Gartrell, Benjamin A.

TPS194 Background: Despite a growing number of treatment options for first line mCRPC, approximately 40% of patients (pts) have radiographic progression within the first year. Androgen receptor (AR) signaling inhibition increases genomic instability with double-strand DNA breaks & co-inhibition of AR & PARP induces synthetic lethality in multiple preclinical models. Homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene aberrations do not appear to be necessary for this synergy as demonstrated in a ph 2 clinical trial of abiraterone & olaparib where this combination improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in HRR-wild-type pts compared with abiraterone alone. A ph 1b trial has since shown that enzalutamide plus rucaparib has acceptable safety profile & no significant drug-drug interactions (S-DDI). Methods: CASPAR/A031902 (NCT04455750) is a ph 3 study in which 984 pts will be randomized 1:1 to enzalutamide plus rucaparib or placebo. HRR gene aberration is not required for enrollment. All pts will undergo next-generation targeted-exome sequencing from archival tumor tissue (new biopsy only required if no archival tissue available). Treatment will be continued until disease progression & crossover is not allowed. Key eligibility criteria are age ≥ 18 years, ECOG PS 0-2, biopsy-proven prostate adenocarcinoma, progressive (PSA or radiographic) disease per Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 guidelines, measurable or nonmeasurable disease per RECIST 1.1, no prior treatment for mCRPC (prior docetaxel, abiraterone, darolutamide, or apalutamide in non-mCRPC setting is allowed), no significant uncontrolled comorbidity, & no medications with S-DDI with enzalutamide/rucaparib. Hierarchical co-primary endpoints are rPFS & overall survival (OS). The OS analysis will be undertaken as a primary endpoint if the rPFS endpoint is met. For a one-sided logrank test with a type 1 error rate equal to 0.025, the study has 90% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.71 in rPFS (median rPFS of 15 & 21 months in control & combination arms, respectively) & 80% power to detect an HR of 0.80 in OS (median OS of 32 & 40 months, respectively). Key secondary endpoints are rPFS & OS in pts with vs without pathogenic BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2 alterations; & differences in adverse events & quality of life (QOL) outcomes between the treatment arms. QOL assessments include Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Prostate (FACT-P), Brief Pain Inventory Short Form (BPI-SF) & EQ-5D-5L. A key correlative endpoint is the sensitivity of ctDNA-based testing for alterations in HRR genes. Enrollment to CASPAR began in July 2021 & the study is available for participation to all US-NCTN sites with a projected enrollment of 3 years. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; U10CA180888; Clovis Oncology; http://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org Clinical trial information: NCT04455750.

Significance This study demonstrates that underexpression of succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) subunits resulting in accumulation of oncogenic succinate is a common, adverse, epigenetic modulating feature in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), during pathogenesis and progression. The study sheds light on the mechanisms of down-regulation of SDH subunits in ccRCC and deciphers the consequent oncogenic effects. It shows that functional SDH deficiency is a common feature of ccRCC (∼80% of all kidney cancers), and not just limited to the 0.05 to 0.5% of kidney cancers with germline SDH mutations.

BackgroundSystemic therapy (ST) can be deferred in patients who have metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and slow‐growing metastases. Currently, this subset of patients managed with active surveillance (AS) is not well described in the literature.MethodsThis was a prospective observational study of patients with mRCC across 46 US community and academic centers. The objective was to describe baseline characteristics and demographics of patients with mRCC initially managed by AS, reasons for AS, and patient outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize demographics, baseline characteristics, and patient‐related outcomes. Wilcoxon 2‐sample rank‐sum tests and χ2 tests were used to assess differences between ST and AS cohorts in continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Kaplan‐Meier survival curves were used to assess survival.ResultsOf 504 patients, mRCC was initially managed by AS (n = 143) or ST (n = 305); 56 patients were excluded from the analysis. Disease was present in 69% of patients who received AS, whereas the remaining 31% had no evidence of disease. At data cutoff, 72 of 143 patients (50%) in the AS cohort had not received ST. The median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 122 months to not estimable) in patients who received AS versus 30 months (95% CI, 25‐44 months) in those who received ST. Quality of life at baseline was significantly better in patients who were managed with AS versus ST.ConclusionsAS occurs frequently (32%) in real‐world clinical practice and appears to be a safe and appropriate alternative to immediate ST in selected patients.

