Search

Study treatment disposition

Adverse events

Purpose:Preclinically, AKT kinase inhibition restores drug sensitivity in platinum-resistant tumors. Here the pan-AKT kinase inhibitor afuresertib was given in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin (PC) in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (PROC) and primary platinum-refractory ovarian cancer (PPROC).Patients and Methods:Part I was a combination 3+3 dose escalation study for recurrent ovarian cancer. Patients received daily continuous oral afuresertib at 50–150 mg/day with intravenous paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) and carboplatin (AUC5) every 3 weeks for six cycles followed by maintenance afuresertib at 125 mg/day until progression or toxicity. Part II was a single-arm evaluation of the clinical activity of this combination in recurrent PROC (Cohort A) or PPROC (Cohort B). Patients received oral afuresertib at the MTD defined in Part I in combination with PC for six cycles, followed by maintenance afuresertib. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability of afuresertib in combination with PC (Part I, dose escalation), and investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) as per RECIST version 1.1 (Part II).Results:Twenty-nine patients enrolled into Part I, and 30 into Part II. Three dose-limiting toxicities of grade 3 rash were observed, one at 125 mg and two at 150 mg afuresertib. The MTD of afuresertib in combination with PC was therefore identified as 125 mg/day. The most common (≥50%) drug-related adverse events observed in Part I of the study were nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, alopecia, fatigue, and neutropenia and, in Part II, were diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and alopecia. The Part II ORR in the intention to treat patients was 32% [95% confidence interval (CI), 15.9–52.4] by RECIST 1.1 and 52% (95% CI, 31.3–72.2) by GCIG CA125 criteria. Median progression-free survival was 7.1 months (95% CI, 6.3–9.0 months).Conclusions:Afuresertib plus PC demonstrated efficacy in recurrent PROC with the MTD of afuresertib defined as 125 mg/day.

Summary of exposure to afuresertib, paclitaxel and carboplatin

AIM There is scarcity of research for the nutritional management of pelvic radiotherapy in gynaecological malignancies and delivery of specialised nutrition care is limited due to the current knowledge gap in guidelines. This study aimed to better understand the nutritional risk, weight changes and pattern of nutrition impact symptoms occurring at various treatment timepoints in this population, to inform an effective model of care. METHODS This retrospective, observational study included women with gynaecological cancers receiving pelvic radiotherapy at a tertiary hospital from January 2017 to December 2018 (n = 104). Information was collected on: first day of radiotherapy; weekly during treatment; acute-phase post-treatment (0-6 weeks); and intermediate-phase post-treatment (6 weeks to 6 months). This study reported on incidence of clinically significant weight change (±5%), documented nutrition impact symptoms and the current nutrition care model (nutrition screening, referral, assessment and interventions). RESULTS Clinically significant weight loss was experienced by 38% (n = 40/104) of patients prior to commencing treatment and 19% (n = 14/73) during treatment. Diarrhoea (n = 40/79), fatigue (n = 54/79), nausea (n = 38/79) and pain (n = 31/79) were frequently reported during treatment, and fatigue (n = 33/92) and pain (n = 25/92) continued acutely post-treatment. Despite high rates of weight loss and prevalence of nutrition impact symptoms, only 38% (n = 40/104) of patients were referred to a dietitian. CONCLUSIONS A considerable proportion of patients with gynaecological cancers are at nutrition risk before and during treatment due to clinically significant weight loss and prevalence of nutrition impact symptoms experienced. This highlights the importance of nutrition-risk screening and access to specialised dietetic care as part of their model of care.

INTRODUCTION: Bone metastases occur frequently in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and may lead to skeletal-related events (SREs), including symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs). Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) delay SREs and SSEs. However, the real-world use of BMAs is debated given the absence of demonstrated survival advantage and potential adverse events (AEs). Our retrospective study examined BMA use and SSE rates in Australian patients with CRPC. METHODS: Patients with CRPC and bone metastases were identified from the electronic CRPC Australian Database. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns and AEs were analysed. Descriptive statistics reported baseline characteristics, SSE rates and BMA use. Comparisons between groups used t-tests and Chi-square analyses. Overall survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 532 eligible patients were identified with a median age of 73 years (range: 44-97 years). BMAs were prescribed in 232 men (46%), 183 of whom received denosumab. Patients receiving first-line docetaxel for CRPC were more likely to commence BMAs than those receiving abiraterone or enzalutamide (51% vs 31% vs 38%; p = 0.004). SSEs occurred in 148 men (28%), most commonly symptomatic lesions requiring intervention (75%). At the time of initial SSEs, only 28% were receiving BMAs. Patients treated at sites with lower BMA use (

Background Hormonal therapies are commonly prescribed to patients with metastatic granulosa cell tumours (GCT), based on high response rates in small retrospective studies. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are reported to have high response rates and an accepted treatment option. We report the results of a phase 2 trial of an AI in recurrent/metastatic GCTs. Methods 41 patients with recurrent ER/PR + ve GCT received anastrozole 1 mg daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 12 weeks, evaluated by RECIST1.1 criteria. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), CBR duration, quality of life and toxicity. Results The CBR at 12 weeks in 38 evaluable patients was 78.9%, which included one (2.6%; 95% CI: 0.5–13.5%) partial response and 76.3% stable disease. Two additional patients without measurable disease were stable, based on inhibin. Median PFS was 8.6 m (95% CI 5.5–13.5 m). There were delayed responses observed after 12 weeks with a total of 4 pts. (10.5%; 95% CI 4.2%–24.1%) with a RECIST partial response; 23 (59%) patients were progression-free at 6 months. The adverse effects were predominantly low grade. Conclusions This is the first prospective trial of hormonal therapy in GCTs. Although there was a high CBR, the objective response rate to anastrozole was much lower than the pooled response rates of >70% to AIs reported in most retrospective series and case reports. PARAGON demonstrates the importance of prospective trials in rare cancers and the need to reconsider the role of AIs as single agents in GCTs.

BackgroundPhysical symptoms, anxiety, depression, fear of recurrence, sexual dysfunction, and social withdrawal are common in women after treatment for ovarian cancer. Most patients would like and need help dealing with these symptoms. The traditional model of follow-up care is unstructured and largely focused on diagnosing recurrent disease, and most oncologists lack skills to identify and manage psychosocial issues. No high quality prospective clinical trials have been conducted to determine the optimal follow-up regimen or the cost effectiveness of ovarian cancer surveillance strategies.Primary Objective(s)To assess emotional wellbeing, acceptability, safety, and cost effectiveness of nurse led follow-up via telehealth for women with ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment.Study HypothesisWe hypothesize that compared with routine clinic based follow-up, nurse led follow-up via telehealth, including serum CA125 monitoring and completion of a patient reported outcome instrument, the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns-Surveillance (MOST-S26), will improve emotional wellbeing in women with ovarian cancer; be feasible, safe, acceptable, and not delay the time to diagnosis of recurrent disease; will result in greater patient satisfaction; will identify more patients with psychological distress, lead to better care, and improved psychological outcomes; and be cost-effective.Trial DesignPhase II multicenter randomized trial comparing 3 monthly nurse led telehealth consultations that include serum CA125 monitoring and completion of the MOST-S26, with routine clinic based follow-up. The allocation ratio will be 1:1.Major Inclusion/Exclusion CriteriaEligible patients will be women with high grade epithelial ovarian cancer who have normalized serum CA125 (to Primary Endpoint(s)Emotional wellbeing at 12 months.Sample Size150 patients.Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting ResultsJuly 2023. Results expected in 2025, 24 months after the last participant is enrolled.Trial RegistrationACTRN12620000332921

The efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus cabozantinib as compared with those of sunitinib in the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are not known.In this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned adults with previously untreated clear-cell, advanced renal-cell carcinoma to receive either nivolumab (240 mg every 2 weeks) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) or sunitinib (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response as determined by independent review, and safety. Health-related quality of life was an exploratory end point.Overall, 651 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus cabozantinib (323 patients) or sunitinib (328 patients). At a median follow-up of 18.1 months for overall survival, the median progression-free survival was 16.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.5 to 24.9) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 8.3 months (95% CI, 7.0 to 9.7) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.64; P0.001). The probability of overall survival at 12 months was 85.7% (95% CI, 81.3 to 89.1) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 75.6% (95% CI, 70.5 to 80.0) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.60; 98.89% CI, 0.40 to 0.89; P = 0.001). An objective response occurred in 55.7% of the patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 27.1% of those receiving sunitinib (P0.001). Efficacy benefits with nivolumab plus cabozantinib were consistent across subgroups. Adverse events of any cause of grade 3 or higher occurred in 75.3% of the 320 patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 70.6% of the 320 patients receiving sunitinib. Overall, 19.7% of the patients in the combination group discontinued at least one of the trial drugs owing to adverse events, and 5.6% discontinued both. Patients reported better health-related quality of life with nivolumab plus cabozantinib than with sunitinib.Nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significant benefits over sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival, overall survival, and likelihood of response in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 9ER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03141177.).

Summary Background Lutetium-177 [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 is a radiolabelled small molecule that delivers β radiation to cells expressing prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), with activity and safety in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We aimed to compare [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 with cabazitaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Methods We did this multicentre, unblinded, randomised phase 2 trial at 11 centres in Australia. We recruited men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer for whom cabazitaxel was considered the next appropriate standard treatment. Participants were required to have adequate renal, haematological, and liver function, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2. Previous treatment with androgen receptor-directed therapy was allowed. Men underwent gallium-68 [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-flourine-18[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) PET-CT scans. PET eligibility criteria for the trial were PSMA-positive disease, and no sites of metastatic disease with discordant FDG-positive and PSMA-negative findings. Men were randomly assigned (1:1) to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (6·0–8·5 GBq intravenously every 6 weeks for up to six cycles) or cabazitaxel (20 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks for up to ten cycles). The primary endpoint was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response defined by a reduction of at least 50% from baseline. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03392428. Findings Between Feb 6, 2018, and Sept 3, 2019, we screened 291 men, of whom 200 were eligible on PET imaging. Study treatment was received by 98 (99%) of 99 men randomly assigned to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus 85 (84%) of 101 randomly assigned to cabazitaxel. PSA responses were more frequent among men in the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group than in the cabazitaxel group (65 vs 37 PSA responses; 66% vs 37% by intention to treat; difference 29% (95% CI 16–42; p Interpretation [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 compared with cabazitaxel in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer led to a higher PSA response and fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events. [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 is a new effective class of therapy and a potential alternative to cabazitaxel. Funding Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Endocyte (a Novartis company), Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization, Movember, The Distinguished Gentleman's Ride, It's a Bloke Thing, and CAN4CANCER.

BACKGROUND: Little has been published regarding how doctors think and talk about prognosis and the potential benefits of adjuvant therapy. OBJECTIVE: We sought predictions of survival rates and survival times, for patients with and without adjuvant therapy, from the clinicians of patients participating in a randomised trial of adjuvant sorafenib after nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: A subset of medical oncologists and urologists in the SORCE trial completed questionnaires eliciting their predictions of survival rates and survival times, with and without adjuvant sorafenib, for each of their participating patients. To compare predictions elicited as survival times versus survival rates, we transformed survival times to survival rates. To compare predicted benefits elicited as absolute improvements in rates and times, we transformed them into hazard ratios (HR), a measure of relative benefit.We postulated that a plausible benefit in overall survival (OS) should be smaller than that hypothesized for disease–free survival (DFS) in the trials original sample size justification (i.e. HR for OS should be ≥ 0.75). RESULTS: Sixty–one medical oncologists and 17 urologists completed questionnaires on 216 patients between 2007 and 2013. Predictions of survival without adjuvant sorafenib were similar whether elicited as survival rates or survival times (median 5–year survival rate of 61% vs 60%, p = 0.6). Predicted benefits of sorafenib were larger when elicited as improvements in survival rates than survival times (median HR 0.76 vs 0.83, p < 0.0001). The proportion of HR for predicted OS with sorafenib that reflected a plausible benefit (smaller effect of sorafenib on OS than hypothesized on DFS, i.e. HR ≥ 0.75) was 51% for survival rates, and 65% for survival times. CONCLUSIONS: The predicted benefits of adjuvant sorafenib were larger when elicited as improvements in survival rates than as survival times, and were often larger than the sample size justification for the trial. These potential biases should be considered when thinking and talking about individual patients in clinical practice, and when designing clinical trials.

4514 Background: In the open-label, randomized, phase 3 CLEAR study, LEN + PEMBRO had significant PFS (primary endpoint) and OS (key secondary endpoint) benefits over SUN among pts with aRCC in the 1L setting (Motzer 2021, NEJM). We evaluated PFS on next-line therapy (“PFS2”) and explored the effect of subsequent anticancer therapy on OS in the LEN + PEMBRO and SUN treatment arms of CLEAR. Methods: PFS2 was defined as time from randomization to disease progression (as assessed by investigator) on next-line treatment or death from any cause (whichever occurred first). PFS2 was evaluated in all pts randomly assigned to LEN 20 mg orally QD + PEMBRO 200 mg IV Q3W (n=355) or SUN 50 mg orally QD (4 wks on/2 wks off) (n=357) using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and compared between treatment arms via a log-rank test stratified by geographic region and MSKCC prognostic groups. The HR and corresponding CI were estimated using the Cox regression model with Efron’s method for ties, using the same stratification factors. A post hoc analysis accounting for the effect of subsequent anticancer therapy on OS (time from randomization to death from any cause) in the LEN + PEMBRO and SUN arms using 2-stage estimation was conducted. Results: Among pts who received subsequent anticancer therapy in the LEN + PEMBRO (n=117 pts) and SUN (n=206 pts) arms (Table), median time to next-line therapy was 12.2 mos (range 1.45–37.36) and 6.4 mos (range 0.39–28.52), respectively. Median duration of first subsequent anticancer therapy was 5.2 mos (range 0.10–30.23) in the LEN + PEMBRO arm and 6.8 mos (range 0.03–30.72) in the SUN arm. Among all pts, PFS2 was longer with LEN + PEMBRO than with SUN (median not reached vs 28.7 mos; HR, 0.50; 95% CI 0.39–0.65; nominal P

