Phase II Trial of Suramin in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

This study was conducted to assess the efficacy and toxicity of suramin administered using a fixed dose schedule in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Fourteen eligible patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma were enrolled and treated on a fixed dose schedule of suramin administered over 12 weeks. Suramin was administered by intravenous infusions over 1 hour. None of the 13 evaluable patients demonstrated an objective response. Only 3 patients completed the 12-week therapy course, with the majority developing progressive disease on therapy. The fixed dosage schedule was well tolerated with minimal to moderate toxicity. Suramin in this fixed dose schedule is well tolerated but has no activity in advanced renal cell carcinoma.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/45194/1/10637_2004_Article_242246.pd

Phase 1/2 multiple ascending dose trial of the prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted antibody drug conjugate MLN2704 in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

This phase 1/2 study evaluated the dose-limiting toxicity and maximum tolerated dose of MLN2704, a humanized monoclonal antibody MLN591 targeting prostate-specific membrane antigen, linked to the maytansinoid DM1 in patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of tivantinib in men with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)

Background Tivantinib is a non-ATP competitive inhibitor of c-MET receptor tyrosine kinase that may have additional cytotoxic mechanisms including tubulin inhibition. Prostate cancer demonstrates higher c-MET expression as the disease progresses to more advanced stages and to a castration resistant state. Methods 80 patients (pts) with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC were assigned (2:1) to either tivantinib 360 mg PO BID or placebo (P). The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Results Of the 80 pts. enrolled, 78 (52 tivantinib, 26 P) received treatment and were evaluable. Median follow up is 8.9 months (range: 2.3 to 19.6 months). Patients treated with tivantinib had significantly better PFS vs. those treated with placebo (medians: 5.5 mo vs 3.7 mo, respectively; HR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.90; p = 0.02). Grade 3 febrile neutropenia was seen in 1 patient on tivantinib while grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was recorded in 1 patient each on tivantinib and placebo. Grade 3 sinus bradycardia was recorded in two men on the tivantinib arm. Conclusions Tivantinib has mild toxicity and improved PFS in men with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC

Chemohormonal Therapy in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Survival Analysis of the Randomized Phase III E3805 CHAARTED Trial

Purpose Docetaxel added to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly increases the longevity of some patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Herein, we present the outcomes of the CHAARTED (Chemohormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer) trial with more mature follow-up and focus on tumor volume. Patients and Methods In this phase III study, 790 patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were equally randomly assigned to receive either ADT in combination with docetaxel 75 mg/mm2 for up to six cycles or ADT alone. The primary end point of the study was overall survival (OS). Additional analyses of the prospectively defined low- and high-volume disease subgroups were performed. High-volume disease was defined as presence of visceral metastases and/or ≥ four bone metastases with at least one outside of the vertebral column and pelvis. Results At a median follow-up of 53.7 months, the median OS was 57.6 months for the chemohormonal therapy arm versus 47.2months for ADT alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; P = .0018). For patients with high-volume disease (n = 513), the median OS was 51.2 months with chemohormonal therapy versus 34.4 months with ADT alone (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.79; P \u3c .001). For those with low-volume disease (n = 277), no OS benefit was observed (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.55; P = .86). Conclusion The clinical benefit from chemohormonal therapy in prolonging OS was confirmed for patients with high-volume disease; however, for patients with low-volume disease, no OS benefit was discerned

Double‐blind, randomized, phase 2 trial of maintenance sunitinib versus placebo after response to chemotherapy in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/106126/1/cncr28477.pd

Cabozantinib Versus Mitoxantrone-prednisone in Symptomatic Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Phase 3 Trial with a Primary Pain Endpoint

Background: Bone metastases in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are associated with debilitating pain and functional compromise. Objective: To compare pain palliation as the primary endpoint for cabozantinib versus mitoxantrone-prednisone in men with mCRPC and symptomatic bone metastases using patient-reported outcome measures. Design, setting, and participants: A randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial (COMET-2; NCT01522443) in men with mCRPC and narcotic-dependent pain from bone metastases who had progressed after treatment with docetaxel and either abiraterone or enzalutamide. Intervention: Cabozantinib 60 mg once daily orally versus mitoxantrone 12 mg/m2 every 3 wk plus prednisone 5 mg twice daily orally. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary endpoint was pain response at week 6 confirmed at week 12 (≥30% decrease from baseline in patient-reported average daily worst pain score via the Brief Pain Inventory without increased narcotic use). The planned sample size was 246 to achieve ≥90% power. Results and limitations: Enrollment was terminated early because cabozantinib did not demonstrate any survival benefit in the companion COMET-1 trial. At study closure, 119 participants were randomized (cabozantinib: N =61; mitoxantrone-prednisone: N = 58). Complete pain and narcotic use data were available at baseline, week 6, and week 12 for 73/106 (69%) patients. There was no significant difference in the pain response with cabozantinib versus mitoxantrone-prednisone: the proportions of responders were 15%versus 17%,a −2%difference(95%confidenceinterval:−16%to11%, p = 0.8). Barriers to accrual included pretreatment requirements for a washout period of prior anticancer therapy and a narcotic optimization period to maximize analgesic dosing. Conclusions: Cabozantinib treatment did not demonstrate better pain palliation than mitoxantrone-prednisone in heavily pretreated patients with mCRPC and symptomatic bone metastases. Future pain-palliation trials should incorporate briefer timelines from enrollment to treatment initiation. Patient summary: Cabozantinib was not better than mitoxantrone-prednisone for pain relief in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and debilitating pain from bone metastases

Trial Design and Objectives for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Updated Recommendations From the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3

Evolving treatments, disease phenotypes, and biology, together with a changing drug development environment, have created the need to revise castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) clinical trial recommendations to succeed those from prior Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Groups

Drug discovery in advanced prostate cancer: translating biology into therapy.

Castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is associated with a poor prognosis and poses considerable therapeutic challenges. Recent genetic and technological advances have provided insights into prostate cancer biology and have enabled the identification of novel drug targets and potent molecularly targeted therapeutics for this disease. In this article, we review recent advances in prostate cancer target identification for drug discovery and discuss their promise and associated challenges. We review the evolving therapeutic landscape of CRPC and discuss issues associated with precision medicine as well as challenges encountered with immunotherapy for this disease. Finally, we envision the future management of CRPC, highlighting the use of circulating biomarkers and modern clinical trial designs