 1015 patients were analyzed (456 enzalutamide users and 559 abiraterone users; mean age 70.6 ± 8.8 years old) over a median follow-up duration of 11.3 (IQR: 5.3–21.3) months. Enzalutamide users had significantly lower risks of 4P-MACE (weighted hazard ratio (wHR) 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59–0.86], p  < 0.001) and CACE (wHR 0.63 [95% CI: 0.42–0.96], p  = 0.031), which remained consistent in multivariable analysis. Such an association may be stronger in patients aged ≥65 years or without diabetes mellitus and was independent of bilateral orchidectomy. Enzalutamide users also had significantly lower risks of MI (wHR 0.57 [95% CI: 0.33–0.97], p  = 0.040) and all-cause mortality (wHR 0.71 [95% CI: 0.59–0.85], p  < 0.001). Conclusion Enzalutamide was associated with lower cardiovascular risks than abiraterone in PCa patients.

Estetrol/drospirenone is a combined oral contraceptive (COC) with a plant-synthesised foetal oestrogen (estetrol) and a well-established progestin (drospirenone). In preclinical models, estetrol has lower binding affinity for the oestrogen receptor-α (ER-α) in contrast to estradiol and has antagonistic properties against membrane ER-α in several tissues, including the breast, while retaining agonistic activity on receptors located in the nucleus. The low oestrogenicity of estetrol may potentially contribute to reduced thrombotic risk. Estetrol/drospirenone was an effective contraceptive in phase II and III clinical trials, with regular and predictable bleeding cycles maintained in the majority of women. Estetrol/drospirenone was generally well-tolerated with metrorrhagia reported as the most common treatment-related adverse event, which is consistent with other COCs. Cases of migraines with aura (or severe migraines), deep vein thrombosis, hyperkalaemia and depression were rarely reported during the phase III trials. Overall, estetrol/drospirenone is an effective and generally well-tolerated COC, with a potentially reduced risk of thrombosis. Plain Language Summary In 2019, an estimated 44% of women aged 15–49 years worldwide used modern contraception methods, and in these women using modern methods, 18% used an oral contraceptive. Estetrol/drospirenone is a combined oral contraceptive (COC) which uses estetrol, a plant-synthesised oestrogen naturally produced by the human foetal liver during pregnancy, in combination with drospirenone, a well-known progestin. Combined, these hormones suppress ovulation, which constitutes their primary mode of action in preventing pregnancy. As estetrol has weaker oestrogen-related effects, it may potentially reduce the risk for blood clots. Estetrol/drospirenone was an effective contraceptive in clinical trials, and most women had regular and predictable bleeding cycles. Metrorrhagia (i.e. abnormal bleeding) was the most commonly reported treatment-related adverse effect; however, this is a common issue with hormonal contraceptives. Cases of severe migraine headaches, deep vein thrombosis, high potassium levels or depression were rarely reported during clinical trials. Estetrol/drospirenone is an effective oral contraceptive, which may offer a contraceptive option with a lower risk for blood clots. However, further research is required to confirm the reduced risk of clotting.

Progestin-only pills are associated with irregular bleeding pattern including amenorrhea. Desogestrel 75mcg even being a pill that inhibits ovulation shows a poor cycle control that limits a more common use. A drospirenone (DRSP)-only pill was developed to improve the bleeding profile. A phase III study in healthy women aged 18 to 45 years was performed to compare the bleeding profile and safety of women taking a DRSP only pill in a regime of 24 days of 4 mg of DRSP tablets followed by 4 days of placebo versus desogestrel 0.075 mg per day continuously over 9 cycles. A total of 858 women with 6691 drospirenone and 332 women with 2487 desogestrel treatment cycles were analyzed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of women with bleeding/spotting days in each cycle from cycles 2 to 9 and cumulative in cycles 2 to 4 and cycles 7 to 9 including and excluding those with amenorrhea. In each cycle, up to cycle 7, the proportion of women with unscheduled bleeding including those which did not bleed was statistically significantly lower in the DRSP group than in the DSG group (p = 0.0001, chi-square test). The mean [SD] number of unscheduled bleeding and spotting days during cycles 2-9 was statistically significantly lower in the DRSP group than in the DSG group (21.5 [22.86] days vs. 34.7 [33.73] days, p = 0.0003, Wilcoxon-rank-sum-test). Excluding amenorrhoeic women following results were obtained: In the cycles 2-6, the proportion of women with unscheduled bleeding was statistically significantly lower in the DRSP group than in the DSG group (p = 0.0001, chi-square test). The mean [SD] number of bleeding days was 8.6 [8.52] days vs. 12.9 [16.47] days, p = 0.0233. This report describes the improvement in bleeding profile of women using the new DRSP only oral contraceptive in comparison to DSG providing a better quality of live and adherence to the contraceptive method. EudraCT registration number: 2011-002396-42.