Objective: ARIEL3 (NCT01968213) is a placebo-controlled randomized trial of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib as maintenance treatment in patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian carcinoma who responded to their latest line of platinum therapy. Rucaparib improved progression-free survival across all predefined subgroups. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of clinical and molecular characteristics associated with exceptional benefit from rucaparib. Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Molecular features (genomic alterations, BRCA1 promoter methylation) and baseline clinical characteristics were evaluated for association with exceptional benefit (progression-free survival ≥2 years) versus progression on first scan (short-term subgroup) and other efficacy outcomes. Results: Rucaparib treatment was significantly associated with exceptional benefit compared with placebo: 79/375 (21.1%) vs 4/189 (2.1%), respectively (p < 0.0001). Exceptional benefit was more frequent among patients with favorable baseline clinical characteristics and with carcinomas harboring molecular evidence of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). A comparison between patients who derived exceptional benefit from rucaparib and those in the short-term subgroup revealed both clinical markers (no measurable disease at baseline, complete response to latest platinum, longer penultimate platinum-free interval) and molecular markers (BRCA1, BRCA2, RAD51C, and RAD51D alterations and genome-wide loss of heterozygosity) significantly associated with exceptional benefit. Conclusions: Exceptional benefit in ARIEL3 was more common in, but not exclusive to, patients with favorable clinical characteristics or molecular features associated with HRD. Our results suggest that rucaparib can deliver exceptional benefit to a diverse set of patients with recurrent high-grade ovarian carcinoma.

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

131 Background: The phase 3, randomized KEYLYNK-010 trial (NCT03834519) of pembro + ola vs next-generation hormonal agent (NHA) abi or enza did not significantly improve rPFS or OS in molecularly unselected pts with mCRPC treated with prior NHA and docetaxel. The study was stopped for futility after the second prespecified interim analysis. PROs for pembro + ola vs NHA in KEYLYNK-010 are presented. Methods: Pts were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive pembro 200 mg IV Q3W for ≤35 cycles (~2 y) + ola 300 mg orally BID or NHA (either abi 1000 mg orally QD + prednisone 5 mg orally BID, if pt previously received enza, or enza 160 mg orally QD if pt previously received abi). PROs were evaluated in pts who received ≥1 dose of study treatment and had ≥1 PRO assessment. FACT-P and BPI-SF were administered at baseline, Q3W until wk 24, Q6W until wk 72, and Q12W thereafter for ≤2 y. Time to pain progression (TTPP) based on BPI-SF was a prespecified secondary end point. Prespecified exploratory end points included least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline to wk 15 for FACT-P total and subscales scores (FACT-G total, TOI, FAPSI-6, FWB, PWB, and PCS) and BPI-SF scores (pain interference, pain severity, and worst pain), and time to deterioration (TTD) and overall improvement rate in FACT-P total and subscale scores. Differences were evaluated using 2-sided nominal P values not controlled for multiplicity. Results: A total of 793 pts were randomly assigned to pembro + ola (n = 529) or NHA (n = 264). As of January 18, 2022, median follow-up was 18.7 mo (range, 6.1-31.7). In all randomized pts, completion rate for FACT-P and BPI-SF at baseline and wk 15 was >84% and >57%, respectively. No differences were observed in the median TTPP for pembro + ola (13.5 mo [95% CI, 9.7-NR]) vs NHA (12.0 mo [95% CI, 10.1-NR]; HR, 0.95 [0.72-1.26]). No LSM differences were observed in FACT-P total scores (pembro + ola, –4.62 [95% CI, –6.47 to –2.77] vs NHA, –5.86 [95% CI, –8.58 to –3.13]) or BPI-SF scores (Table). There were no differences in TTD in FACT-P total, FACT-G total, TOI, FAPSI-6, FWB, PWB, and PCS scores between groups. A numerically higher proportion of pts had improved + stable FACT-P total scores for pembro + ola (44.0%) vs NHA (39.0%). FACT-P and BPI-SF scores were generally maintained across all evaluated time points up to wk 81. Conclusions: No clinically meaningful changes from baseline were observed in HRQoL or disease-related symptom scores with either pembro + ola or NHA. PRO scores were generally similar between pembro + ola and NHA at all analyzed time points, suggesting HRQoL was maintained in heavily pretreated pts receiving pembro + ola. Clinical trial information: NCT03834519 . [Table: see text]

BackgroundCheckMate 9KD (NCT03338790) is a non-randomized, multicohort, phase 2 trial of nivolumab plus other anticancer treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We report results from cohorts A1 and A2 of CheckMate 9KD, specifically evaluating nivolumab plus rucaparib.MethodsCheckMate 9KD enrolled adult patients with histologically confirmed mCRPC, ongoing androgen deprivation therapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1. Cohort A1 included patients with postchemotherapy mCRPC (1–2 prior taxane-based regimens) and ≤2 prior novel hormonal therapies (eg, abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide); cohort A2 included patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC and prior novel hormonal therapy. Patients received nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks plus rucaparib 600 mg two times per day (nivolumab dosing ≤2 years). Coprimary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) per Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA50-RR; ≥50% PSA reduction) in all-treated patients and patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive tumors, determined before enrollment. Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.ResultsOutcomes (95% CI) among all-treated, HRD-positive, and BRCA1/2-positive populations for cohort A1 were confirmed ORR: 10.3% (3.9–21.2) (n=58), 17.2% (5.8–35.8) (n=29), and 33.3% (7.5–70.1) (n=9); confirmed PSA50-RR: 11.9% (5.9–20.8) (n=84), 18.2% (8.2–32.7) (n=44), and 41.7% (15.2–72.3) (n=12); median rPFS: 4.9 (3.7–5.7) (n=88), 5.8 (3.7–8.4) (n=45), and 5.6 (2.8–15.7) (n=12) months; and median OS: 13.9 (10.4–15.8) (n=88), 15.4 (11.4–18.2) (n=45), and 15.2 (3.0–not estimable) (n=12) months. For cohort A2 they were confirmed ORR: 15.4% (5.9–30.5) (n=39), 25.0% (8.7–49.1) (n=20), and 33.3% (7.5–70.1) (n=9); confirmed PSA50-RR: 27.3% (17.0–39.6) (n=66), 41.9 (24.5–60.9) (n=31), and 84.6% (54.6–98.1) (n=13); median rPFS: 8.1 (5.6–10.9) (n=71), 10.9 (6.7–12.0) (n=34), and 10.9 (5.6–12.0) (n=15) months; and median OS: 20.2 (14.1–22.8) (n=71), 22.7 (14.1–not estimable) (n=34), and 20.2 (11.1–not estimable) (n=15) months. In cohorts A1 and A2, respectively, the most common any-grade and grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were nausea (40.9% and 40.8%) and anemia (20.5% and 14.1%). Discontinuation rates due to TRAEs were 27.3% and 23.9%, respectively.ConclusionsNivolumab plus rucaparib is active in patients with HRD-positive postchemotherapy or chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC, particularly those harboring BRCA1/2 mutations. Safety was as expected, with no new signals identified. Whether the addition of nivolumab incrementally improves outcomes versus rucaparib alone cannot be determined from this trial.Trial registration numberNCT03338790.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the recent real-world use of first-generation antiandrogens (FGAs) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) using a retrospective multicentre cohort study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The electronic CRPC Australian Database (ePAD) was interrogated to identify patients with mCRPC. Clinicopathological features, treatment and outcome data, stratified by FGA use, were retrieved and reported through descriptive statistics. Survival analyses were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and groups compared using log-rank tests. Factors influencing overall survival (OS) were analysed using Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS: We identified 634 patients with mCRPC, enrolled in ePAD between January 2016 and March 2019, including 322 (51%) who received FGAs. The median follow-up was 21.9 months. Patients treated with FGAs were more likely to have lower International Society of Urological Pathologists (ISUP) grade group (P = 0.04), longer median time to CRPC (25.6 vs 16.0 months, P

