Higano, Celestia S.

Abstract Purpose: Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have limited treatment options after progressing on hormonal therapy and chemotherapy. Here, we evaluate the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab (anti–PD-L1) + radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) in men with mCRPC. Patients and Methods: This phase Ib study evaluated atezolizumab + radium-223 in men with mCRPC and bone and lymph node and/or visceral metastases that progressed after androgen pathway inhibitor treatment. Following safety assessment of concurrent dosing, 45 men were randomized 1:1:1 to concurrent or one of two staggered dosing schedules with either agent introduced one cycle before the other. This was followed by a safety–efficacy expansion cohort (randomized 1:1:1). The primary endpoints were safety and objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), PSA responses, and overall survival (OS). Results: As of October 4, 2019, 44 of 45 men were evaluable. All 44 had ≥1 all-cause adverse event (AE); 23 (52.3%) had a grade 3/4 AE. Fifteen (34.1%) grade 3/4 and 3 (6.8%) grade 5 AEs were related to atezolizumab; none were related to radium-223. Confirmed ORR was 6.8% [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4–18.7], median rPFS was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8–4.6), median PSA progression was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8–3.3), and median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 10.9–22.3). Conclusions: This phase Ib study demonstrated that atezolizumab + radium-223, regardless of administration schedule, had greater toxicity than either drug alone, with no clear evidence of additional clinical benefit for patients with mCRPC and bone and lymph node and/or visceral metastases.

PURPOSE BRCA1 or BRCA2 ( BRCA) alterations are common in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and may confer sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. We present results from patients with mCRPC associated with a BRCA alteration treated with rucaparib 600 mg twice daily in the phase II TRITON2 study. METHODS We enrolled patients who progressed after one to two lines of next-generation androgen receptor–directed therapy and one taxane-based chemotherapy for mCRPC. Efficacy and safety populations included patients with a deleterious BRCA alteration who received ≥ 1 dose of rucaparib. Key efficacy end points were objective response rate (ORR; per RECIST/Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 in patients with measurable disease as assessed by blinded, independent radiology review and by investigators) and locally assessed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥ 50% decrease from baseline) rate. RESULTS Efficacy and safety populations included 115 patients with a BRCA alteration with or without measurable disease. Confirmed ORRs per independent radiology review and investigator assessment were 43.5% (95% CI, 31.0% to 56.7%; 27 of 62 patients) and 50.8% (95% CI, 38.1% to 63.4%; 33 of 65 patients), respectively. The confirmed PSA response rate was 54.8% (95% CI, 45.2% to 64.1%; 63 of 115 patients). ORRs were similar for patients with a germline or somatic BRCA alteration and for patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 alteration, while a higher PSA response rate was observed in patients with a BRCA2 alteration. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse event was anemia (25.2%; 29 of 115 patients). CONCLUSION Rucaparib has antitumor activity in patients with mCRPC and a deleterious BRCA alteration, but with a manageable safety profile consistent with that reported in other solid tumor types.

