Abida, Wassim

TPS276 Background: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) can evolve into a neuroendocrine-like subtype with aggressive behavior and poor outcomes (1). Nuclear Receptor-Binding SET Domain Protein 2 (NSD2) is overexpressed in prostate cancer and is a driver of both androgen-receptor (AR)-dependent signaling and of neuroendocrine differentiation, where cancer cells lose AR dependence and response to AR pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) (2,3,4). In studies of patient-derived neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) models, genetic depletion of NSD2 led to restoration of AR expression, reversal of adeno-to-neuroendocrine differentiation, and re-sensitization to ARPI (4). We hypothesize that NSD2 inhibition can reverse resistance to ARPIs in patients with progressive mCRPC, including with neuroendocrine differentiation. KTX-2001 is an oral, potent and selective small molecule inhibitor of NSD2. It is the sponsor’s second NSD2 inhibitor to enter the clinic. The sponsor’s first in class NSD2 inhibitor, KTX-1001, was shown to be tolerable and have preliminary efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (5). Methods: STRIKE-001 (NCT07103018) is a multicenter, open-label phase 1 dose escalation trial of KTX-2001 monotherapy (Part A) and KTX-2001 + darolutamide (Part B). Key inclusion criteria are males age ≥18 years with mCRPC, progression after receiving ARPI, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 0-1, willingness to undergo biopsy if safe and feasible, and life expectancy of ≥6 months. Participants take KTX-2001 by mouth once daily alone (Part A) or with darolutamide 600 mg twice daily (Part B). Dose escalation of KTX-2001 in Parts A and B will follow a 3+3 design and occur in parallel at multiple planned dose levels. Primary objectives are to assess the safety and tolerability, determine MTD, and determine RP2D(s) for further study of KTX-2001 alone and in combination with darolutamide. Secondary objectives include characterization of efficacy and PK parameters for both KTX-2001 monotherapy and in combination with darolutamide. Exploratory objectives include study of pharmacodynamic effects, circulating tumor cells, and cell-free DNA. 1. Conteduca V, Eur J Cancer 2019. 2. Parolia A, Nat Genet 2024. 3. Aytes A, Nat Commun 2018 4. Li J, bioRxiv 2023.07.18.549585 5. Bories P, Blood Vol 144, Suppl 1,2024. Clinical trial information: NCT07103018 .

PURPOSE The continuous development of new imaging approaches, molecular phenotyping, genetic subtypes, prognosis assessments, and effective therapies across a range of disease states has created a need to redefine terminology and best practices for clinical trial conduct in patients with advanced prostate cancer. Methods We convened an international expert committee of diverse working groups, the Prostate Cancer Working Group 4 (PCWG4), between 2016 and 2025. Our objective was to formulate updated criteria based on emerging evidence and clinical trial data in a biomarker context to provide guidance for clinical trial design, eligibility, and end point assessments for patients with advanced prostate cancer. RESULTS PCWG4 redefines terminology around the disease state and previous therapies in a patient-centric context and terminology focused on androgen pathway modulation. We consider imaging, with a particular focus on positron emission tomography (PET)–defined disease. New recommendations are provided for disease state terminology, defining eligibility criteria, response and delay/prevent end points, intervals for reassessments including imaging, and patient-reported outcome determination. We provide recommendations in a biomarker-based context of use for the intended indication, reflective of patient benefit for specific interventions. We emphasize the need for development of validated PET imaging and molecular and phenotypic criteria as well as trial designs to appropriately risk stratify patients, predict and assess benefit, and measure post-treatment outcomes reliably in a trial framework. CONCLUSION PCWG4 updates recommendations on patient and tumor characterization, therapy development, and imaging criteria and extends guidance into earlier androgen pathway modulator–naïve/sensitive disease states to reflect an evolving, heterogeneous, and diverse patient population to optimize treatment benefits for all patients.