BackgroundAbiraterone and enzalutamide may increase the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).MethodsA comprehensive literature search was performed using a combination of keywords related to “abiraterone,” “enzalutamide,” “prostate cancer,” and “adverse events.” Phase II–IV randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on abiraterone or enzalutamide for patients with nonmetastatic or metastatic CRPC were included. Outcome measures included (1) any grade cardiac disorder, (2) severe grade cardiac disorder, (3) any grade hypertension, and (4) severe grade hypertension, as defined by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed to investigate the risk ratios (RRs) of abiraterone and enzalutamide. Surface under cumulative ranking curves (SUCRAs) and cumulative ranking probability plots based on the probability of developing cardiac disorders or hypertension were presented.ResultsA total of 7103 patients from seven RCTs were included. Upon pairwise meta-analysis, abiraterone was associated with increased risks of any grade (RR = 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.05–1.73) and severe grade cardiac disorders (RR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.16–2.53); enzalutamide was associated with increased risks of any grade (RR = 2.66, 95% CI = 1.93–3.66) and severe grade hypertension (RR = 2.79, 95% CI = 1.86–4.18). Based on the SUCRA rankings, abiraterone had a higher probability of cardiac disorders (84.84% for any grade and 85.12% for severe grade) than enzalutamide (62.83% for any grade and 50.76% for severe grade); whereas enzalutamide had a higher probability of hypertension (99.43% for any grade and 89.71% for severe grade) than abiraterone (49.08% for any grade and 49.37% for severe grade).ConclusionsAbiraterone and enzalutamide had different adverse effects on the cardiovascular system. We should take this into consideration when we are deciding on the choice of novel hormonal agents for patients with CRPC.

ABSTRACT In the phase 3 PROpel trial (NCT03732820) patients with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with olaparib plus abiraterone in the first‐line setting showed significantly prolonged radiographic progression‐free survival (rPFS; primary data cutoff [DCO]: 30 July 2021; hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54–0.81; p < 0.001), and at prespecified final OS analysis DCO (12 October 2022) numerically prolonged overall survival (OS; HR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.67–1.00; p = 0.054), versus placebo plus abiraterone for the global population. Here, we report efficacy, safety, and patient‐reported outcome data for the Asian subset in PROpel. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo in combination with abiraterone (1000 mg once daily). The primary endpoint was investigator‐assessed rPFS, and a key secondary endpoint was OS. In the Asian subset (n = 133) at primary analysis, median rPFS was 27.6 months in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm (n = 63), compared with 19.3 months in the placebo plus abiraterone arm (n = 70; HR 0.55, 95% CI, 0.32–0.95). Median OS at the final analysis was not reached in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm versus 43.7 months in the placebo plus abiraterone arm (HR 0.59, 95% CI, 0.32–1.06). The safety profile was generally similar in the Asian subset and the global population. Efficacy and safety results for olaparib plus abiraterone in the Asian subset were generally consistent with the global PROpel population supporting the combination of olaparib plus abiraterone as an important first‐line treatment for consideration in Asian patients with mCRPC. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03732820 In the phase 3 PROpel trial (NCT03732820), first‐line treatment with olaparib plus abiraterone significantly prolonged radiographic progression‐free survival (rPFS) and numerically prolonged overall survival (OS) versus placebo plus abiraterone in patients with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Results of preplanned subgroup analyses of efficacy and safety in the Asian subset of PROpel (n = 133; rPFS hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.32–0.95; OS HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.32–1.06) were generally consistent with the global population. Our findings support consideration of the combination of olaparib plus abiraterone as an important first‐line treatment for Asian patients with mCRPC.