PURPOSE Pembrolizumab has previously shown antitumor activity against programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Here, we assessed the antitumor activity and safety of pembrolizumab in three parallel cohorts of a larger mCRPC population. METHODS The phase II KEYNOTE-199 study included three cohorts of patients with mCRPC treated with docetaxel and one or more targeted endocrine therapies. Cohorts 1 and 2 enrolled patients with RECIST-measurable PD-L1–positive and PD-L1–negative disease, respectively. Cohort 3 enrolled patients with bone-predominant disease, regardless of PD-L1 expression. All patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles. The primary end point was objective response rate per RECIST v1.1 assessed by central review in cohorts 1 and 2. Secondary end points included disease control rate, duration of response, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Two hundred fifty-eight patients were enrolled: 133 in cohort 1, 66 in cohort 2, and 59 in cohort 3. Objective response rate was 5% (95% CI, 2% to 11%) in cohort 1 and 3% (95% CI, < 1% to 11%) in cohort 2. Median duration of response was not reached (range, 1.9 to ≥ 21.8 months) and 10.6 months (range, 4.4 to 16.8 months), respectively. Disease control rate was 10% in cohort 1, 9% in cohort 2, and 22% in cohort 3. Median OS was 9.5 months in cohort 1, 7.9 months in cohort 2, and 14.1 months in cohort 3. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 60% of patients, were of grade 3 to 5 severity in 15%, and led to discontinuation of treatment in 5%. CONCLUSION Pembrolizumab monotherapy shows antitumor activity with an acceptable safety profile in a subset of patients with RECIST-measurable and bone-predominant mCRPC previously treated with docetaxel and targeted endocrine therapy. Observed responses seem to be durable, and OS estimates are encouraging.

Background The efficacy and safety of rucaparib maintenance treatment in ARIEL3 were evaluated in subgroups based on best response to most recent platinum‐based chemotherapy and baseline disease. Methods Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either oral rucaparib at a dosage of 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator‐assessed PFS was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA‐mutated, homologous recombination deficient (HRD; BRCA mutated or wild‐type BRCA/high loss of heterozygosity), and the intent‐to‐treat (ITT) population. Results Median PFS for patients in the ITT population with a complete response to most recent platinum‐based chemotherapy was 11.1 months in the rucaparib arm (126 patients) versus 5.6 months in the placebo arm (64 patients) (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.23–0.48]), and in patients with a partial response (249 vs. 125), it was 9.0 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.38 [0.30–0.49]). In subgroups of the ITT population based on baseline disease, median PFS was 8.2 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.40 [0.28–0.57]) in patients with measurable disease (141 rucaparib vs. 66 placebo), 10.4 versus 4.5 months (HR, 0.31 [0.20–0.48]) in those with nonmeasurable but evaluable disease (104 vs. 56), and 14.1 versus 7.3 months (HR, 0.35 [0.24–0.51]) in those with no residual disease (130 vs. 67). Across subgroups, significantly longer median PFS was observed with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA‐mutated and HRD cohorts. Objective responses were reported in patients with measurable disease and in patients with nonmeasurable but evaluable baseline disease. Safety was consistent across subgroups. Conclusion Rucaparib maintenance treatment provided clinically meaningful efficacy benefits across subgroups based on response to last platinum‐based chemotherapy or baseline disease., The efficacy and safety of the PARP inhibitor rucaparib as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer were similar regardless of whether patients had a complete or partial response to their last platinum‐based chemotherapy or according to whether they had measurable, nonmeasurable but evaluable, or no residual disease at baseline. Rucaparib also reduced the disease burden in patients who had measurable or nonmeasurable but evaluable disease at baseline.

IntroductionIn ARIEL3 (NCT01968213), the poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo regardless of biomarker status when used as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer. The aim of the current analyses was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rucaparib in subgroups based on progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of prior chemotherapies, and prior use of bevacizumab.MethodsPatients were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Within subgroups, progression-free survival was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA-mutant, homologous recombination deficient (BRCA-mutant or wild-type BRCA/high genomic loss of heterozygosity), and the intent-to-treat population.ResultsIn the intent-to-treat population, median investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 8.2 months with rucaparib versus 4.1 months with placebo (n=151 vs n=76; HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.46, p12 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.4 versus 5.4 months (n=231 vs n=124; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.54, pBRCA-mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts. Safety was consistent across subgroups.ConclusionsRucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo irrespective of progression-free interval following penultimate platinum, number of lines of prior chemotherapy, and previous use of bevacizumab.

4540 Background: There is emerging role of the use of PSMA PET in RCC. Herein, we report our experience in use of PSMA PET in recurrent or metastatic RCC in Brisbane, Australia. Methods: Patients (pts) who underwent PSMA PET and conventional diagnostic CT for metastatic or recurrent RCC between 2015 and 2020 at three institutions were identified. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted using standardized collection template. The outcomes included percentage of patients who had a change in management secondary to PSMA PET findings, comparison of metastasis detection for PSMA PET vs. CT, and biopsy histology of PSMA avid sites. Results: 42 PSMA PET were performed in 40 patients. 10 pts (25%) and 30 pts (75%) had PSMA PET in the metastatic disease and recurrent disease setting, respectively. Table 1 highlights demographics. Overall, 12 pts (30%, n=3 metastatic, n=9 recurrent) had a change in management following PSMA PET. In the metastatic disease group, 2 pts (20%) underwent initial systemic therapy (after histological confirmation) due to higher burden of disease shown with PSMA PET than CT, while systemic therapy was changed for 1 pt (10%). In the recurrent disease group, PSMA improved delineation of suspected recurrence (compared to CT) resulting in resection rather than surveillance (n=4; 13%) or change in surgical approach for resection (n=1; 3%). PSMA PET distribution showed more metastatic sites than CT leading to systemic therapy rather than resection of recurrence (n=2; 7%), while absent PSMA activity for suspected recurrence on CT led to surveillance rather than resection (n=2; 7%). PSMA PET detected more sites of metastases compared with conventional scan in 6 pts (60%) with metastatic disease and in 9 pts (30%) with recurrent disease. 26 pts had biopsy of PSMA avid sites. Majority of pts had confirmed recurrence of clear cell renal carcinoma (n= 22; 85%). Other histology included sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma (n=2; 8%), carcinoid (n=1; 4%), and urothelial cancer (n=1; 4%). In 2 instances, biopsy/resection was performed of a suspected recurrence on CT that was not PSMA avid, and neither showed malignancy. Conclusions: PSMA PET detected more accurately metastatic and recurrent disease, with high pathological concordance, to result in change in management for 30% of patients. Prospective study is warranted to further investigate the utility of PSMA PET scan in advanced RCC.[Table: see text]