155 Background: Primary results from the randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 TRITON3 (NCT02975934) study of rucaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) in patients with chemotherapy-naive mCRPC and BRCA1/2 (BRCA) vs the control arm of physician’s choice of DTX or ARPI (abiraterone acetate [ABI] or enzalutamide [ENZ]) demonstrated that rucaparib significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS, primary efficacy endpoint) vs physician’s choice. Here, we report final OS and safety results from TRITON3. Methods: Patients with disease progression after 1 prior second-generation ARPI in any setting were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg BID or physician’s choice of DTX, ABI, or ENZ (control). OS was a key secondary endpoint tested initially in the BRCA subgroup, followed by the intent-to-treat (ITT) population in an ordered step-down multiple-comparisons procedure. Crossover from placebo to rucaparib was allowed after radiographic progression was confirmed by independent radiology review. Results: As of March 1, 2024 (final analysis data cutoff),patients with BRCA (N = 302) and ATM (N = 103) alterations were randomized (ITT, N = 405). After an overall median follow-up of 44.0 months, median OS in the BRCA subgroup in the rucaparib arm was 23.2 months vs 21.2 months for the physician’s choice control arm (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.68–1.20]; P = 0.5044; Table). Hierarchical testing did not continue due to lack of statistical significance. No OS benefit was observed in the ITT population or ATM subgroup (Table). Median duration of treatment in rucaparib and physician’s choice arms was 8.3 and 5.1 months, respectively. The most frequent any-grade treatment emergent adverse event (TEAE) in the rucaparib (n = 270) and physician’s choice (n = 130) arms was asthenia/fatigue (61.5% and 63.1%, respectively). The most frequent grade ≥3 TEAE was anemia (23.7%) with rucaparib, and asthenia/fatigue (9.2%) with physician’s choice. Of the 135 patients in the physician’s choice arm, 77 patients had radiographic progression and 70 crossed over to rucaparib. Conclusions: Rucaparib remains the only PARPi to show improved rPFS vs a DTX-containing control arm and has a similar OS even when most patients cross over to rucaparib. Safety was consistent with prior reports. These data support rucaparib as a treatment option for patients with BRCA-mutated mCRPC. Clinical trial information: NCT02975934 . Median OS at final analysis. Group Rucaparib, n Physician's choice, n Rucaparib, months Physician's choice, months HR (95% CI) a BRCA 201 101 23.2 21.2 0.91 (0.68–1.20) ITT 270 135 22.8 21.7 0.99 (0.78–1.26) ATM 69 34 18.4 22.1 1.21 (0.77–1.90) a Calculated by stratified Cox proportional hazard model.

18 Background: TRITON3 (NCT02975934) is a randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 study of rucaparib vs physician’s choice (docetaxel [DTX], abiraterone [ABI] or enzalutamide [ENZ]) in patients (pts) with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC with BRCA1/2 (BRCA) or ATM alterations. It was previously reported that rucaparib significantly improved the primary endpoint of radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) vs physician’s choice in pts with BRCA or ATM alterations. We report here the interim overall survival (OS) and also report on efficacy of rucaparib compared individually with either DTX or ABI/ENZ. Methods: Pts had disease progression after 1 prior second-generation androgen pathway inhibitor therapy in any setting and were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg BID or physician’s choice of DTX, ABI or ENZ. An ordered step-down multiple comparisons procedure was used to control the overall error rate. OS was a key secondary endpoint with rPFS as the primary endpoint tested first in the BRCA subgroup, then the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Subgroup analyses based on physician’s choice were exploratory. Results: As of August 25, 2022, 302 pts with BRCA and 103 pts with ATM alterations were randomized. OS maturity was 54% in the BRCA subgroup and 59% in the ITT population. rPFS and OS are shown. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) in the rucaparib, DTX and ABI/ENZ groups was asthenia/fatigue (61.1%, 67.6% and 57.6%, respectively). The most frequent grade ≥3 TEAE in the rucaparib, DTX and ABI/ENZ groups was anemia (23.7%), neutropenia (14.1%), and hypertension (10.2%), respectively. Conclusions: Rucaparib significantly improved rPFS vs either DTX or ABI/ENZ; safety was consistent with prior reports. Interim OS results suggest a trend towards improvement for rucaparib vs DTX or ABI/ENZ in pts with mCRPC and BRCA alterations. Clinical trial information: NCT02975934 . [Table: see text]

