Morris, David S.

PURPOSE To compare patient-reported and clinical outcomes between radical cystectomy (RC) and bladder-sparing therapy (BST) in patients with recurrent high-grade non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS This pragmatic, prospective observational cohort study was designed with patients, who selected and prioritized outcomes. Eligible adults were candidates for both RC or BST, had previous induction Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), and received their last treatment within 12 months. The primary outcome was the EORTC-QLQ-C30 physical function scale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included other EORTC-QLQ-C30 scales, depression, anxiety, bladder cancer–specific quality of life (QOL), financial burden, and cancer-specific outcomes. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) was used to calculate average treatment effect (ATE) estimates between arms. Inverse probability weighted risk ratios (wRR) were calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. RESULTS Of 570 participants (mean age 71.4 years; 21% female), 371 selected BST and 199 selected RC. Physical function was significantly worse in the RC arm at 3 months; by 9 months, there was no difference between arms, and at 12 months, physical function did not differ (ATE, 0.9; 95% CI, –0.6 to 2.4; P = .22). RC was associated with better emotional function, generic health-related QOL, and financial burden, and lower depression and anxiety, while BST was associated with better bowel and sexual health. Cancer-specific survival was 99% for BST versus 96% for RC (wRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.01). RC was associated with a higher risk of adverse events and serious adverse events, including a 90-day mortality rate of 2.5%. CONCLUSION Most patient-prioritized outcomes were similar or better among participants who chose RC compared with BST. These findings support the continued role of RC in managing recurrent high-grade NMIBC.

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.

TPS389 Background: Recent data have shown that up to 25% of patients with advanced prostate cancer, including mCRPC, have a deleterious germline or somatic mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, or another homologous recombination DNA repair gene. Such mutations can be used as a molecular marker to select patients for targeted treatment with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis), which are lethal to cells with HRD. Treatment with PARPis has shown preliminary evidence of antitumor activity in patients with mCRPC and a mutation in a homologous recombination DNA repair gene (Mateo et al. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1697-708). These data provide a compelling rationale for evaluating rucaparib, a potent inhibitor of PARP1, PARP2, and PARP3, in patients with mCRPC associated with HRD. Methods: TRITON3 (NCT02975934) is a randomized, phase 3 study evaluating rucaparib 600 mg BID vs physician’s choice of abiraterone, enzalutamide, or docetaxel in patients with mCRPC and a deleterious germline or somatic BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM mutation (identified by prior local testing or central testing during screening). Patients must have progressed on androgen receptor signaling–directed therapy in the mCRPC setting; prior PARPi treatment or chemotherapy for mCRPC are exclusion criteria. Patients will be randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to either rucaparib or physician’s choice, with the possibility for cross over from the comparator treatment to rucaparib upon radiographic progression confirmed by independent radiology review. The primary endpoint is radiographic progression-free survival (modified RECIST v1.1/PCWG3 criteria) assessed by independent radiology review. Secondary endpoints include objective response rate, duration of response, patient-reported outcomes, overall survival, and safety. Pretreatment blood samples collected from all patients will enable development of a noninvasive plasma-based companion diagnostic to select patients who may benefit from rucaparib treatment. Patients (≈400) will be enrolled at > 100 sites worldwide. Clinical trial information: NCT02975934.