Citations

46 Background: Primary results from the randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 TRITON3 (NCT02975934) study demonstrated that rucaparib significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) vs physician’s choice of DTX or an ARPI. ECOG PS is used as a predictor of prostate cancer survival. In this post hoc analysis, we report results from the BRCA1/2 subgroup of pts stratified by ECOG PS. Methods: Pts 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 or ARPI (abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide). Primary endpoint was rPFS by independent radiology review (IRR). Objective response rate (ORR) for pts with measurable disease and overall survival (OS) were key secondary endpoints. Crossover from physician’s choice to rucaparib was allowed after radiographic progression was confirmed by IRR. Data cutoff was August 25, 2022. Results: Of 302 pts in the BRCA1/2 population, 147 had an ECOG status of 0 (97 rucaparib; 50 physician’s choice) and 155 had ECOG 1 (104 rucaparib; 51 physician’s choice). Baseline characteristics and demographics were generally similar between arms for pts in the ECOG 0 and ECOG 1 groups. Median rPFS favored rucaparib vs physician’s choice for pts with ECOG 0 (11.4 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.30-0.76]) and ECOG 1 (10.9 vs 6.1 months; HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.31-0.74]) (Table). Additionally, rPFS favored rucaparib for ECOG 0 and ECOG 1 including those whose prespecified physician’s choice was ARPI or docetaxel (Table). The confirmed ORR (95% CI) of rucaparib vs physician’s choice for ECOG 0 was 54% (37%–69%) vs 16% (3%–40%); the ORR for ECOG 1 was 37% (22%–53%) vs 18% (5%–40%), respectively. Median OS was similar between arms for rucaparib or physician’s choice; median OS was 23.7 vs 21.7 months (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.61–1.37]) for ECOG 0 and 21.8 vs 20.4 months (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.58–1.24]) for ECOG 1. Conclusions: Rucaparib improved rPFS and ORR in pts with BRCA-mutated prostate cancer with an ECOG PS of 0 or 1. OS was similar for these groups in both arms. These data support rucaparib as a treatment option for pts with BRCA-mutated mCRPC, whether ECOG 0 or 1. Clinical trial information: NCT02975934 . Median rPFS in patients in the ECOG 0 and ECOG 1 groups. Rucaparib, n Physician’s choice, n rPFS Rucaparib, median months rPFS Physician’s choice, median months HR (95% CI) rPFS, ECOG 0 97 50 11.4 8.2 0.48 (0.30–0.76) rPFS, ECOG 1 104 51 10.9 6.1 0.48 (0.31–0.74) rPFS, physician’s choice ARPI, ECOG 0 51 24 11.2 5.6 0.42 (0.22–0.78) rPFS, physician’s choice docetaxel, ECOG 0 46 26 11.5 8.8 0.49 (0.24–0.98) rPFS, physician’s choice ARPI, ECOG 1 52 17 11.2 4.5 0.33 (0.16–0.68) rPFS, physician’s choice docetaxel, ECOG 1 52 34 10.7 7.1 0.59 (0.34–1.01)

Introduction BCL-2 inhibition with venetoclax (ven) was a major advance in CLL treatment, but the 5-week dose ramp-up to mitigate the risk of tumor lysis syndrome and drug-drug interactions (DDIs) challenge treatment optimization. Lisaftoclax is an investigational, oral BCL-2i with a short half-life, allowing it to be ramped-up on a daily schedule. We present updated results of a phase 1b/2 study of lisaftoclax alone or combined with acalabrutinib or rituximab in pts with treatment-naïve (TN; lisaftoclax-acalabrutinib arm), relapsed/refractory, or prior ven-treated CLL/SLL (NCT04215809). Methods Pts were treated with a rapid 4- to 6-day daily ramp-up of lisaftoclax from 20 mg to a target dose of 400, 600, or 800 mg, receiving daily oral lisaftoclax alone or, plus continuous acalabrutinib or 6 