5544 Background: In ARIEL3 (NCT01968213), rucaparib maintenance treatment led to significant improvement vs placebo for the primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma responsive to the last line of platinum therapy (Coleman et al. Lancet. 2017;390:1949–61). The largest benefit was observed in pts with carcinomas with a BRCA mutation or high loss of heterozygosity (LOH), a marker of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). However, rucaparib also improved PFS in pts with carcinomas negative by HRD test (ie, BRCA wild-type with low LOH), a subset of pts for which there is no identified molecular mechanism conferring PARP inhibitor sensitivity. Among these pts (rucaparib, n = 107; placebo, n = 54), median PFS was 6.7 vs 5.4 months, respectively (HR, 0.58 [95% CI 0.40–0.85]; P= 0.0049), and 31.8% vs 4.3% were progression-free at 1 yr. In this post hoc exploratory analysis, we further evaluated the efficacy of rucaparib maintenance vs placebo in this subset of pts. Methods: Pts were randomized 2:1 to oral rucaparib (600 mg BID) or placebo. For this analysis, investigator-assessed PFS and safety were evaluated in pts with HRD-negative carcinoma, defined as BRCA wild-type with genomic LOH < 16% using Foundation Medicine’s T5 NGS assay. Results: Visit cutoff dates for efficacy and safety were Apr 15, 2017, and Dec 31, 2019. Across subgroups based on demographic or disease characteristics, the trend of rucaparib benefit vs placebo was consistently observed in pts with HRD-negative carcinoma (Table). The safety profile of rucaparib in the HRD-negative population was consistent with that of the overall safety population reported previously. Conclusions: Rucaparib maintenance reduced risk of progression in pts with ovarian carcinomas, including those not associated with HRD, regardless of clinical prognostic factors. [Table: see text]

269 Background: In pts with advanced RCC, second-line treatment with LEN + EVE prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with EVE alone. LEN + PEMBRO, also showed preliminary efficacious evidence in a phase 1/2 RCC study. Here, we describe the investigational study results of first-line LEN + PEMBRO or LEN + EVE versus SUN in pts with advanced RCC. Methods: Pts were randomized (1:1:1) to receive LEN 20 mg orally once daily + PEMBRO 200 mg IV every 3 weeks (wks); or LEN 18 mg + EVE 5 mg orally once daily; or SUN 50 mg orally once daily (4 wks on/2 wks off). Eligible pts had advanced RCC with no prior systemic therapy. Randomization was stratified by geographic region and MSKCC prognostic group. The primary endpoint was PFS by Independent Review Committee per RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and safety. A sequential approach was used to test PFS first, then OS and ORR. PFS and OS were compared across arms by a stratified log-rank test; hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated by a stratified Cox regression model. Results: 1069 pts were randomized (Table). After a median follow-up of 27 months (data cutoff August 28, 2020), PFS was significantly improved with LEN + PEMBRO (median 24 months [mos]) vs SUN (median 9 mos; HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.32–0.49) and LEN + EVE (median 15 mos) vs SUN (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.53–0.80). OS was significantly longer with LEN + PEMBRO vs SUN (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49–0.88), whereas OS with LEN + EVE vs SUN was not statistically different (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.88–1.50). ORR was significantly greater with LEN + PEMBRO (ORR 71%; complete response [CR] 16%) vs SUN (ORR 36%; CR 4%; odds ratio 4.35, 95% CI 3.16–5.97) and LEN + EVE (ORR 54%; CR 10%) vs SUN (odds ratio 2.15, 95% CI 1.57–2.93). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 72% of pts in the LEN + PEMBRO arm and 73% of pts in the LEN + EVE arm compared with 59% of pts in the SUN arm. Conclusions: LEN + PEMBRO demonstrated significant improvements in PFS, OS and ORR vs SUN. LEN + EVE demonstrated significant improvements in PFS and ORR vs SUN. Safety was manageable and consistent with the known single-agent profiles. Clinical trial information: NCT02811861 . [Table: see text]

Background The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the activity of intraperitoneal bevacizumab (IP-bev) in delaying re-accumulation of malignant ascites in women with chemotherapy-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (CR-EOC) who have ceased chemotherapy. Secondary outcomes were safety and quality of life. Methods Women with CR-EOC and malignant ascites that reaccumulated within 28 days of their last paracentesis (P-1) were administered IP-bev 5 mg/kg following their first therapeutic paracentesis on study (P0). Additional doses of IP-bev were allowed at each subsequent paracentesis (P1, P2, etc) provided the interval from the last dose was 42 days or greater (median time from first to second therapeutic ascitic drainage). Results 24 participants (median age 67 years [range 38–86]; median 4.5 lines prior systemic treatment [range 1–12]; ECOG performance status of 0 in 1, 1 in 8, and 2–3 in 15) were recruited. The doses of IP-bev administered were 1 in 13 participants, 2 in 5, 3 in 2, 4 in 1, and 5 in 1. The proportion with a TTP of >42 days using competing risk analysis was 77% (95% CI 58–92). Median time from P0 to P1 or death was 48 days (range 8–248). Median paracentesis-free interval (P0–P1 or death) was 4.29-fold (95% CI 2.4–5.8) higher following a first dose of IP-bev compared with the time between paracenteses prior to study entry (P-1–P0). Conclusion IP-bev was safe, active, and warrants further study as a palliative intervention for recurrent ascites in CR-EOC patients receiving best supportive care.

Introduction In ARIEL3 (NCT01968213), rucaparib maintenance for recurrent ovarian cancer (rOC) significantly improved investigator-assessed PFS and postprogression efficacy outcomes versus placebo regardless of biomarker status. PFS was also improved in patients with rOC associated with either BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations (HR, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.19–0.53] and 0.12 [0.06–0.26], respectively). This exploratory analysis further examined the subgroup of patients with rOC associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations to assess the durability of the clinical benefit of rucaparib maintenance following disease progression. Methods Patients were randomised 2:1 to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or placebo. Postprogression efficacy endpoints were assessed in patients with germline or somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Results Investigator-assessed postprogression efficacy endpoints for patients with either BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations are presented in the table 1. There was a trend for better outcomes across all endpoints in patients with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, with larger differences between the median values among patients with a BRCA2 mutation. The treatment-by-mutation group interaction test reached statistical significance for TFST and CFI. Among rucaparib-treated patients, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (any grade) in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 subgroups were nausea (81.0% and 78.0%) and asthenia/fatigue (74.7% and 80.0%). Conclusions/Implications All postprogression efficacy endpoints were longer with rucaparib maintenance than with placebo in both BRCA-mutant subgroups. Safety data for the two subgroups were similar and were consistent with the overall safety population.

