Search

Background Preserving health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is an important goal during renal cell carcinoma treatment. We report HRQOL outcomes from a phase II trial (NCT03173560). Patients and Methods HRQOL data were collected during a multicenter, randomized, open-label phase II study comparing the safety and efficacy of 2 different starting doses of lenvatinib (18 mg vs. 14 mg daily) in combination with everolimus (5 mg daily), following one prior vascular endothelial growth factor–targeted treatment. HRQOL was measured using 3 different instruments—FKSI-DRS, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EQ-5D-3L—which were all secondary endpoints. Change from baseline was assessed using linear mixed-effects models. Deterioration events for time to deterioration (TTD) analyses were defined using established thresholds for minimally important differences in the change from baseline for each scale. TTD for each treatment arm was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results Baseline characteristics of the 343 participants randomly assigned to 18 mg lenvatinib (n = 171) and 14 mg lenvatinib (n = 172) were well balanced. Least-squares mean estimates for change from baseline were favorable for the 18 mg group over the 14 mg group for the FKSI-DRS and most EORTC QLQ-C30 scales, but differences between treatments did not exceed the minimally important thresholds. Median TTD was longer among participants in the 18 mg group than those in the 14 mg group for most scales. Conclusions Participants who received an 18 mg lenvatinib starting dose had favorable HRQOL scores and longer TTD on most scales compared with those who received a 14 mg starting dose.

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 Sharpamp; Dohme, a subsidiary of Merckamp; Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.

Pembrolizumab plus axitinib improved efficacy over sunitinib in treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma in the KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331) study. However, a relatively high incidence of grade 3/4 aminotransferase elevations was observed.To further characterize treatment-emergent aminotransferase elevations in patients treated with pembrolizumab-axitinib.Patients enrolled in KEYNOTE-426 were included in this study.Three Standardized MedDRA Queries for potential hepatic disorders were used to identify patients for the hepatic event analysis subpopulation (HEAS). Alanine aminotransferase events were characterized for time to onset, time to recovery, corticosteroid use, and rechallenge with study treatment(s).The HEAS comprised 189/429 (44%) pembrolizumab-axitinib patients and 128/425 (30%) sunitinib patients. Grade 3/4 hepatic adverse events were more common in the combination arm: 22% (94/429) versus 7% (29/425); 3% (13/429) discontinued the combination due to hepatic adverse events. In the pembrolizumab-axitinib arm, 125/426 patients (29%) had alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ≥3× upper limit of normal (ULN), with median time to onset of 84 d (range, 7-840 d). Among patients with ALT ≥3× ULN, 120/125 (96%) recovered to3× ULN following study treatment interruption/discontinuation, with a median time to recovery of 15 d (3-176 d): 68/120 (57%) received corticosteroids. One hundred patients were rechallenged with one or both study treatment(s): 45/100 (45%) had ALT ≥3× ULN recurrence, and all 45 recovered to ALT3× ULN following study treatment interruption/discontinuation. No fatal hepatic events occurred.A higher incidence of grade 3/4 aminotransferase elevations occurs with pembrolizumab-axitinib. These events should be carefully evaluated and managed with prompt study treatment interruption or discontinuation, with or without corticosteroid treatment. The decision to rechallenge with one or both drugs should be based on severity of event and thorough causality assessment.Renal cell carcinoma patients receiving pembrolizumab-axitinib are at a higher risk of liver enzyme elevations, which could be reversed with appropriate management.

On November 9, 2021 in the framework of the XXV Russian Oncology Congress the symposium was held where the various issues of approaches of drug treatment and surgical treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma and urothelial cancer were discussed. New drugs are being appeared, large clinical studies are being conducted, new prospects for immunotherapy of malignant neoplasms are being developed, nowadays. One of the new options is immune checkpoint inhibitors. In the framework of the symposium were presented the results of two trials the JAVELIN Renal 101 and the JAVELIN Bladder 100, showing the efficacy and safety of the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab. The symposium was supported by the alliance between Merck and Pfizer.

Castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is a common form of prostate cancer in which docetaxel-based chemotherapy is used as the first line. The present study is devoted to the analysis of transcriptome profiles of tumor cells in the development of resistance to docetaxel as well as to the assessment of the combined effect with the XAV939 tankyrase inhibitor on maintaining the sensitivity of tumor cells to chemotherapy. RNA-Seq was performed for experimental PC3 cell lines as well as for plasma exosome samples from patients with CRPC. We have identified key biological processes and identified a signature based on the expression of 17 mRNA isoforms associated with the development of docetaxel resistance in PC3 cells. Transcripts were found in exosome samples, the increased expression of which was associated with the onset of progression of CRPC during therapy. The suppression of pathways associated with the participation of cellular microtubules has also been shown when cells are treated with docetaxel in the presence of XAV939. These results highlight the importance of further research into XAV939 as a therapeutic agent in the treatment of CRPC; moreover, we have proposed a number of mRNA isoforms with high predictive potential, which can be considered as promising markers of response to docetaxel.

BACKGROUND: Darolutamide is a potent androgen-receptor inhibitor that has been associated with increased overall survival among patients with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. Whether a combination of darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel would increase survival among patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is unknown. METHODS: In this international, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in a 1:1 ratio to receive darolutamide (at a dose of 600 mg [two 300-mg tablets] twice daily) or matching placebo, both in combination with androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: The primary analysis involved 1306 patients (651 in the darolutamide group and 655 in the placebo group); 86.1% of the patients had disease that was metastatic at the time of the initial diagnosis. At the data cutoff date for the primary analysis (October 25, 2021), the risk of death was significantly lower, by 32.5%, in the darolutamide group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.80; P

Enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improved radiographic progression-free survival versus ADT alone in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) in ARCHES (NCT02677896). While health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was generally maintained in the intent-to-treat population, we further analyzed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in defined subgroups.ARCHES was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Patients with mHSPC received enzalutamide (160 mg/day) plus ADT (n = 574) or placebo plus ADT (n = 576). Questionnaires, including the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate, Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form, and EuroQol 5-Dimension, 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), were completed at baseline, Week 13, and every 12 weeks until disease progression. PRO endpoints were time to first confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration (TTFCD) in HRQoL or pain. Subgroups included prognostic risk, pain/HRQoL, prior docetaxel, and local therapy (radical prostatectomy [RP] and/or radiotherapy [RT]).There were several between-treatment differences in TTFCD for pain and functioning/HRQoL PROs. Enzalutamide plus ADT delayed TTFCD for worst pain in the prior RT group (not reached vs. 14.06 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.56 [95% confidence interval: 0.34-0.94]) and pain interference in low-baseline-HRQoL group (19.32 vs. 11.20 months; HR: 0.64 [0.44-0.94]) versus placebo plus ADT. In prior/no prior RP, prior RT, prior local therapy, no prior docetaxel, mild baseline pain, and low-risk subgroups, TTFCD was delayed for the EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale.Enzalutamide plus ADT provides clinical benefits in defined patient subgroups versus ADT alone, while maintaining lack of pain and high HRQoL, with delayed deterioration in several HRQoL measures.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. In primary analysis, enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC); however, overall survival data were immature. In the phase III, double-blind, global ARCHES trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02677896 ), 1,150 patients with mHSPC were randomly assigned 1:1 to enzalutamide (160 mg once daily) plus ADT or placebo plus ADT, stratified by disease volume and prior docetaxel use. Here, we report the final prespecified analysis of overall survival (key secondary end point) and an update on rPFS, other secondary end points, and safety. After unblinding, 180 (31.3%) progression-free patients randomly assigned to placebo plus ADT crossed over to open-label enzalutamide plus ADT. As of May 28, 2021 (median follow-up, 44.6 months), 154 of 574 patients randomly assigned to enzalutamide plus ADT and 202 of 576 patients randomly assigned to placebo plus ADT had died. Enzalutamide plus ADT reduced risk of death by 34% versus placebo plus ADT (median not reached in either group; hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.81; P < .001). Enzalutamide plus ADT continued to improve rPFS and other secondary end points. Adverse events were generally consistent with previous reports of long-term enzalutamide use. In conclusion, enzalutamide plus ADT significantly prolongs survival versus placebo plus ADT in patients with mHSPC.