5565 Background: mCRPC patients (pts) tend to have a poor prognosis and limited treatment (tx) options, especially those with concomitant bone metastases (mets). We explored the ability of combination tx with atezo (anti–PD-L1) and r-223 (α-particle emitter) to stimulate anti-tumor immunity in mCRPC pts. Methods: This Phase Ib study evaluated the safety and tolerability of atezo + r-223 in pts with mCRPC and multiple bone mets, visceral mets and/or lymphadenopathy who progressed after androgen pathway inhibitor tx. The initial cohort phase evaluated the safety and tolerability of a concurrent dosing schedule (CDS), in which atezo and r-223 were administered on the same day. Following assessment of CDS, pts were randomized 1:1:1 to CDS or 1 of 2 staggered dosing schedules (atezo or r-223 introduced a full cycle before the other). This was followed by an expansion of enrollment (randomized 1:1:1). Pts got atezo 840 mg IV q2w and r-223 at 55 kBq/kg IV 6 times at 4-wk intervals until unacceptable toxicity or loss of clinical benefit. Exploratory measures of efficacy included investigator-assessed ORR (RECIST 1.1), PSA response rate, time to PSA progression, radiographic PFS (rPFS; PCWG2 criteria) and OS. Biopsy samples were collected at baseline and prior to cycle 2 to evaluate changes in the tumor microenvironment during tx. Results: As of Oct 4, 2019, 45 pts were enrolled and 44 had evaluable data. Baseline characteristics were generally similar across groups. All 44 evaluable pts had ≥ 1 all-cause AE; 23 (52.3%) had Gr 3-4 AE. Eight pts (18.2%) had Gr 5 AE as per protocol reporting of deaths; 4 (9.1%) were from disease progression. Median follow-up was 13.9 mo (range, 1.7–34.2). Confirmed ORR was 6.8% (95% CI: 1.43, 18.66). Confirmed PSA response rate was 4.5% and median time to PSA progression was 3.0 mo (95% CI: 2.8, 3.3). Median rPFS was 3.0 mo (95% CI: 2.8, 4.6) and median OS was 16.3 mo (95% CI: 10.9, 22.3). Changes in PD-L1 and CD8 IHC were consistent with the known mechanism of action of atezo, as were changes in alkaline phosphatase with radium. Conclusions: No dose-limiting toxicities, safety signals, or changes in serum biomarkers were observed beyond the known safety profiles of atezo and r-223. This Phase 1b study did not seem to show clinical benefit from combination tx. Ongoing subgroup and biomarker analyses may provide additional insights. Studies of PD-1/PD-L1 targeted therapies in combination with tumor-directed radiation in molecularly selected mCRPC pts are planned or underway. Clinical trial information: NCT02814669 .

Abstract Purpose: Genomic alterations in DNA damage repair (DDR) genes other than BRCA may confer synthetic lethality with PARP inhibition in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). To test this hypothesis, the phase II TRITON2 study of rucaparib included patients with mCRPC and deleterious non-BRCA DDR gene alterations. Patients and Methods: TRITON2 enrolled patients who had progressed on one or two lines of next-generation androgen receptor–directed therapy and one taxane-based chemotherapy for mCRPC. Key endpoints were investigator-assessed radiographic response per modified RECIST/PCWG3 and PSA response (≥50% decrease from baseline). Results: TRITON2 enrolled 78 patients with a non-BRCA DDR gene alteration [ATM (n = 49), CDK12 (n = 15), CHEK2 (n = 12), and other DDR genes (n = 14)]. Among patients evaluable for each endpoint, radiographic and PSA responses were observed in a limited number of patients with an alteration in ATM [2/19 (10.5%) and 2/49 (4.1%), respectively], CDK12 [0/10 (0%) and 1/15 (6.7%), respectively], or CHEK2 [1/9 (11.1%) and 2/12 (16.7%), respectively], including no radiographic or PSA responses in 11 patients with confirmed biallelic ATM loss or 11 patients with ATM germline mutations. Responses were observed in patients with alterations in the DDR genes PALB2, FANCA, BRIP1, and RAD51B. Conclusions: In this prospective, genomics-driven study of rucaparib in mCRPC, we found limited radiographic/PSA responses to PARP inhibition in men with alterations in ATM, CDK12, or CHEK2. However, patients with alterations in other DDR-associated genes (e.g., PALB2) may benefit from PARP inhibition. See related commentary by Sokolova et al., p. 2439