BackgroundThe optimal treatment of recurrent ovarian clear cell carcinoma remains unknown. There is increasing rationale to support the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) axis in ovarian clear cell carcinoma.Primary objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of durvalumab (MEDI-4736) compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with recurrent ovarian clear cell carcinoma.Study hypothesisPatients with recurrent ovarian clear cell carcinoma treated with durvalumab will have improved progression-free survival compared with those treated with chemotherapy of physician’s choice.Trial designThe MOCCA study is a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase II trial in patients with recurrent ovarian clear cell carcinoma, which recruited from eight sites across Gynecologic Cancer Group Singapore (GCGS), Korean Gynecologic-Oncology Group (KGOG), and Australia New Zealand Gynecological Oncology Group (ANZGOG). Enrolled patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive durvalumab or physician’s choice of chemotherapy until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of patient consent.Major inclusion/exclusion criteriaEligible patients required histologically documented diagnosis of recurrent ovarian clear cell carcinoma, as evidenced by WT1 negativity. All patients must have been of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 2 or better, and have had previous treatment with, and progressed or recurred after prior platinum-based chemotherapy. No more than four prior lines of treatment were allowed and prior immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment was not permitted.Primary endpointsThe primary endpoint was the median progression-free survival following treatment with durvalumab, compared with physician’s choice of chemotherapy. Progression-free survival was defined as the time from the first day of treatment to the first observation of disease progression, or death due to any cause, or last follow-up.Sample sizeThe target sample size was 46 patients.Estimated dates for completing accrual and presenting resultsAccrual has been completed and results are expected to be presented by mid-2021.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT03405454.

Aim Optimal treatment for newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has evolved, with many patients deriving benefit from the addition of docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (D-ADT). This study sought to define the therapy used and associated activity following D-ADT. Methods Retrospective analysis of patients with mHSPC treated with one or more cycles of D-ADT who were identified from a prospectively maintained multisite prostate cancer database of patients treated in a community or academic center setting in Australia. The primary endpoint of this study was first-line time to treatment failure (1L TTF) for subsequent treatment of metastatic Castrate Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC), with secondary endpoints of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) reduction >50% and time from 1L to second-line (2L) treatment initiation. Results A total of 93 patients received D-ADT for mHSPC, 85 (91%) had subsequent treatment for mCRPC. Median time to mCRPC (biochemical, clinical or radiographic) had been 14.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.9-16.5). 1L treatment was enzalutamide 47 patients (55%), abiraterone 23 (27%), cabazitaxel 7 (8%), docetaxel 4 (5%) and other therapies 4 (5%). Median 1L TTF was 6.3 months (95% CI, 4.9-7.6), PSA > 50% reduction was achieved in 32 of 89 patients (36%), median time from 1L to second-line treatment was 7.3 months (1.3-27.4), which did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Conclusions Abiraterone, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel and docetaxel all demonstrate activity following progression on D-ADT. No difference in efficacy was detected between treatment options for mCRPC. Prospective trials investigating the optimal treatment sequence for prostate cancer following progression on D-ADT needed.

Background:\ud State-of-the art therapy for recurrent ovarian cancer suitable for platinum-based re-treatment includes bevacizumab-containing combinations (eg, bevacizumab combined with carboplatin–paclitaxel or carboplatin–gemcitabine) or the most active non-bevacizumab regimen: carboplatin–pegylated liposomal doxorubicin. The aim of this head-to-head trial was to compare a standard bevacizumab-containing regimen versus carboplatin–pegylated liposomal doxorubicin combined with bevacizumab.\ud Methods:\ud This multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, was done in 159 academic centres in Germany, France, Australia, Austria, and the UK. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had histologically confirmed epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma with first disease recurrence more than 6 months after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2. Patients were stratified by platinum-free interval, residual tumour, previous antiangiogenic therapy, and study group language, and were centrally randomly assigned 1:1 using randomly permuted blocks of size two, four, or six to receive six intravenous cycles of bevacizumab (15 mg/kg, day 1) plus carboplatin (area under the concentration curve [AUC] 4, day 1) plus gemcitabine (1000 mg/m 2, days 1 and 8) every 3 weeks or six cycles of bevacizumab (10 mg/kg, days 1 and 15) plus carboplatin (AUC 5, day 1) plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (30 mg/m 2, day 1) every 4 weeks, both followed by maintenance bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks in both groups) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. There was no masking in this open-label trial. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Efficacy data were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This completed study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01837251.\ud Findings:\ud Between Aug 1, 2013, and July 31, 2015, 682 eligible patients were enrolled, of whom 345 were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin–pegylated liposomal doxorubicin–bevacizumab (experimental group) and 337 were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin–gemcitabine–bevacizumab (standard group). Median follow-up for progression-free survival at data cutoff (July 10, 2018) was 12·4 months (IQR 8·3–21·7) in the experimental group and 11·3 months (8·0–18·4) in the standard group. Median progression-free survival was 13·3 months (95% CI 11·7–14·2) in the experimental group versus 11·6 months (11·0–12·7) in the standard group (hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·68–0·96; p=0·012). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hypertension (88 [27%] of 332 patients in the experimental group vs 67 [20%] of 329 patients in the standard group) and neutropenia (40 [12%] vs 73 [22%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 33 (10%) of 332 patients in the experimental group and 28 (9%) of 329 in the standard group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in one patient in the experimental group (

Pacients d'edat avançada; Càncer d'ovaris; Inhibidor de la PARP Pacientes de edad avanzada; Cáncer de ovarios; Inhibidor de PARP Elderly patients; Ovarian cancer; PARP inhibitor Background In the phase 3 trial ARIEL3, maintenance treatment with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor rucaparib provided clinical benefit versus placebo for patients with recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Here, we evaluate the impact of age on the clinical utility of rucaparib in ARIEL3. Methods Patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma with ≥2 prior platinum-based chemotherapies who responded to their last platinum-based therapy were enrolled in ARIEL3 and randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Exploratory, post hoc analyses of progression-free survival (PFS), patient-centered outcomes (quality-adjusted PFS [QA-PFS] and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity [Q-TWiST]), and safety were conducted in three age subgroups (