cycles of rituximab in 28-day cycles, starting on Cycle 1 Day 8 (C1D8) until disease progression, complete response by C24, or unacceptable toxicity. Intensive blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic (PK) and exposure-response (E-R) analyses. Results From March 20, 2020, to June 27, 2024, 176 pts were enrolled: 46 in monotherapy and 39 and 91 in rituximab and acalabrutinib combination cohorts, respectively; 154/176 (87.5%) were R/R and 22/176 (12.5%) TN. The median (range) age was 63 (34-80) years; 67% were male; 25.6% had del(17p) and/or TP53 mutation; and 70.6% had unmutated IGHV. Median (range) duration of treatment with lisaftoclax was 16.5 (1-54; monotherapy), 24 (3-39; rituximab), and 27 (1-43; acalabrutinib) months. In R/R pts, the median (range) number of prior lines of therapy was 2 (1-15), and 14 (9%) pts had been treated with ven. Prior ven pts had a median (range) age of 65 (51-78); 79% were male; of evaluable pts, 50% had del(17p), 36% TP53 mut, 64% del(11q), 38% complex karyotype (≥ 3 abnormalities), and 92% unmutated IGHV; 57% were BTKi naïve; and the median (range) number of prior therapies was 3 (1-6). Incidence and severity of TEAEs were similar across cohorts. Common (>10%) any-grade TEAEs in all cohorts combined were neutropenia (59 [33.5%]), diarrhea (38 [21.6%]), anemia (27 [15.3%]), and thrombocytopenia (26 [14.8%]). Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs were neutropenia in 15 (32.6%), 10 (25.6%), and 22 (24%) pts and anemia in 10 (21.7%), 5 (12.8%), and 12 (13.2%) pts in monotherapy, rituximab, and acalabrutinib combination cohorts, respectively. Comprehensive E-R analyses indicated that lisaftoclax had similar systemic exposure as monotherapy or when combined with acalabrutinib or rituximab; lisaftoclax had no DDI when combined with acalabrutinib or rituximab. No discontinuations were attributed to lisaftoclax TRAEs. Forty-four (95.7%) pts in monotherapy discontinued treatment. Most discontinuations were due to progressive disease (n = 41 [23.3%]) and 13 (7.4%), AEs; 9 (5.1%) pts withdrew consent; 7 (4%) achieved complete response or MRD negativity after ≥ 24 cycles; 5 (2.8%) died; and 18 (10.2%) discontinued for other reasons. Clinical (n = 2) and laboratory (n = 3) TLS was observed in 5 (2.8%) pts on lisaftoclax (by Howard/Cairo-Bishop criteria), with cases rapidly resolving to resume lisaftoclax safely. ORR for lisaftoclax plus acalabrutinib in 87 pts was 96.6%, and the median DOR (95% CI, 23-NR) and median PFS (95% CI, 34-NR) were not reached. The 12- and 18-month PFS rates were 89% and 86%, respectively. Fourteen R/R CLL ven-exposed pts received lisaftoclax plus acalabrutinib, of whom 9 had progressed on ven, 3 relapsed after completing ven, and 2 discontinued due to ven intolerance. Median (range) duration of treatment was 16 (3-25) months. Safety profile was similar to that of other study cohorts. ORR was 85.7% (12/14), 100% (8/8), and 66.7% (4/6) in the ven-exposed, ven-exposed but BTKi-naïve, and ven- and BTKi-exposed pts, respectively. The median duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were not reached. The 12- and 18-month PFS rates were 84% and 73%, respectively. Conclusions Our data suggest that lisaftoclax combined with acalabrutinib is effective for pts with prior ven exposure, including those with progression on ven. In this updated analysis with longer follow-up, no DDIs or new safety findings were observed in TN or R/R CLL/SLL pts treated with lisaftoclax monotherapy/combinations. We continue to accrue pts with prior ven exposure to further evaluate this promising signal. A global registrational phase 3 study GLORA (NCT06104566) is recruiting.