Background: Patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) have a high risk of progression to metastatic disease, particularly if their prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) is ≤6 mo. However, patients remain at a high risk with a PSADT of >6 mo. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of darolutamide versus placebo in patients stratified by PSADT >6 or ≤6 mo. Design, setting, and participants: A planned subgroup analysis of a global multicenter, double-blind, randomized, phase 3 trial in men with nmCRPC and PSADT ≤10 mo was conducted. Intervention: Patients were randomized 2:1 to oral darolutamide 600 mg twice daily or placebo, while continuing androgen-deprivation therapy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary endpoint was metastasis-free survival (MFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and times to pain progression, first cytotoxic chemotherapy, and symptomatic skeletal events. Quality of life (QoL) was measured using validated prostate-relevant tools. Safety was recorded throughout the study. Results and limitations: Of 1509 patients enrolled, 469 had PSADT >6 mo (darolutamide n = 286; placebo n = 183) and 1040 had PSADT ≤6 mo (darolutamide n = 669; placebo n = 371). Baseline characteristics were balanced between subgroups. Darolutamide significantly prolonged MFS versus placebo in both subgroups (unstratified hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: PSADT >6 mo, 0.38 [0.26–0.55]; PSADT ≤6 mo, 0.41 [0.33–0.52]). OS and other efficacy and QoL endpoints favored darolutamide with significant improvement over placebo in both subgroups. The incidence of adverse events, including events commonly associated with androgen receptor inhibitors (fractures, falls, hypertension, and mental impairment), and discontinuations due to adverse events were low and similar to placebo. Limitations include small subgroup populations. Conclusions: In patients with nmCRPC and PSADT >6 mo (maximum 10 mo), darolutamide provided a favorable benefit/risk ratio, characterized by significant improvements in MFS, OS, and other clinically relevant endpoints; maintenance of QoL; and favorable tolerability. Patient summary: In patients with prostate cancer that has stopped responding to standard hormonal therapy (indicated by an increase in prostate-specific antigen [PSA] levels), there is a risk that the cancer will spread to other parts of the body. This risk is highest when the time it takes for the PSA level to double (ie, “PSA doubling time” [PSADT]) is less than 6 mo. However, there is still a risk that the cancer will spread even if the PSADT is longer than 6 mo. In a group of patients whose PSADT was more than 6 mo but no more than 10 mo, treatment with darolutamide slowed the cancer spread and allowed them to live longer than patients who received placebo (inactive drug). Darolutamide treatment did not cause many side effects and helped maintain patients’ quality of life without disruptions. publishedVersion

Early clinical data indicate that some patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer may benefit from program death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibition, especially with enzalutamide. The IMbassador250 trial (no. NCT03016312) enrolled 759 men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer whose disease progressed on abiraterone. The addition of atezolizumab to enzalutamide in an open-label randomized trial did not meet the primary endpoint of improved overall survival in unselected patients (stratified hazard ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval (0.91, 1.37), P = 0.28), despite an acceptable safety profile. In archival tumor samples, prostate tumors showed comparatively low expression of key immune biomarkers. DNA damage-response alterations, phosphatase and tensin homolog status and PD-L1 expression levels were similar between hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant prostate cancers. In planned biomarker analysis, longer progression-free survival was seen with atezolizumab in patients with high PD-L1 IC2/3, CD8 expression and established immune gene signatures. Exploratory analysis linked progression-free survival in the atezolizumab arm with immune genes such as CXCL9 and TAP1, together with other potentially relevant biomarkers including phosphatase and tensin homolog alterations. Together these data indicate that the expected biology associated with response to immune checkpoint inhibitors is present in prostate cancer, albeit in fewer patients. Careful patient selection may be required for immune checkpoint inhibitors to identify subgroups of patients who may benefit from this treatment approach.

