Durán, Ignacio

5054 Background: Rucaparib significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) versus physician’s choice of docetaxel or an androgen-receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) (abiraterone or enzalutamide) in men with BRCA mutations who were chemotherapy-naïve in the mCRPC setting and had received one prior ARPI in the phase 3 TRITON3 trial (NCT02975934). This post-hoc analysis evaluated whether the timing of prior ARPI therapy impacted the efficacy of rucaparib. Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib (600 mg BID) or physician’s choice of docetaxel or ARPI, after progression on 1 prior second-generation ARPI in any setting. The primary endpoint was rPFS. Outcomes were analyzed according to whether patients received the prior ARPI in the metastatic castration sensitive (mCSPC) or castration resistant (mCRPC) setting. Data cutoff was August 25, 2022. Results: Of the 302 BRCA1/2 patients, 68 received prior ARPI in the mCSPC setting (42 rucaparib; 26 physician’s choice) and 234 in the mCRPC setting (159 rucaparib; 75 physician’s choice). Baseline characteristics were generally similar. Prior treatments in the mCSPC and mCRPC groups, respectively, included abiraterone (73.5% vs 53.0%), enzalutamide (29.4% vs 48.3%), and docetaxel (17.6% vs 24.8%). Median rPFS favored rucaparib over physician’s choice in both groups (mCSPC: 13.6 vs 8.2 months; HR 0.60 [95% CI, 0.32–1.15]; mCRPC: 11.2 vs 5.8 months; HR 0.43 [95% CI, 0.30–0.61]). Median OS was similar between treatments in both settings (mCSPC: 23.2 vs 21.7 months; HR 0.81 [95% CI, 0.47–1.41]; mCRPC: 23.2 vs 21.0 months; HR 0.91 [95% CI, 0.66–1.25]). Treatment-related adverse events occurred at comparable rates (89.6% vs 86.1%). Conclusions: Rucaparib demonstrated efficacy in patients with BRCA-mutated mCRPC, regardless of whether prior ARPI was administered in the mCSPC or mCRPC setting. Clinical trial information: NCT02975934 .

LBA4500 Background: Cisplatin-based chemo is a standard 1L treatment (tx) for mUC and the only tx that prolongs OS; however, age or comorbidities render many pts ineligible, and 30-50% receive no tx. Atezo (MPDL3280A) is active and well tolerated in platinum-treated mUC, justifying testing atezo as 1L tx in cisplatin-ineligible pts. Methods: Pts were chemo naive in the metastatic setting and cisplatin ineligible (renal [GFR > 30 but < 60 mL/min]/hearing impairment, ≥ G2 peripheral neuropathy [PN] or ≥ ECOG PS2). Atezo 1200 mg was given IV q3w until PD (RECIST v1.1). Centrally assessed PD-L1 on tumor infiltrating immune cells (IC; SP142 IHC assay) was scored IC2/3, 1 or 0. The primary efficacy endpoint was confirmed ORR assessed per RECIST v1.1 (central independent review facility) using a data cutoff of Sep 14, 2015. Results: 119 efficacy/safety-evaluable pts of any PD-L1 IC had a median age of 73 y: 21% ≥ 80 y. 18% had prior systemic tx (21% [neo]adjuvant); 10% had radiotherapy. 66% had visceral mets. 71% had CrCl < 60 mL/min; 13% had hearing loss ≥ 25 dB; 6% had prior PN ≥ G2; 20% had ECOG PS2. ORR was 19% (95% CI 13-28; 5% CR), and responses occurred in all IC subgroups (Table; includes DCR/PFS/OS) and in pts with poor prognostic factors. 22/23 responses were ongoing with mDOR not reached. Median follow-up was 8.5 mo (range 0.2-14.3); median tx duration was 15 wk. Atezo was generally well tolerated. Tx-related all-G and G3-4 AEs were seen in 64% and 12% of pts, respectively. Related all-G AEs ≥ 10% included fatigue, pruritus, diarrhea. 1 G5 related AE occurred (sepsis). 3% had a G3-4 immune-mediated AE. Conclusions: Atezo has clinically meaningful activity in 1L cisplatin-ineligible mUC pts, and preliminary OS is encouraging. The durable nature of response and favorable AE profile makes this an attractive alternative to chemo. NCT02108652. Clinical trial information: NCT02108652. [Table: see text]