Olaparib combined with abiraterone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial

Background Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutations have a better response to treatment with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib than patients without HRR mutations. Preclinical data suggest synergy between olaparib and androgen pathway inhibitors. We aimed to assess the efficacy of olaparib plus the androgen pathway inhibitor abiraterone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer regardless of HRR mutation status. Methods We carried out this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial at 41 urological oncology sites in 11 countries across Europe and North America. Eligible male patients were aged 18 years or older with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had previously received docetaxel and were candidates for abiraterone treatment. Patients were excluded if they had received more than two previous lines of chemotherapy, or had previous exposure to second-generation antihormonal drugs. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive voice or web response system, without stratification, to receive oral olaparib 300 mg twice daily or placebo. All patients received oral abiraterone 1000 mg once daily and prednisone or prednisolone 5 mg twice daily. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS; based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 2 criteria). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned patients, and safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of olaparib or placebo. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01972217, and is no longer recruiting patients. Findings Between Nov 25, 2014, and July 14, 2015, 171 patients were assessed for eligibility. Of those, 142 patients were randomly assigned to receive olaparib and abiraterone (n=71) or placebo and abiraterone (n=71). The clinical cutoff date for the final analysis was Sept 22, 2017. Median rPFS was 13·8 months (95% CI 10·8–20·4) with olaparib and abiraterone and 8·2 months (5·5–9·7) with placebo and abiraterone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·65, 95% CI 0·44–0·97, p=0·034). The most common grade 1–2 adverse events were nausea (26 [37%] patients in the olaparib group vs 13 [18%] patients in the placebo group), constipation (18 [25%] vs eight [11%]), and back pain (17 [24%] vs 13 [18%]). 38 (54%) of 71 patients in the olaparib and abiraterone group and 20 (28%) of 71 patients in the placebo and abiraterone group had grade 3 or worse adverse events, including anaemia (in 15 [21%] of 71 patients vs none of 71), pneumonia (four [6%] vs three [4%]), and myocardial infarction (four [6%] vs none). Serious adverse events were reported by 24 (34%) of 71 patients receiving olaparib and abiraterone (seven of which were related to treatment) and 13 (18%) of 71 patients receiving placebo and abiraterone (one of which was related to treatment). One treatment-related death (pneumonitis) occurred in the olaparib and abiraterone group. Interpretation Olaparib in combination with abiraterone provided clinical efficacy benefit for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer compared with abiraterone alone. More serious adverse events were observed in patients who received olaparib and abiraterone than abiraterone alone. Our data suggest that the combination of olaparib and abiraterone might provide an additional clinical benefit to a broad population of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Prognostic factors for survival in the phase III TROPIC trial.

102 Background: In TROPIC ( NCT00417079 ) 755 men were randomized (378 cabazitaxel/prednisone [CbzP]; 377 mitoxantrone/prednisone [MP]). Treatment arms were well balanced; ECOG PS 0–1 (93% CbzP vs 91% MP), measurable disease (53% vs 54%), baseline pain (46% vs 45%) and ≤ 6 months from last dose of docetaxel (D) to randomization (62% vs 72%). CbzP significantly improved overall survival (OS) in mCRPC pts who progressed on or after D treatment compared with MP (HR 0.70; CI 0.59–0.83; P &lt; 0.0001). We investigated overall prognosis and performed a multivariate analysis of factors implicated in OS from this robust dataset. Methods: A univariate analysis of a variety of factors followed by a multivariate analysis of all factors was conducted. Interactions with treatment arms were explored. Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the effect of treatment and prognostic factors on OS. Results: In addition to the significant effect of treatment received, the univariate analysis identified ECOG PS and measurable disease at baseline, time from last dose of D to randomization, time of progression after last D treatment and pain scores at baseline as significant prognostic factors for OS. Interactions of each of these factors with the treatment were not statistically distinct, suggesting that CbzP survival benefit was consistent among the subgroups defined by these factors. After adjustments for all prognostic factors, multivariate analysis identified ECOG PS 2, measurable disease, time of last dose of D to randomization (≤ 6 months vs &gt; 6 months) and presence of baseline pain as statistically significant prognostic factors. Following adjustments, the treatment effect on survival (CbzP vs MP) remained statistically significant (Table). Conclusions: ECOG PS, measurable disease at baseline, time from last D dose to randomization, baseline pain and CbzP treatment predicted OS in patients in the TROPIC study in a multivariate analysis. [Table: see text] </jats:p