LBA441 Background: Two interim OS analyses from IMvigor130 demonstrated non-statistically significant OS benefit with atezo monotherapy (Arm B) vs placebo + platinum (investigator [INV] choice of carboplatin or cisplatin [carbo or cis])/gemcitabine (plt/gem; Arm C) in patients (pts) with PD-L1–high (IC2/3) mUC, as well as a favorable safety profile vs chemo (Galsky Lancet 2020, Davis AACR 2021). Exploratory data showed clinical benefit with atezo monotherapy in cis-ineligible pts with IC2/3 tumors. Here, we report the final OS analysis from IMvigor130 Arms B and C. Methods: Pts were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to Arm A (atezo + plt/gem; not reported here), B or C. Due to the statistical testing hierarchy, no formal comparison of OS (co-primary endpoint) in Arm B vs C was performed in ITT and IC2/3 pts. ORR and DOR, both per INV-assessed RECIST 1.1 (secondary endpoints), and safety were assessed. Subgroup analyses of OS in cis-ineligible pts and disease control rate (DCR, confirmed CR, PR or [SD ≥6 mo]) were exploratory. Results: As of data cutoff Aug 31, 2022, time since last pt randomly assigned was 49 mo. OS data (Table) did not show benefit for ITT pts, while an HR of 0.56 (0.34, 0.91) was seen in the cis-ineligible IC2/3 subgroup. In the ITT population, the 24-mo OS rates were 34% in Arm B and 32% in Arm C. ORR was 24% (87/359; 38% DCR) in Arm B and 44% (158/356; 59% DCR) in Arm C; median DOR was 29.6 and 8.1 mo, respectively. In cis-ineligible IC2/3 pts, ORR was 40% (20/50) in Arm B and 33% (14/43) in Arm C. Median DOR was not evaluable in Arm B and 6.2 mo in Arm C. Of safety-evaluable pts, 57 of 354 in Arm B (16%) and 312 of 389 in Arm C (80%) had a Gr 3/4 treatment-related AE (TRAE); 3 (1%) and 4 (1%), respectively, had a Gr 5 TRAE. Gr 3/4 AEs of special interest occurred in 36 pts (10%) in Arm B and 17 (4%) in Arm C. Conclusions: The final OS analysis was consistent with previous data. Atezo monotherapy continued to show better tolerability vs chemo with no new safety concerns. These exploratory data support the benefit-risk ratio of atezo monotherapy vs chemo for first-line cis-ineligible IC2/3 mUC. Clinical trial information: NCT02807636 . [Table: see text]

LBA440 Background: The IMvigor130 primary analysis demonstrated statistically significant PFS benefit with 1L atezo + plt/gem (Arm A) vs placebo + plt/gem (Arm C) in pts with mUC (Galsky Lancet 2020). Interim data showed improved OS with Arm A vs C but did not cross the pre-specified threshold for significance (Galsky Lancet 2020; Galsky AACR 2021). In exploratory analyses, OS improved when atezo was combined with cisplatin (cis) vs carboplatin (carbo) regardless of PD-L1 status. Here, we report final OS data from Arms A and C. Methods: Pts were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to Arm A, B (atezo alone) or C. Arm A and C pts received cis or carbo per investigator (INV) choice. Co-primary endpoints were PFS per INV RECIST 1.1 and OS (Arm A vs C), and OS (Arm B vs C), tested hierarchically. Safety, ORR and DOR, disease control rate (DCR; confirmed CR, PR or [SD ≥ 6 mo]) and pre-specified exploratory OS data are also reported. Results: As of data cutoff Aug 31, 2022 (49 mo since last pt randomly assigned), in ITT pts, OS benefit was not statistically significant; in the cis subgroup, HR was 0.76 (95% CI 0.57, 1.01; Table). In ITT pts, DCR was 65% (290/447) in Arm A and 60% (239/397) in Arm C. 81% of safety-evaluable pts (370/454) in Arm A and 80% (312/389) in Arm C had a Gr 3/4 tx-related AE (TRAE). Gr 5 TRAEs occurred in 9 pts (2%) in Arm A and 4 (1%) in Arm C; Gr 3/4 AEs of special interest were seen in 41 pts (9%) in Arm A and 17 (4%) in Arm C. Conclusions: In this final analysis, improved OS with atezo + plt/gem vs placebo + plt/gem did not reach statistical significance in ITT pts with mUC. As seen with prior exploratory data, improved OS with atezo + plt/gem was greater when pts received cis vs carbo. No new safety signals were seen. Clinical trial information: NCT02807636 . [Table: see text]