320 Background: While there is no standard therapy for BCR PC following local therapy, intermittent ADT is widely used. We evaluated utility of APA alone, ADT (luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone agonist [LHRHa]) alone, or APA + LHRHa in ADT-naïve BCR PC pts. Methods: Pts with BCR PC after primary definitive local therapy and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time (PSADT) ≤ 12 mo were randomized 1:1:1 to open-label 240 mg APA daily, LHRHa alone, or APA + LHRHa for 12 mo, followed by a 12-mo observation period off therapy. Pts were stratified by PSADT (< 6 vs 6-12 mo) and age (≤ 70 vs > 70 y). Primary end point: mean change from baseline (BL) in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) per Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate total score at 12 mo. Secondary end points included PSA nadir < 0.2 ng/mL by 7 mo, time to PSA progression (TTPpsa), and time to testosterone (T) recovery. Results: 90 pts (APA, n = 29; LHRHa, n = 30; APA + LHRHa, n = 31) were treated for median of 12 mo with similar distribution of BL characteristics across groups: 67% age ≤ 70 y; 67% PSADT < 6 mo. There was no significant difference in HRQoL in APA vs LHRHa at 12 mo, or between LHRHa vs APA + LHRHa groups. At median follow-up of 30-33 mo, TTPpsa in APA, LHRHa, and APA + LHRHa groups was 26 mo, 31 mo, and 36 mo, respectively. Compared to LHRHa alone, APA + LHRHa resulted in a trend toward improved TTPpsa (HR [95% CI] 0.56 [0.23-1.36], p = 0.196), and APA alone resulted in a trend for shorter TTPpsa (HR 1.09 [0.49-2.43], p = 0.824). PSA nadir < 0.2 ng/mL was reached in 89%, 89%, and 97% in APA, LHRHa, and APA + LHRHa pts. Median time to T recovery was similar in LHRHa and APA + LHRHa groups (23 mo vs 24 mo). Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 17% of APA, 14% of LHRHa, and 29% of APA + LHRHa pts. The only grade 3-4 AE reported in > 1 pt per group was hypertension (APA, 3%; LHRHa, 0; APA + LHRHa, 13%). Conclusions: Addition of APA to LHRHa resulted in a trend for longer TTPpsa and a higher proportion of pts achieving optimal PSA nadir without significant difference in HRQoL or time to T recovery. Observed AEs were consistent with known safety profiles. Results support further evaluation of APA + LHRHa for a specified duration in BCR PC. Clinical trial information: NCT01790126.

30 Background: BM in patients (pts) with CRPC are associated with shorter overall survival (OS) and higher costs. BRI zoledronic acid and denosumab are frequently used to prevent skeletal-related events (SRE) in pts with CRPC and BM. AA is the most common 1st line therapy for men with metastatic CRPC. We aimed to assess the impact of BRI on OS and time to first SRE (ttSRE) of pts receiving 1st line treatment AA for CRPC with BM. Methods: A retrospective cohort of pts starting AA as 1st line therapy for CRPC with BM between 2013-2016 was identified through 8 hospitals’ IRB approved registries. Pts were classified by use of concomitant BRI and subgrouped by volume of disease (per E3805 definition) at AA start. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox models were used to assess OS and ttSRE with hazard ratio (HR) estimates (95% CI). Results: Of the 745 pts included (543 deaths), 529 (71.0%) had AA alone and 216 (29.0%) AA+BRI. Median follow-up was 23.5 months. Pts receiving concomitant BRI showed a significantly longer OS and a 35% reduced risk of death compared to AA alone (HR=0.65; 95% CI, 0.54-0.79; P<.0001). The OS benefit with BRI was greater for the subgroup with high volume disease (HV) (HR=0.51; 95% CI, 0.38-0.68; P<.0001). The cohort with AA+BRI had a significantly shorter ttSRE (HR=1.27; 95% CI; 1.0-1.60; P=.0439) and, notably, the risk of first SRE was more than doubled for the subgroup with LV (HR=2.29; 95% CI, 1.57-3.35; P<.0001). On MVA, BRI vs. no BRI, prior local therapy (PLT) vs. no PLT, LV vs. HV, baseline VAS pain ≤3 vs. >5, PS 0 vs. ≥1, and PSA are independently associated with longer OS. Conclusions: The addition of BRI to 1st line AA for CRPC men with BM was associated with improved OS, particularly in HV, and worsened ttSRE, more evident in LV. These data suggest a potentially different impact of concomitant BRI on HV vs. LV, which could affect clinical decision making.[Table: see text]

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations regarding diagnosis, risk stratification and workup, treatment options for localized disease, and management of recurrent and advanced disease for clinicians who treat patients with prostate cancer. The portions of the guidelines included herein focus on the roles of germline and somatic genetic testing, risk stratification with nomograms and tumor multigene molecular testing, androgen deprivation therapy, secondary hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.