Niraparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DNA repair gene defects (GALAHAD): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial

Background Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers are enriched for DNA repair gene defects (DRDs) that can be susceptible to synthetic lethality through inhibition of PARP proteins. We evaluated the anti-tumour activity and safety of the PARP inhibitor niraparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers and DRDs who progressed on previous treatment with an androgen signalling inhibitor and a taxane. Methods In this multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study, patients aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mixed histology accepted, with the exception of the small cell pure phenotype) and DRDs (assessed in blood, tumour tissue, or saliva), with progression on a previous next-generation androgen signalling inhibitor and a taxane per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 or Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, were eligible. Enrolled patients received niraparib 300 mg orally once daily until treatment discontinuation, death, or study termination. For the final study analysis, all patients who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analysis population; patients with germline pathogenic or somatic biallelic pathogenic alterations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA cohort) or biallelic alterations in other prespecified DRDs (non-BRCA cohort) were included in the efficacy analysis population. The primary endpoint was objective response rate in patients with BRCA alterations and measurable disease (measurable BRCA cohort). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02854436. Findings Between Sept 28, 2016, and June 26, 2020, 289 patients were enrolled, of whom 182 (63%) had received three or more systemic therapies for prostate cancer. 223 (77%) of 289 patients were included in the overall efficacy analysis population, which included BRCA (n=142) and non-BRCA (n=81) cohorts. At final analysis, with a median follow-up of 10·0 months (IQR 6·6–13·3), the objective response rate in the measurable BRCA cohort (n=76) was 34·2% (95% CI 23·7–46·0). In the safety analysis population, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were nausea (169 [58%] of 289), anaemia (156 [54%]), and vomiting (111 [38%]); the most common grade 3 or worse events were haematological (anaemia in 95 [33%] of 289; thrombocytopenia in 47 [16%]; and neutropenia in 28 [10%]). Of 134 (46%) of 289 patients with at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event, the most common were also haematological (thrombocytopenia in 17 [6%] and anaemia in 13 [4%]). Two adverse events with fatal outcome (one patient with urosepsis in the BRCA cohort and one patient with sepsis in the non-BRCA cohort) were deemed possibly related to niraparib treatment. Interpretation Niraparib is tolerable and shows anti-tumour activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DRDs, particularly in those with BRCA alterations

Effect of docetaxel added to bicalutamide in Hormone-Naïve non-metastatic prostate cancer with rising PSA, a randomized clinical trial (SPCG-14)

Background: Historically, endocrine therapy was used in a range of scenarios in patients with rising PSA, both as a treatment for locally advanced non-metastatic prostate cancer and PSA recurrence following curative intended therapy. In the present study the objective was to investigate if chemotherapy added to endocrine therapy could improve progression-free survival (PFS). Materials and Methods: Patients with hormone-naïve, non-metastatic prostate cancer and rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA), enrolled from Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Finland, were randomized to long-term bicalutamide (150 mg daily) or plus docetaxel (75 mg/m2, q3w, 8–10 cycles) without prednisone, after stratification for the site, prior local therapy or not, and PSA doubling time. The primary endpoint was 5-year PFS analyzed with a stratified Cox proportional hazards regression model on intention to treat basis. Results: Between 2009 and 2018, a total of 348 patients were randomized; 315 patients had PSA relapse after radical treatment, 33 patients had no prior local therapy. Median follow-up was 4.9 years (IQR 4.0–5.1). Adding docetaxel improved PFS (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50–0.93; p = 0.015). Docetaxel showed an advantage for patients with PSA relapse after prior local therapy (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49–0.94; p = 0.019). One event of neutropenic infection/fever occurred in 27% of the patients receiving docetaxel. Limitations were slow recruitment, lack of enrolling patients without radical local treatment, and too short follow-up for evaluation of overall survival in patients with PSA relapse. Conclusion: Docetaxel improved PFS in patients starting bicalutamide due to PSA relapse after local therapy or localized disease without local therapy. Confirmatory studies of the efficacy of docetaxel in the setting of PSA-only relapse in addition to endocrine therapies may be justified if longer follow-up will show increased metastatic-free survival

Ilixadencel, a Cell-based Immune Primer, plus Sunitinib Versus Sunitinib Alone in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma : A Randomized Phase 2 Study

Background: The prognosis of patients with synchronous metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is poor. Whereas single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibition (TKI) is clearly insufficient, the effects can be enhanced by combinations with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Innovative treatment options combining TKI and other immune-stimulating agents could prove beneficial. Objective: To evaluate the clinical effects on metastatic disease when two doses of allogeneic monocyte-derived dendritic cells (ilixadencel) are administrated intratumorally followed by nephrectomy and treatment with sunitinib compared with nephrectomy and sunitinib monotherapy, in patients with synchronous mRCC. Design, setting, and participants: A randomized (2:1) phase 2 multicenter trial enrolled 88 patients with newly diagnosed mRCC to treatment with the combination ilixadencel/sunitinib (ILIXA/SUN; 58 patients) or sunitinib alone (SUN; 30 patients).Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary endpoints were 18mo survival rate and overall survival (OS). A secondary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) assessed up to 18 mo after enrollment. Statistic evaluations included Kaplan-Meier estimates, log-rank tests, Cox regression, and stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests.Results and limitations: The median OS was 35.6 mo in the ILIXA/SUN arm versus 25.3 mo in the SUN arm (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.42-1.27; p = 0.25), while the 18-mo OS rates were 63% and 66% in the ILIXA/SUN and SUN arms, respectively. The confirmed ORR in the ILIXA/SUN arm were 42.2% (19/45), including three patients with complete response, versus 24.0% (six/25) in the SUN arm (p = 0.13) without complete responses. The study was not adequately powered to detect modest differences in survival. Conclusions: The study failed to meet its primary endpoints. However, ilixadencel in combination with sunitinib was associated with a numerically higher, nonsignificant, confirmed response rate, including complete responses, compared with sunitinib monotherapy.Patient summary: We studied the effects of intratumoral vaccination with ilixadencel followed by sunitinib versus sunitinib only in a randomized phase 2 study. The combination treatment showed numerically higher numbers of confirmed responses, suggesting an immunologic effect.(c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/)