Abstract Purpose: The PARP inhibitor rucaparib is approved in the United States for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and a deleterious germline and/or somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) alteration. While sequencing of tumor tissue is considered the standard for identifying patients with BRCA alterations (BRCA+), plasma profiling may provide a minimally invasive option to select patients for rucaparib treatment. Here, we report clinical efficacy in patients with BRCA+ mCRPC identified through central plasma, central tissue, or local genomic testing and enrolled in TRITON2. Patients and Methods: Patients had progressed after next-generation androgen receptor–directed and taxane-based therapies for mCRPC and had BRCA alterations identified by central sequencing of plasma and/or tissue samples or local genomic testing. Concordance of plasma/tissue BRCA status and objective response rate and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rates were summarized. Results: TRITON2 enrolled 115 patients with BRCA+ identified by central plasma (n = 34), central tissue (n = 37), or local (n = 44) testing. Plasma/tissue concordance was determined in 38 patients with paired samples and was 47% in 19 patients with a somatic BRCA alteration. No statistically significant differences were observed between objective and PSA response rates to rucaparib across the 3 assay groups. Patients unable to provide tissue samples and tested solely by plasma assay responded at rates no different from patients identified as BRCA+ by tissue testing. Conclusions: Plasma, tissue, and local testing of mCRPC patients can be used to identify men with BRCA+ mCRPC who can benefit from treatment with the PARP inhibitor rucaparib.

80 Background: The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor rucaparib was granted accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with BRCA+ mCRPC based on results from the phase 2 TRITON2 study (NCT02952534). The TP53 tumor suppressor gene is among the most frequently mutated genes in human cancers, including mCRPC, and alterations in TP53, PTEN, and RB1 are associated with poor prognosis in patients with prostate cancer and other tumor types. We present data on co-occurring alterations in patients with BRCA+ mCRPC treated with rucaparib in TRITON2. Methods: Patients had progressed on 1–2 lines of androgen receptor-directed therapy and 1 taxane-based chemotherapy and were treated with rucaparib 600 mg BID. Tissue and/or cell-free DNA extracted from plasma samples were profiled comprehensively for genomic alterations using Foundation Medicine, Inc., next-generation sequencing assays. Objective response rate (ORR) was assessed per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria by independent radiologic review of patients with measurable disease. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (≥50% decrease from baseline) was assessed in all patients. Results: Tissue and/or plasma samples were available for 114/115 patients with BRCA+ mCRPC (visit cutoff date: Dec. 23, 2019). Among patients with BRCA+ mCRPC who had samples available for comprehensive genomic profiling, 36.8% (42/114) had a co-occurring alteration in TP53. Deleterious alterations in PTEN were observed in 34.2% (39/114) of patients, 44% (17/39) of which were homozygous deletions of PTEN. RB1 loss was observed in 12.3% (14/114) of patients and was seen more frequently in patients with measurable disease (18.0%, 11/61) than in patients with non-measurable disease (5.7%, 3/53). Although patients with and without TP53 mutations had generally similar baseline demographics and disease characteristics, visceral disease was more prevalent in patients with TP53 mutations (54.8%; 23/42) than in those without them (29.2%; 21/72). Similar ORR and PSA response rates were seen in patients with BRCA+ mCRPC with or without TP53 mutation, with a non-significant trend towards lower response rates in patients with co-occurring TP53 alterations. Conclusions: Results from TRITON2 showed antitumor activity for rucaparib in patients with BRCA+ mCRPC associated with or without co-occurring alterations in TP53. Demographics and additional efficacy analyses in genomic subgroups with co-occurring alterations in TP53, PTEN, and RB1 will be reported. Clinical trial information: NCT02952534. [Table: see text]

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.