Background Availability of checkpoint inhibitors has created a paradigm shift in the management of patients with solid tumors. Despite this, most patients do not respond to immunotherapy, and there is considerable interest in developing combination therapies to improve response rates and outcomes. B7-H3 (CD276) is a member of the B7 family of cell surface molecules and provides an alternative immune checkpoint molecule to therapeutically target alone or in combination with programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)–targeted therapies. Enoblituzumab, an investigational anti-B7-H3 humanized monoclonal antibody, incorporates an immunoglobulin G1 fragment crystallizable (Fc) domain that enhances Fcγ receptor-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. Coordinated engagement of innate and adaptive immunity by targeting distinct members of the B7 family (B7-H3 and PD-1) is hypothesized to provide greater antitumor activity than either agent alone. Methods In this phase I/II study, patients received intravenous enoblituzumab (3–15 mg/kg) weekly plus intravenous pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg) every 3 weeks during dose-escalation and cohort expansion. Expansion cohorts included non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; checkpoint inhibitor [CPI]–naïve and post-CPI, programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1] <1%), head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC; CPI-naïve), urothelial cancer (post-CPI), and melanoma (post-CPI). Disease was assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 after 6 weeks and every 9 weeks thereafter. Safety and pharmacokinetic data were provided for all enrolled patients; efficacy data focused on HNSCC and NSCLC cohorts. Results Overall, 133 patients were enrolled and received ≥1 dose of study treatment. The maximum tolerated dose of enoblituzumab with pembrolizumab at 2 mg/kg was not reached. Intravenous enoblituzumab (15 mg/kg) every 3 weeks plus pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg) every 3 weeks was recommended for phase II evaluation. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 116 patients (87.2%) and were grade ≥3 in 28.6%. One treatment-related death occurred (pneumonitis). Objective responses occurred in 6 of 18 (33.3% [95% CI 13.3 to 59.0]) patients with CPI-naïve HNSCC and in 5 of 14 (35.7% [95% CI 12.8 to 64.9]) patients with CPI-naïve NSCLC. Conclusions Checkpoint targeting with enoblituzumab and pembrolizumab demonstrated acceptable safety and antitumor activity in patients with CPI-naïve HNSCC and NSCLC. Trial registration number NCT02475213.

Purpose Ipilimumab increases antitumor T-cell responses by binding to cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4. We evaluated treatment with ipilimumab in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer without visceral metastases. Patients and Methods In this multicenter, double-blind, phase III trial, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to four doses. Ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo maintenance therapy was administered to nonprogressing patients every 3 months. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results Four hundred patients were randomly assigned to ipilimumab and 202 to placebo; 399 were treated with ipilimumab and 199 with placebo. Median OS was 28.7 months (95% CI, 24.5 to 32.5 months) in the ipilimumab arm versus 29.7 months (95% CI, 26.1 to 34.2 months) in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95.87% CI, 0.88 to 1.39; P = .3667). Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the ipilimumab arm versus 3.8 with placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95.87% CI, 0.55 to 0.81). Exploratory analyses showed a higher prostate-specific antigen response rate with ipilimumab (23%) than with placebo (8%). Diarrhea (15%) was the only grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse event (AE) reported in ≥ 10% of ipilimumab-treated patients. Nine (2%) deaths occurred in the ipilimumab arm due to treatment-related AEs; no deaths occurred in the placebo arm. Immune-related grade 3 to 4 AEs occurred in 31% and 2% of patients, respectively. Conclusion Ipilimumab did not improve OS in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The observed increases in progression-free survival and prostate-specific antigen response rates suggest antitumor activity in a patient subset.