BACKGROUND: Results from the phase 3 CLEAR study showed that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared with sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess the health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) outcomes from the CLEAR study. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, phase 3 study was done across 200 hospitals and cancer centres in 20 countries. Patients were required to be 18 years or older, with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, and a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher. Patients who had received previous systemic anticancer therapy for renal cell carcinoma were not eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to lenvatinib (oral 20 mg per day) plus pembrolizumab (intravenous 200 mg every 21 days), lenvatinib (oral 18 mg per day) plus everolimus (oral 5 mg per day) in 21-day cycles, or sunitinib (oral 50 mg per day, 4 weeks on followed by 2 weeks off). Patients were assigned to treatments with a computer-generated randomisation scheme and were stratified by geographical region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic groups. The primary endpoint, previously reported, was progression-free survival, and HRQOL was a secondary endpoint. Most HRQOL analyses were done in patients who underwent randomisation, received at least one dose of study treatment, and had any HRQOL data. Completion and compliance analyses were done in the full analysis set. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS), European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), and the EQ-5D-3 Level (EQ-5D-3L) preference questionnaire were administered at baseline and on day 1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811861, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Oct 13, 2016, and July 24, 2019, 355 patients were randomly assigned to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 357 to the sunitinib group. Median follow-up for HRQOL analyses was 12·9 months (IQR 5·6–22·3). Because of the promising efficacy and safety results of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the first-line setting, we focus the HRQOL results in this report on that combination versus sunitinib. Mean change from baseline in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with the sunitinib group was −1·75 (SE 0·59) versus −2·19 (0·66) for FKSI-DRS, −5·93 (0·86) versus −6·73 (0·94) for EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL), and −4·96 (0·85) versus −6·64 (0·94) for the EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS). Median time to first deterioration in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with the sunitinib group was 9·14 weeks (95% CI 6·43–12·14) versus 12·14 weeks (9·14–15·29; HR 1·13 [95% CI 0·94–1·35], log-rank p=0·20) for FKSI-DRS, 12·00 weeks (7·29–15·14) versus 9·14 weeks (6·29–12·14; 0·88 [0·74–1·05], log-rank p=0·17) for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL, and 9·43 weeks (6·43–12·29) versus 9·14 weeks (6·29–12·00; 0·83 [0·70–0·99], log-rank p=0·041) for the EQ-5D VAS. Median time to definitive deterioration in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with the sunitinib group was 134·14 weeks (95% CI 120·00–not estimable) versus 117·43 weeks (90·14–131·29; HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·53–0·92], log-rank p=0·0081) for FKSI-DRS, 114·29 weeks (102·14–153·29) versus 75·14 weeks (57·29–105·14; 0·60 [0·47–0·77], log-rank p