Prednisone plus cabazitaxel or mitoxantrone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel treatment : a randomised open-label trial

BACKGROUND: Cabazitaxel is a novel tubulin-binding taxane drug with antitumour activity in docetaxel-resistant cancers. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel plus prednisone with those of mitoxantrone plus prednisone in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with progressive disease after docetaxel-based treatment. METHODS: We undertook an open-label randomised phase 3 trial in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had received previous hormone therapy, but whose disease had progressed during or after treatment with a docetaxel-containing regimen. Participants were treated with 10 mg oral prednisone daily, and were randomly assigned to receive either 12 mg/m(2) mitoxantrone intravenously over 15-30 min or 25 mg/m(2) cabazitaxel intravenously over 1 h every 3 weeks. The random allocation schedule was computer-generated; patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation, but the study team was masked to the data analysis. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and safety. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00417079. FINDINGS: 755 men were allocated to treatment groups (377 mitoxantrone, 378 cabazitaxel) and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At the cutoff for the final analysis (Sept 25, 2009), median survival was 15·1 months (95% CI 14·1-16·3) in the cabazitaxel group and 12·7 months (11·6-13·7) in the mitoxantrone group. The hazard ratio for death of men treated with cabazitaxel compared with those taking mitoxantrone was 0·70 (95% CI 0·59-0·83, p<0·0001). Median progression-free survival was 2·8 months (95% CI 2·4-3·0) in the cabazitaxel group and 1·4 months (1·4-1·7) in the mitoxantrone group (HR 0·74, 0·64-0·86, p<0·0001). The most common clinically significant grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (cabazitaxel, 303 [82%] patients vs mitoxantrone, 215 [58%]) and diarrhoea (23 [6%] vs one [<1%]). 28 (8%) patients in the cabazitaxel group and five (1%) in the mitoxantrone group had febrile neutropenia. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with cabazitaxel plus prednisone has important clinical antitumour activity, improving overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer whose disease has progressed during or after docetaxel-based therapy

Patient-reported outcomes with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial

Background 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). Methods 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. Findings 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. Interpretation 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

Update in biliary endoscopy

Biliary endoscopy has seen the development of several new techniques in the last few years. Its current role includes direct diagnostic imaging, tissue sampling, early diagnosis and palliation of biliary tumors. Relatively new methods for biliary stones management are electrohydraulic lithotripsy combined with choledochoscope guidance and laser lithotripsy. Intraductal ultrasound, confocal laser endomicroscopy and optical coherence tomography are emerging, purely diagnostic endoscopic tools in biliary endoscopy. Cytological examinations such as digital imaging analysis and fluorescence in situ hybridization have the potential of becoming very important in the early diagnosis of biliary tumors. Direct visualization of the biliary mucosa and tissue sampling can be done with the last generation of cholangioscopes. All these tools are promising, especially for the 'undetermined biliary strictures'. Improvements in quality of life, survival and biliary drainage in patients with non-operable cholangiocarcinoma have been reported after the application of both photodynamic therapy and high-dose rate intraluminal brachytherapy. Drug-eluting stents with incorporated anti-tumor agents designed to improve patency and reduce the risk of tumor ingrowth have already been tested, and other stents are under investigation as well

