Radiographic progression with nonrising PSA in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: post hoc analysis of PREVAIL.

Background Advanced prostate cancer is a phenotypically diverse disease that evolves through multiple clinical courses. PSA level is the most widely used parameter for disease monitoring, but it has well-recognized limitations. Unlike in clinical trials, in practice, clinicians may rely on PSA monitoring alone to determine disease status on therapy. This approach has not been adequately tested.Methods Chemotherapy-naive asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic men (n=872) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who were treated with the androgen receptor inhibitor enzalutamide in the PREVAIL study were analyzed post hoc for rising versus nonrising PSA (empirically defined as >1.05 vs ⩽1.05 times the PSA level from 3 months earlier) at the time of radiographic progression. Clinical characteristics and disease outcomes were compared between the rising and nonrising PSA groups.Results Of 265 PREVAIL patients with radiographic progression and evaluable PSA levels on the enzalutamide arm, nearly one-quarter had a nonrising PSA. Median progression-free survival in this cohort was 8.3 months versus 11.1 months in the rising PSA cohort (hazard ratio 1.68; 95% confidence interval 1.26-2.23); overall survival was similar between the two groups, although less than half of patients in either group were still at risk at 24 months. Baseline clinical characteristics of the two groups were similar.Conclusions Non-rising PSA at radiographic progression is a common phenomenon in mCRPC patients treated with enzalutamide. As restaging in advanced prostate cancer patients is often guided by increases in PSA levels, our results demonstrate that disease progression on enzalutamide can occur without rising PSA levels. Therefore, a disease monitoring strategy that includes imaging not entirely reliant on serial serum PSA measurement may more accurately identify disease progression

Preclinical discovery of candidate genes to guide pharmacogenetics during phase I development: the example of the novel anticancer agent ABT-751

ABT-751, a novel orally available antitubulin agent, is mainly eliminated as inactive glucuronide (ABT-751G) and sulfate (ABT-751S) conjugates. We performed a pharmacogenetic investigation of ABT-751 pharmacokinetics using in-vitro data to guide the selection of genes for genotyping in a phase I trial of ABT-751

BATON-CRC: A Phase II Randomized Trial Comparing Tivozanib Plus mFOLFOX6 with Bevacizumab Plus mFOLFOX6 in Stage IV Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Purpose: Tivozanib, a selective inhibitor of VEGFR-1, -2, and -3, plus mFOLFOX6 in an advanced gastrointestinal cancer phase Ib study had encouraging antineoplastic activity and a tolerable safety profile. This randomized, open-label, phase II trial of tivozanib/mFOLFOX6 versus bevacizumab/mFOLFOX6 in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) evaluated tivozanib activity versus bevacizumab. Experimental Design: Treatment-naive patients received mFOLFOX6 every 2 weeks of each 28-day cycle plus either tivozanib orally 1.5 mg once daily for 21 days or bevacizumab intravenously 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint; some secondary endpoints included safety, overall survival, overall response rate (ORR), duration of response, time to treatment failure, and biomarker subgroup analyses. Results: A prespecified interim futility analysis demonstrated that the futility boundary for superiority of tivozanib/mFOLFOX6 over bevacizumab/mFOLFOX6 for PFS in the intent-to-treat population was crossed; median PFS was 9.4 versus 10.7 months [HR = 1.091; confidence interval (CI), 0.693-1.718; P = 0.706]. Tivozanib/mFOLFOX6 resulted in PFS and ORR comparable with bevacizumab/mFOLFOX6; interim analyses biomarker results revealed no significant PFS association. Post hoc final analyses demonstrated a potential difference in tivozanib-specific PFS in patients with low neuropilin-1 (NRP-1), but not in patients with high NRP-1. Tivozanib/mFOLFOX6 was tolerable and adverse events were comparable with both bevacizumab/mFOLFOX6 and previous tivozanib studies. Conclusions: The efficacy of tivozanib/mFOLFOX6 was comparable with but not superior to bevacizumab/mFOLFOX6 in patients with previously untreated mCRC. Since data from the prespecified interim analysis did not demonstrate superiority, this resulted in discontinuation of the study. The safety and tolerability profile of tivozanib/mFOLFOX6 was consistent with other tivozanib trials. NRP-1 is a potential predictive biomarker for tivozanib activity, but these results require further validation. (C) 2016 AACR