Carcinoma d'ovari recurrent; Rucaparib Carcinoma de ovario recurrente; Rucaparib Recurrent Ovarian Carcinoma; Rucaparib PURPOSE To investigate quality-adjusted progression-free survival (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) in a post hoc exploratory analysis of the phase III ARIEL3 study of rucaparib maintenance treatment versus placebo. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma were randomly assigned to rucaparib (600 mg twice per day) or placebo. QA-PFS was calculated as progression-free survival function × the 3-level version of the EQ-5D questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) index score function. Q-TWiST analyses were performed defining TOX as the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) or the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade ≥ 2 TEAEs of nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and asthenia. Q-TWiST was calculated as μTOX × TOX + TWiST, with μTOX calculated using EQ-5D-3L data. RESULTS The visit cutoff was Apr 15, 2017. Mean QA-PFS was significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (375 randomly assigned to rucaparib v 189 randomly assigned to placebo; difference, 6.28 months [95% CI, 4.85 to 7.47 months]); BRCA-mutant cohort (130 rucaparib v 66 placebo; 9.37 months [95% CI, 6.65 to 11.85 months]); homologous recombination deficient (HRD) cohort (236 rucaparib v 118 placebo; 7.93 months [95% CI, 5.93 to 9.53 months]); and BRCA wild-type/loss of heterozygosity (LOH) low patient subgroup (107 rucaparib v 54 placebo; 2.71 months [95% CI, 0.31 to 4.44 months]). With TOX defined using grade ≥ 3 TEAEs, the difference in mean Q-TWiST (rucaparib v placebo) was 6.88 months (95% CI, 5.71 to 8.23 months), 9.73 months (95% CI, 7.10 to 11.94 months), 8.11 months (95% CI, 6.36 to 9.49 months), and 3.35 months (95% CI, 1.66 to 5.40 months) in the ITT population, BRCA-mutant cohort, HRD cohort, and BRCA wild-type/LOH low patient subgroup, respectively. Q-TWiST with TOX defined using select grade ≥ 2 TEAEs also consistently favored rucaparib. CONCLUSION The significant differences in QA-PFS and Q-TWiST confirm the benefit of rucaparib versus placebo in all predefined cohorts. Supported by Clovis Oncology. Additional support was provided in part by the Ann Rife Cox Chair in Gynecology and the Judy Reis/Albert Pisani, MD, Ovarian Cancer Research Fund (to R.L.C.) and by the National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at University College London (to J.A.L.). C.A. is supported in part by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA008748. Funding was also provided by US Department of Defense Ovarian Cancer Research Program OC120506, a V Foundation Translational Award, and a Stand Up To Cancer–Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance–National Ovarian Cancer Coalition Dream Team Translational Research Grant (Grant No. SU2C-AACR-DT16–15; all to E.M.S.). Stand Up to Cancer is a program of the Entertainment Industry Foundation; research grants are administered by the American Association for Cancer Research, a scientific partner of Stand Up To Cancer.

Background: In ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo. Here, we report prespecified, investigator-assessed, exploratory post-progression endpoints and updated safety data. Methods: In this ongoing (enrolment complete) randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, patients aged 18 years or older who had platinum-sensitive, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who had received at least two previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and responded to their last platinum-based regimen were randomly assigned (2:1) to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or placebo in 28-day cycles using a computer-generated sequence (block size of six with stratification based on homologous recombination repair gene mutation status, progression-free interval following penultimate platinum-based regimen, and best response to most recent platinum-based regimen). Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments. The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival has been previously reported. Prespecified, exploratory outcomes of chemotherapy-free interval (CFI), time to start of first subsequent therapy (TFST), time to disease progression on subsequent therapy or death (PFS2), and time to start of second subsequent therapy (TSST) and updated safety were analysed (visit cutoff Dec 31, 2017). Efficacy analyses were done in all patients randomised to three nested cohorts: patients with BRCA mutations, patients with homologous recombination deficiencies, and the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01968213. Findings: Between April 7, 2014, and July 19, 2016, 564 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to rucaparib (n=375) or placebo (n=189). Median follow-up was 28·1 months (IQR 22·0–33·6). In the intention-to-treat population, median CFI was 14·3 months (95% CI 13·0–17·4) in the rucaparib group versus 8·8 months (8·0–10·3) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·43 [95% CI 0·35–0·53]; p

Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors have provided an effective standard of care for the treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Survival is prolonged with emergence of modern immuno-oncology combination regimens. Prognostic risk assessment is essential for choosing between these therapies to determine the most appropriate first line treatment option, with selection based on International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium Risk Category. We review the current subsidized first line treatments for mRCC in Australia and consider the evidence for treatment selection and sequencing.

Introduction/Background In ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo in all patient populations, regardless of biomarker status (Coleman et al. Lancet. 2017;390:1949–61). This subgroup analysis examined the effect of the stratification factor PFI following penultimate platinum-based chemotherapy (also a prognostic factor in ovarian cancer) on primary and secondary endpoints of investigator-assessed and blinded independent central review (BICR)-assessed PFS in ARIEL3. Methodology Patients were randomised 2:1 to oral rucaparib (600 mg BID) or placebo. Analysis was based on the randomisation stratification factor of PFI following penultimate platinum-based regimen: 6–12 months or >12 months. PFS was assessed in 3 predefined cohorts: BRCA mutant; BRCA mutant + BRCA wild type/high loss of heterozygosity (LOH high); and intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received ≥1 dose of rucaparib. Results Visit cutoff dates for efficacy and safety were 15 April 2017 and 31 December 2017, respectively. For all predefined cohorts, investigator and BICR assessments showed a significant PFS improvement with rucaparib vs placebo in both PFI subgroups (figure 1). As expected, patients receiving placebo with a PFI 6–12 months had a shorter median PFS than those with a PFI >12 months. The treatment by PFI subgroup interaction was not significant, indicating that the treatment benefit was similar in both PFI subgroups. Safety data in the PFI subgroups were consistent with the overall study population, as previously reported. Conclusion In ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved PFS vs placebo in all cohorts, irrespective of PFI subgroup. The magnitude of treatment effect was similar for both PFI subgroups. Disclosure ARC: AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis AMO: Clovis, Amgen, Immunovaccine, Verastem, AstraZeneca, WebRx DL: Clovis, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, Merck, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Tesaro CA: Clovis, Mateon, Bayer, Cerulean, Tesaro, VentiRx AO: Clovis, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro AD: Precision Oncology Australia, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Specialised Therapeutics Australia NC: Clovis, Advaxis, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, MSD, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Tesaro JIW: AbbVie, AstraZeneca GS: Clovis, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro AL: Clovis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, GamaMabs, Merus, AstraZeneca RWH: Clovis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro MAG: Clovis, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche PCF: Clovis, AstraZeneca JCG: AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD, Astellas DMO’M: Clovis, AstraZeneca, Gynecologic Oncology Group, Janssen, Myriad, Tesaro, Amgen, ImmunoGen, AbbVie, Ambry, Health Analytics, Agenus, Ajinomoto, Array BioPharma, BMS, ERGOMED Clinical Research, Exelixis, Genentech, GSK, INC Research, inVentiv Health Clinical, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Novartis, PRA International, Regeneron, Serono, Stemcentrx, TRACON DKA: Morphotek, Clovis, Advaxis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Syndax, Tesaro SB: Clovis, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, GamaMabs, Merck Serono, PharmaMar, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro JG-D: AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genentech/Roche, Janssen EMS: nothing to disclose TC, LM, SG: Clovis RLC: Clovis, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Esperance, Janssen, Merck, Millennium, OncoMed, Roche/Genentech, Bayer, GamaMabs, Genmab, Gradalis, Pfizer, Tesaro JAL: Clovis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Artios Pharma, Cristal Therapeutics, MSD, Regeneron, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro.