Adjuvant vemurafenib in resected, BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma (BRIM8): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: Systemic adjuvant treatment might mitigate the high risk of disease recurrence in patients with resected stage IIC-III melanoma. The BRIM8 study evaluated adjuvant vemurafenib monotherapy in patients with resected, BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma. METHODS: BRIM8 was a phase 3, international, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study that enrolled 498 adults (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed stage IIC-IIIA-IIIB (cohort 1) or stage IIIC (cohort 2) BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma that was fully resected. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive voice or web response system to receive twice-daily adjuvant oral vemurafenib 960 mg tablets or matching placebo for 52 weeks (13 × 28-day cycles). Randomisation was done by permuted blocks (block size 6) and was stratified by pathological stage and region in cohort 1 and by region in cohort 2. The investigators, patients, and sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, evaluated separately in each cohort. Hierarchical analysis of cohort 2 before cohort 1 was prespecified. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01667419. FINDINGS: The study enrolled 184 patients in cohort 2 (93 were assigned to vemurafenib and 91 to placebo) and 314 patients in cohort 1 (157 were assigned to vemurafenib and 157 to placebo). At the time of data cutoff (April 17, 2017), median study follow-up was 33·5 months (IQR 25·9-41·6) in cohort 2 and 30·8 months (25·5-40·7) in cohort 1. In cohort 2 (patients with stage IIIC disease), median disease-free survival was 23·1 months (95% CI 18·6-26·5) in the vemurafenib group versus 15·4 months (11·1-35·9) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·54-1·18; log-rank p=0·026). In cohort 1 (patients with stage IIC-IIIA-IIIB disease) median disease-free survival was not reached (95% CI not estimable) in the vemurafenib group versus 36·9 months (21·4-not estimable) in the placebo group (HR 0·54 [95% CI 0·37-0·78]; log-rank p=0·0010); however, the result was not significant because of the prespecified hierarchical prerequisite for the primary disease-free survival analysis of cohort 2 to show a significant disease-free survival benefit. Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 141 (57%) of 247 patients in the vemurafenib group and 37 (15%) of 247 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the vemurafenib group were keratoacanthoma (24 [10%] of 247 patients), arthralgia (17 [7%]), squamous cell carcinoma (17 [7%]), rash (14 [6%]), and elevated alanine aminotransferase (14 [6%]), although all keratoacanthoma events and most squamous cell carcinoma events were by default graded as grade 3. In the placebo group, grade 3-4 adverse events did not exceed 2% for any of the reported terms. Serious adverse events were reported in 40 (16%) of 247 patients in the vemurafenib group and 25 (10%) of 247 patients in the placebo group. The most common serious adverse event was basal cell carcinoma, which was reported in eight (3%) patients in each group. One patient in the vemurafenib group of cohort 2 died 2 months after admission to hospital for grade 3 hypertension; however, this death was not considered to be related to the study drug. INTERPRETATION: The primary endpoint of disease-free survival was not met in cohort 2, and therefore the analysis of cohort 1 showing a numerical benefit in disease-free survival with vemurafenib versus placebo in patients with resected stage IIC-IIIA-IIIB BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma must be considered exploratory only. 1 year of adjuvant vemurafenib was well tolerated, but might not be an optimal treatment regimen in this patient population

Safety of Everolimus With Reduced Calcineurin Inhibitor Exposure in De Novo Kidney Transplants: An Analysis From the Randomized TRANSFORM Study

BACKGROUND: The safety profiles of standard therapy versus everolimus with reduced-exposure calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) therapy using contemporary protocols in de novo kidney transplant recipients have not been compared in detail. METHODS: TRANSFORM was a randomized, international trial in which de novo kidney transplant patients were randomized to everolimus with reduced-exposure CNI (N = 1014) or mycophenolic acid (MPA) with standard-exposure CNI (N = 1012), both with induction and corticosteroids. RESULTS: Within the safety population (everolimus 1014, MPA 1012), adverse events with a suspected relation to study drug occurred in 62.9% versus 59.2% of patients given everolimus or MPA, respectively (P = 0.085). Hyperlipidemia, interstitial lung disease, peripheral edema, proteinuria, stomatitis/mouth ulceration, thrombocytopenia, and wound healing complications were more frequent with everolimus, whereas diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, leukopenia, tremor, and insomnia were more frequent in the MPA group. The incidence of viral infections (17.2% versus 29.2%; P < 0.001), cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections (8.1% versus 20.1%; P < 0.001), CMV syndrome (13.6% versus 23.0%, P = 0.044), and BK virus (BKV) infections (4.3% versus 8.0%, P < 0.001) were less frequent with everolimus. CMV infection was less common with everolimus versus MPA after adjusting for prophylaxis therapy in the D+/R- subgroup (P < 0.001). Study drug was discontinued more frequently due to rejection or impaired healing with everolimus, and more often due to BKV infection or BKV nephropathy with MPA. CONCLUSIONS: De novo everolimus with reduced-exposure CNI yielded a comparable incidence, though a distinctly different pattern, of adverse events versus current standard of care. Both regimens are safe and effective, yet their distinct profiles may enable tailoring for individual kidney transplant recipients.status: publishe