5074 Background: DDR alterations are associated with poorer prognosis, including shorter overall survival (OS), in patients with mHSPC. In ARCHES (NCT02677896), patients with mHSPC treated with ENZA + ADT had a reduced risk of radiographic progression or death and improved OS versus PBO + ADT. This post hoc analysis assessed the prevalence of DDR alterations and associated baseline characteristics in patients with mHSPC in ARCHES. Methods: Patients with mHSPC (n=1150) were randomized 1:1 to ENZA (160 mg/day) + ADT or PBO + ADT. Germline DDR alteration testing was performed in blood using Ambry Genetics CustomNext-Cancer panel; 16 DDR-related genes were reported in the subset of patients who consented to participate in a pharmacogenomic study (n=664; Table). Descriptive analyses of baseline demographics and disease characteristics by DDR status were performed. Results: Of 664 patient samples tested, 652 were evaluable for analysis (ENZA + ADT, n=326; PBO + ADT, n=326). Baseline characteristics of these patients were similar to the ARCHES intent-to-treat population. The prevalence of DDR+ patients was lower than expected (n=34/652, 5.2%; Table). Of DDR+ patients, 13 (38.2%) had low-volume disease, compared with 228 (36.9%) of DDR− patients. High-volume disease was present in 21 (61.8%) DDR+ and 390 (63.1%) DDR− patients. Of DDR+ patients, 6 (17.6%) had localized disease at initial diagnosis (M0), compared with 145 (23.5%) DDR− patients. De novo metastatic disease at initial diagnosis (M1) was present in 28 (82.4%) DDR+ patients and 465 (75.2%) DDR− patients. Of DDR+ patients, 29 (85.3%) were from Europe, four (11.8%) were from North America, and one (2.9%) was from the Asia-Pacific region. Conclusions: This post hoc analysis found a lower prevalence of DDR alterations in patients with mHSPC in ARCHES, compared with the 7–12% previously reported in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (Lozano et al. Br J Cancer 2021; Pritchard et al. N Engl J Med 2016). We did not identify differences in baseline disease characteristics based on DDR status. Clinical trial information: NCT02677896. [Table: see text]

5072 Background: Enzalutamide (ENZA) + androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly reduced the risk of radiographic progression and increased overall survival in men with mHSPC, regardless of baseline PSA levels (ARCHES; NCT02677896). This post hoc analysis investigated concordance between PSA progression and radiographic progression in patients with mHSPC. Methods: Patients with mHSPC (n=1150) were randomized 1:1 to ENZA (160 mg/day) + ADT or placebo (PBO) + ADT. The concordance between radiographic progression and PSA progression, as defined by Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 2 (PCWG2) criteria, and between any rise in PSA above nadir was assessed. Results: In total, 267/1150 patients in ARCHES had radiographic progression (ENZA + ADT, n=79; PBO + ADT, n=188). At radiographic progression, the median (range) PSA for ENZA + ADT-treated patients was 2.25 ng/mL (0–1062.3 ng/mL) and 17.47 ng/mL (0–1779.5 ng/mL) for PBO + ADT-treated patients. Most patients (67%) treated with ENZA + ADT did not have PCWG2-defined PSA progression at radiographic progression, compared with 43% of those treated with PBO + ADT (Table). The median absolute and percentage rise in PSA from nadir to radiographic progression was 0.77 ng/mL and 200%, respectively, with ENZA + ADT compared with 12.23 ng/mL and 367%, respectively, with PBO + ADT. Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis of ARCHES, we found frequent discordance between radiographic progression and PSA progression by PCWG2 criteria or any PSA rise over nadir in patients with mHSPC treated with ENZA + ADT. Thus, regular imaging is recommended to detect radiographic progression among patients treated with potent androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, such as ENZA + ADT, as serial PSA monitoring alone may not be sufficient to detect radiographic progression in many patients. Clinical trial information: NCT02677896. [Table: see text]

5069 Background: Patients with metastatic prostate cancer aged ≥75 years have a poorer prognosis compared with younger patients. In ARCHES (NCT02677896), ENZA + ADT improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and other key secondary endpoints vs. placebo (PBO) + ADT in patients with mHSPC. Final OS results confirmed a long-term survival benefit with ENZA + ADT. This post hoc analysis of ARCHES data investigated OS and other clinical outcomes in patients aged