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

Bone and total alkaline phosphatase for screening skeletal metastasis in patients with solid tumours

Alkaline phosphatase (AP) has several isoforms including bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP). We evaluated BAP and AP for screening for bone metastasis (BM) in patients with solid tumours. This is a prospective non-blinded study conducted at ABC Foundation School of Medicine Oncology clinics. A total of 40 subjects without a history of cancer and 62 patients with various solid tumours referred for a bone scan had serum drawn for BAP and AP determination. Bone alkaline phosphatase and AP levels in patients with cancer and BM, without BM and with no cancer, were 70.32 +/- 3.65 and 310.21 +/- 16.87 U/L; 41.40 +/- 2.80 and 113.23 +/- 12.95 U/L; 21.19 +/- 2.76 and 148.05 +/- 12.79 U/L respectively (P < 0.0001 for both AP and BAP). for BAP and AP sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 0.86 and 0.52; 0.69 and 1; 0.45 and 1; 0.94 and 0.87 respectively. ROC AUC value for BAP was 0.89 and for AP was 0.93. We conclude that BAP is more sensitive than AP, whereas AP had a remarkable specificity of 100%. in screening for BM in patients with solid tumours, obtaining initially BAP and then selecting for further investigation only patients with an abnormal AP may be a cost and resource saving strategy.ABC Fdn, Sch Med, Oncol Program Albert Einstein Hosp, Hematol & Oncol Discipline, São Paulo, BrazilNucl Med Physicians Hosp Estsdual Mario Covas, Santo Andre, BrazilUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, BrazilUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, BrazilWeb of Scienc