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

178 Background: The phase 2 TRITON2 study (NCT02952534) is evaluating the PARP inhibitor rucaparib in pts with mCRPC and a deleterious germline or somatic alteration in BRCA ( BRCA pts) or 1 of 13 other DNA damage repair (DDR) genes. Methods: Eligible pts had progressed on 1–2 lines of androgen receptor-directed therapy and 1 taxane-based chemotherapy. Deleterious DDR gene alterations were identified from central testing of plasma and/or tissue samples by Foundation Medicine or from local testing. Results: As of Jul 2, 2019 (visit cutoff), 98 BRCA pts had received rucaparib; median (range) duration of follow-up was 13.0 (4.1–25.8) mo. Confirmed objective response rate (ORR) in BRCA pts (with investigator-assessed measurable disease) and PSA response rates (in pts with and without measurable disease) are shown in the Table. A biallelic alteration was observed in 81.4% (35/43) of BRCA pts for whom zygosity could be determined, and pts with homozygous BRCA loss (20.4%; 20/98) demonstrated high ORR (66.7% [95% CI, 38.4-88.2]; 10/15) and PSA response rates (75.0% [95% CI, 50.9-91.3]; 15/20). The safety profile in BRCA pts was consistent with the overall TRITON2 pt population. Conclusions: Results from TRITON2 showed antitumor activity with rucaparib in pts with mCRPC and a deleterious BRCA alteration. Responses were observed in patients with germline or somatic alterations in BRCA1 or BRCA2. The activity of rucaparib in these and additional genomic subgroups (e.g., based on zygosity, plasma genomic testing, or co-occurring alterations) will be reported. Clinical trial information: NCT02952534. [Table: see text]

5038 Background: Platinum-based chemotherapy has shown palliative and radiographic benefit in small unselected studies of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Alterations in DNA damage repair genes (DDRmut), which occur in ~25% of patients with mCRPC, may sensitize to platinum-based chemotherapy, and may aid in the selection of patients for this therapy. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapy in DDRmut mCRPC. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients with prostate cancer who underwent tumor genomic profiling and received platinum-based chemotherapy. Deleterious alterations in a panel including BRCA2, BRCA1, ATM, FANCA, CDK12 or PALB2 were classified as DDRmut. Absence of deleterious alterations in those genes was classified as DDRwt. MSI-H cases were excluded from analysis. Electronic charts, PSA values, and scans were reviewed to assess for outcomes. Results: From October 2013 to July 2018, 109 patients with mCRPC received platinum-based chemotherapy. 64/109 had prior taxane progression and were PARP inhibitor (PARPi) naïve at the time of platinum-based chemotherapy. DDRmut was found in 16/64 (25%) of patients ( BRCA2, n = 6; ATM, n = 2; CDK12, n = 4; FANCA, n = 4; PALB2, n = 1). Visceral metastasis occurred in 4/16 (25%) of DDRmut patients and in 22/48 (46%) of DDRwt patients. PSA50 responses were more common among DDRmut (8/15 evaluable = 53%, 95% CI, 30-75%) than among DDRwt patients (5/42 evaluable = 12%, 95% CI, 5-25%). Time on platinum-based chemotherapy tended to be longer in the DDRmut group (median 3.1 vs 1.8 months; HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.42-1.26). Of 8 DDRmut patients ( BRCA2, n = 6; BRCA1, n = 1; ATM, n = 2) who received platinum-based chemotherapy after progression on a PARPi, 3/7 evaluable patients (43%) had RECIST response or stable disease, and 2/7 evaluable patients (29%) had a PSA50 response. Of 4 patients with ATM deleterious mutations, none had a radiographic or PSA50 response to platinum-based chemotherapy. Conclusions: Platinum-based chemotherapy showed activity in DDRmut mCRPC patients before and after PARPi treatment.