Morris, Michael J

PURPOSE Enzalutamide and abiraterone both target androgen receptor signaling but via different mechanisms. The mechanism of action of one drug may counteract the resistance pathways of the other. We sought to determine whether the addition of abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) to enzalutamide prolongs overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the first-line setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS Men with untreated mCRPC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive first-line enzalutamide with or without AAP. The primary end point was OS. Toxicity, prostate-specific antigen declines, pharmacokinetics, and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) were also examined. Data were analyzed using an intent-to-treat approach. The Kaplan-Meier estimate and the stratified log-rank statistic were used to compare OS between treatments. RESULTS In total, 1,311 patients were randomly assigned: 657 to enzalutamide and 654 to enzalutamide plus AAP. OS was not statistically different between the two arms (median, 32.7 [95% CI, 30.5 to 35.4] months for enzalutamide v 34.2 [95% CI, 31.4 to 37.3] months for enzalutamide and AAP; hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; one-sided P = .03; boundary nominal significance level = .02). rPFS was longer in the combination arm (median rPFS, 21.3 [95% CI, 19.4 to 22.9] months for enzalutamide v 24.3 [95% CI, 22.3 to 26.7] months for enzalutamide and AAP; HR, 0.86; two-sided P = .02). However, pharmacokinetic clearance of abiraterone was 2.2- to 2.9-fold higher when administered with enzalutamide, compared with clearance values for abiraterone alone. CONCLUSION The addition of AAP to enzalutamide for first-line treatment of mCRPC was not associated with a statistically significant benefit in OS. Drug-drug interactions between the two agents resulting in increased abiraterone clearance may partly account for this result, although these interactions did not prevent the combination regimen from having more nonhematologic toxicity.

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 The combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) is a standard therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Based on data that angiogenesis plays a role in urothelial carcinoma growth and progression, a randomized placebo-controlled trial was performed with the primary objective of testing whether patients treated with GC and bevacizumab (GCB) have superior overall survival (OS) than patients treated with GC and placebo (GCP). PATIENTS AND METHODS Between July 2009 and December 2014, 506 patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma without prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease and no neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy within 12 months were randomly assigned to receive either GCB or GCP. The primary end point was OS, with secondary end points of progression-free survival, objective response, and toxicity. RESULTS With a median follow-up of 76.3 months among alive patients, the median OS was 14.5 months for patients treated with GCB and 14.3 months for patients treated with GCP (hazard ratio for death = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.05; two-sided stratified log-rank P = .14). The median progression-free survival was 8.0 months for GCB and 6.7 months for GCP (hazard ratio = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.95; P = .016). The proportion of patients with grade 3 or greater adverse events did not differ significantly between both arms, although increased bevacizumab-related toxicities such as hypertension and proteinuria occurred in the bevacizumab-treated arm. CONCLUSION The addition of bevacizumab to GC did not result in improved OS. The observed median OS of about 14 months is consistent with prior phase III trials of cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Abstract Background Safety is a central consideration when choosing between multiple medications with similar efficacy. We aimed to evaluate whether adverse event (AE) profiles of 3 such drugs in advanced prostate cancer could be distinguished based on published literature. Methods We assessed consistency in AE reporting, AE risk in placebo arms, and methodology used for risk estimates and quantification of statistical uncertainty in randomized placebo-controlled phase III trials of apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide in advanced prostate cancer. Results Seven included clinical trials enrolled a total of 9215 participants (range = 1051-1715 per trial) across 3 prostate cancer disease states. Within disease states, baseline patient characteristics appeared similar between trials. Of 54 distinct AE types in total, only 3 (fatigue, hypertension, and seizure) were reported by all 7 trials. Absolute risks of AEs in the placebo arms differed systematically and more than twofold between trials, which was associated with visit frequency and resulted in different degrees of uncertainty in AE profiles between trials. No trial used inferential methodology to quantify statistical uncertainty in AE risks, but 6 of 7 trials drew overall conclusions. Two trials concluded that there was no elevated AE risk because of the intervention, including the trial of darolutamide, which had the greatest statistical uncertainty. Conclusions Rigorous comparison of drug safety was precluded by heterogeneity in AE reporting, variation in AE risks in the placebo arms, and lack of inferential statistical methodology, underscoring considerable opportunities to improve how AE data are collected, analyzed, and interpreted in oncology trials.