64 Background: According to recent reports, ~1 in 4 patients with metastatic prostate cancer may harbor alterations in DNA damage repair (DDR) genes. Clinical trial data demonstrates that prostate cancer patients with DDR mutations may respond to poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Less is known about the mutational profile in minority patients with prostate cancer. We sought to determine the genomic profile of prostate cancer in an ethnically diverse patient population at a single center. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of men with prostate cancer at the Montefiore-Einstein Cancer Center who had next generation sequencing (NGS) with FoundationOne solid tumor testing between 2/2016 - 8/2019. Individual chart review was used to obtain clinical and demographic data including self-reported race/ethnicity. Results: NGS was attempted on archival tissue from 95 patients and results were obtained for 85. Among patients with results, the self-reported race/ethnicity was: Hispanic (H) 37.6%, Non-Hispanic Black (NHB) 52.9%, Non-Hispanic White (NHW) 4.7%, and Other (O) 4.7%. At the time of tissue sampling, 61 patients had metastatic disease and 10 were castration-resistant. 63 samples were from the prostate, 7 from bone, 7 from lymph node, 3 from liver and 5 from other soft tissue sites. The most commonly altered genes included: TP53 (26%), TMPRSS2-ERG fusion (23%), and PTEN (17%). Alterations in the androgen receptor were identified in 5 samples (all with CRPC). 32.8% had alterations in DDR genes including BRCA2 9 (10.6%), ATM 7 (8.2%), ATR 4 (4.7%), BRIP1 2 (2.3%), CDK12 3 (3.5%), FANCA 2 (2.3%), and PALB2 1 (1.2%). Alterations in mismatch repair genes (MSH2, MLH1, MSH6, PMS2) were present in 4 (4.7%) patients (3 of these were MSI-H). In samples where tumor mutational burden (TMB) was reported, 4 (4.7%) were TMB-high (3 MSI-H and 1 with POLE mutation). Conclusions: DDR gene mutations are common in this primarily minority population. As DDR mutations become more common in the CRPC setting, our data may underestimate the frequency of DDR mutations as only 10 patients had CRPC at the time of tissue sampling. Minority men, like all men, with prostate cancer should be considered for genomic analysis as results are likely to guide therapeutic decisions.

TPS679 Background: AA has re-emerged as a promising anti-cancer agent based on recent knowledge of pharmacokinetics, discovery of unexpected mechanisms of action, and early phase trials with IV AA.(Shenoy et al, Cancer Cell 34: 2018, in press) We hypothesized that ccRCC would be particularly susceptible to anti-cancer effects of IV AA due to: a. TET dependent demethylation of the hypermethylated genome of ccRCC causing re-expression of tumor suppressors (Shenoy et al, AACR 2018 Targeting DNA methylation conf. A11; Hu et al, Clin Cancer Res 20:4349-60, 2014) b. H2O2 production causing intra-tumoral oxidative damage, hypothesized to be enhanced by high iron content in RCC microenvironment c. Intracellular accumulation of dehydroascorbic acid secondary to high HIF activity in ccRCC. Animal data and case reports support the hypothesis. Methods: Trial design: Patients (pts) with newly diagnosed metastatic/ unresectable ccRCC are randomized 1:1 to arm A (pazopanib 800 mg/d plus IV AA 1g/kg 3 times/week) or arm B (pazopanib 800 mg/d). Protocol treatment is for 10 cycles (unless PD, unacceptable AE, alternative therapy, or pt refusal), each cycle being 28 days. Primary endpoint is Treatment Failure-Free rate at 40 weeks (TFF40). Treatment Failure is defined as: Radiographic disease progression, off-protocol treatment due to AE, alternative therapy initiation (except metastasectomy post clinical benefit), or death. Secondary endpoints include OS, PFS, ORR and AE. Statistical methods: 82 eligible pts (41 in each in arm) will provide 81% power to detect a 19% increase of TFF40 from 45% in arm B to 64% in arm A assuming a one-sided type I error rate of 0.19 (EAST 6.4). Correlatives: Epigenetic mechanism: 5mC, 5hmC and H3K27me3 IHC, MeDIP/ hMeDIP seq, RNA seq. H2O2 mechanism: tumor microenvironment iron, tumor catalase IHC. Dehydroascorbic acid mechanism: HIF-1 alpha, HIF-2 alpha, GLUT-1 IHC. Key exclusion criteria: G6PD deficiency, renal disease (Cockcroft Gault CrCl < 55 ml/min). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03334409 Status: Open for accrual in 9/10 planned sites. Funding Source: Foundation. Clinical trial information: NCT03334409.