Introduction/Background Maintenance therapy for recurrent ovarian cancer is intended to extend progression-free survival (PFS) without compromising patient quality of life; therefore, the clinical benefits of prolonged PFS should be evaluated in the context of toxicities that may compromise patients‘ wellbeing. In ARIEL3 (CO-338-014; NCT01968213), rucaparib significantly improved PFS vs placebo in all predefined patient cohorts regardless of biomarker status (Coleman et al. Lancet. 2017;390:1949-61) or age (Ledermann et al. Presented at SGO 2019; abst 4). This post hoc exploratory analysis examined quality-adjusted PFS (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) in patients from ARIEL3, including the subgroup of patients with a BRCA mutation and subgroups based on patient age. Methodology Patients were randomised 2:1 to oral rucaparib (600 mg BID) or placebo. QA-PFS and Q-TWiST were analysed in patients with a BRCA mutation (germline, somatic, or origin unknown), the ITT population (ie, all randomised patients), and subgroups of the ITT population defined by patient age at baseline ( Results The visit cutoff date for these analyses was 15 April 2017. QA-PFS, Q-TWiST considering grade ≥3 TEAEs, and Q-TWiST considering select grade ≥2 TEAEs were significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo in patients with a BRCA mutation and in the ITT population (table). Across all age subgroups, QA-PFS and Q-TWiST (both analyses) were significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo (table 1). Conclusion In the ITT population, BRCA-mutant subgroup, and age subgroups analysed, the quality-adjusted analyses, which incorporated patient-centred perspectives, confirmed the benefit of rucaparib vs placebo. Disclosure NC: Clovis, Advaxis, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, MSD, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Tesaro AMO: Clovis, Amgen, Immunovaccine, Verastem, AstraZeneca, WebRx DL: Clovis, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, Merck, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Tesaro CA: Clovis, Mateon, Bayer, Cerulean, Tesaro, VentiRx AO: Clovis, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro AD: Precision Oncology Australia, Shire, Specialised Therapeutics Australia JIW: AbbVie, AstraZeneca ARC: AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis GS: Clovis, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro AL: Clovis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, GamaMabs, Merus, AstraZeneca RWH: Clovis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro MAG: Clovis, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche PCF: Clovis, AstraZeneca JCG: AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD, Astellas DMO’M: Clovis, AstraZeneca, Gynecologic Oncology Group, Janssen, Myriad, Tesaro, Amgen, ImmunoGen, AbbVie, Ambry, Health Analytics, Agenus, Ajinomoto, Array, BMS, ERGOMED Clinical Research, Exelixis, Genentech, GSK, INC Research, inVentiv Health Clinical, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Novartis, PRA International, Regeneron, Serono, Stemcentrx, TRACON DKA: Morphotek, Clovis, Advaxis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Syndax, Tesaro SB: Clovis, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, GamaMabs, Merck Serono, PharmaMar, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro JG-D: AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genentech/Roche, Janssen EMS: nothing to disclose JM: Modus Outcomes TC, LM, SG, JB: Clovis RLC: Clovis, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Esperance, Janssen, Merck, Millennium, OncoMed, Roche/Genentech, Bayer, GamaMabs, Genmab, Gradalis, Millennium, Pfizer, Tesaro JAL: Clovis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Artios Pharma, Cristal Therapeutics, Merck/MSD, Regeneron, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro.

Objectives In ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo. A prespecified exploratory analysis investigated postprogression outcomes. Additionally, a post hoc exploratory analysis investigated patient-centered outcomes during rucaparib maintenance treatment. Methods Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive oral rucaparib (600 mg BID) or placebo. Postprogression endpoints included time to start of first subsequent therapy (TFST), time to second investigator-assessed PFS or death (PFS2), and time to start of second subsequent therapy (TSST); overall survival data are not yet mature. Patient-centered outcomes included quality-adjusted investigator-assessed PFS (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted progression-free time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST). Analyses are presented for the predefined BRCA-mutant cohort and the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Results The visit cutoff dates for efficacy and safety were April 15, 2017, and December 31, 2017, respectively. Postprogression and patient-centered outcome data are given in the table 1. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any grade (rucaparib vs placebo) were nausea (75.8% vs 36.5%), asthenia/fatigue (70.7% vs 44.4%), dysgeusia (39.8% vs 6.9%), and anemia/decreased hemoglobin (39.0% vs 5.3%). Any grade TEAEs of nausea, asthenia/fatigue, and anemia/decreased hemoglobin led to discontinuation in only 2.7%, 1.6%, and 2.7% of rucaparib-treated patients. Conclusions Rucaparib significantly improved clinically meaningful postprogression outcomes vs placebo in the BRCA-mutant cohort and ITT population. The quality-adjusted analyses, which incorporated patient-centered perspectives during rucaparib maintenance treatment, confirmed the benefit of rucaparib vs placebo. The updated safety profile of rucaparib in ARIEL3 was consistent with prior reports.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit rate with aromatase inhibitors and the impact of treatment on quality of life (QOL) in endometrial cancer is unclear. We report the results of a phase 2 trial of anastrozole in endometrial cancer. METHODS: Investigator initiated single-arm, open label trial of anastrozole, 1 mg/d in patients with ER and/or PR positive hormonal therapy naive metastatic endometrial cancer. Patients were treated until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end-point was clinical benefit (response + stable disease) at 3 months. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS), quality of life (QOL) and toxicity. RESULTS: Clinical benefit rate in 82 evaluable patients at 3 months was 44% (95% CI: 34-55%) with a best response by RECIST of partial response in 6 pts. (7%; 95% CI: 3-15%). The median PFS was 3.2 months (95% CI: 2.8-5.4). Median duration of clinical benefit was 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.0-13.7). Treatment was well tolerated. Patients who had clinical benefit at 3 months reported clinically significant improvements in several QOL domains compared to those with PD; this was evident by 2 months including improvements in: emotional functioning (39 vs 6%: p = 0.002), cognitive functioning (45 vs 19%: p = 0.021), fatigue (47 vs 19%: p = 0.015) and global health status (42 vs 9%: p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Although the objective response rate to anastrozole was relatively low, clinical benefit was observed in 44% of patients with ER/PR positive metastatic endometrial cancer and associated with an improvement in QOL. ispartof: GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY vol:154 issue:1 pages:29-37 ispartof: location:United States status: published

OBJECTIVE: Treatment options are limited for patients with recurrent/metastatic low-grade ovarian cancers (LGOCs) and serous borderline ovarian tumors (SBOTs) as response rates to chemotherapy are low. A subset of patients appears to derive clinical benefit from antiestrogens, but most studies have been retrospective and clinical benefit rates (CBR) remain uncertain. The primary aim of PARAGON was to prospectively investigate the CBR of anastrozole, an aromatase inhibitor, in patients with estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PR) positive LGOC and SBOT. METHODS: Post-menopausal women with ER-positive and/or PR-positive recurrent/metastatic LGOCs and SBOTs and evaluable disease by RECIST v1.1 or GCIG CA125 criteria were treated with anastrozole 1 mg daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were enrolled. Clinical benefit at 3 months (primary endpoint) was observed in 23 patients (64%, 95% CI 48%-78%) and was similar at 6 months (61%, 95% CI 43%-75%). The median duration of clinical benefit was 9.5 months (95% CI 8.3-25.8). Best study response was partial response by RECIST in 5 patients (14%), stable disease in 18 patients (50%) with progressive disease in 13 patients (36%). Median PFS was 11.1 months (95% CI 3.2-11.9). Anastrozole was well-tolerated. Patients with evidence of clinical benefit at 3 months reported less pain, fatigue, and improved physical and role functioning as early as 1 month of commencing treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Anastrozole was associated with a CBR of 61% of patients with recurrent ER-positive and/or PR-positive LGOC or SBOT for at least 6 months with acceptable toxicity. ispartof: GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY vol:154 issue:3 pages:531-538 ispartof: location:United States status: published