Abstract Background: Preclinical and clinical data indicate a key role for the PI3-kinase (PI3K) pathway in the pathogenesis of resistance to endocrine therapies in hormone receptor-positive (HR) breast cancer (BC) and suggest that combining PI3K inhibitors with endocrine therapy may partially overcome this resistance. FERGI is the first randomized Phase II study testing pictilisib (GDC-0941), a PI3K inhibitor, in combination with fulvestrant to evaluate this hypothesis in MBC patients with and without PIK3CA-mutant tumors. Methods: 168 post-menopausal pts with ER-positive, HER2-negative MBC were randomized (1:1) to receive fulvestrant with either pictilisib 340 mg QD (n=89, "combination" arm) or matching placebo (n=79, "control" arm). To be eligible, pts had to have relapsed during or within 6 mos of completing adjuvant AI treatment or have progressed on an AI for MBC. Pts were stratified based on tumor PIK3CA mutation status, resistance to prior AI therapy and presence of measurable disease. The primary endpoint was PFS by investigator assessment in the intent-to-treat (ITT) group and in pts with centrally confirmed PIK3CA-mutant tumors. The primary analysis was based on a 6 mo median duration follow up. Results: Baseline disease and prior treatment characteristics were similar between study arms. Observed treatment-emergent AEs were consistent with those previously described for single agent pictilisib and fulvestrant (primary toxicities were rash and GI disorders). In the ITT population (84 events) the median PFS (mPFS) was 6.2 mo in the combination arm vs 3.8 months for the control arm (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.50-1.19). For pts with PIK3CA-mutant tumors (37 events), mPFS was 6.2 mo in the combination arm vs 5.1 mo in the control arm (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.48-1.76). For pts without a detectable PIK3CA mutant tumor (43 events), mPFS was 5.8 months in the combination arm vs 3.6 months in the control arm (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.35-1.17). Exploratory post-hoc subgroup analysis suggested improvement in PFS in pts with ER+ and PR+ tumors (centrally confirmed) treated with pictilisib plus fulvestrant. In the ER+/PR+ subgroup (57 events) mPFS was 7.2 mo in the combination arm vs 3.7 mo in the control arm (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.78). This improvement was independent of tumor PIK3CA mutation status. Multivariate analysis suggests that this treatment effect in pts with ER+/PR+ tumors is maintained after adjusting for possible baseline imbalances. A similar analysis on pts with luminal A tumors (per PAM50 analysis) was also consistent with the findings in pts ER+/PR+ disease. Conclusions: This is the first report of a blinded, randomized clinical study evaluating a PI3K inhibitor in pts with MBC. In the ITT population, the addition of pictilisib to fulvestrant was associated with a mPFS improvement of 3.8 mo to 6.2 mo. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested in pts with ER+/PR+ tumors are more likely to derive benefit from the addition of pictilisib to fulvestrant irrespective of PIK3CA mutation status, though the subgroup analyses are limited by the sample size. Additional biomarker analyses will be reported. Citation Format: Ian Krop, Stephen Johnston, Ingrid A Mayer, Maura Dickler, Vinod Ganju, Andres Forero-Torres, Bohuslav Melichar, Serafin Morales, Richard de Boer, Steven Gendreau, Mika Derynck, Mark Lackner, Jill Spoerke, Ru-Fang Yeh, Gallia Levy, Vivian Ng, Carol O'Brien, Heidi Savage, Yuanyuan Xiao, Timothy Wilson, Soo Chin Lee, Katarina Petrakova, Susanne Vallentin, Denise Yardley, Matthew Ellis, Martine Piccart, Edith A Perez, Eric Winer, Peter Schmid. The FERGI phase II study of the PI3K inhibitor pictilisib (GDC-0941) plus fulvestrant vs fulvestrant plus placebo in patients with ER+, aromatase inhibitor (AI)-resistant advanced or metastatic breast cancer – Part I results [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr S2-02.

Abstract Background. nab-Paclitaxel in combination with gemcitabine has emerged as a new treatment option for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC), based on superiority over gemcitabine demonstrated in the phase III MPACT trial. Previously, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score and the presence of liver metastases were shown to be predictive of survival with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine treatment. This analysis sought to further explore the relationship between clinical characteristics and survival in the MPACT trial and to identify potential predictors of overall survival and progression-free survival in patients with MPC. Materials and Methods. Cox regression models adjusted for stratification factors and a stepwise multivariate analysis of prespecified baseline prognostic factors were performed. Results. Treatment effect was significantly associated with survival, with a similar magnitude of reduction in risk of death compared with the previously reported primary analysis. Treatment effect consistently favored nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine across the majority of the prespecified factors. In addition to KPS score and presence of liver metastases, age and number of metastatic sites were independent prognostic factors of overall and progression-free survival. Baseline carbohydrate antigen 19-9 was not found to be an independent prognostic factor of survival in this analysis. Conclusion. The results of this analysis confirm broad utility of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for the treatment of MPC. In addition, these findings suggest that KPS score, presence of liver metastases, age, and number of metastatic sites are important predictors of survival that may be useful when making treatment decisions and designing future clinical trials.