Citations

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.

208 Background: In the Phase 3 PRESTO study, intensified androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with apalutamide (APA) with or without abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP), administered for a finite treatment period of 52 weeks, prolonged prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival (PSA PFS) in pts with high-risk biochemically relapsed prostate cancer (BRPC). We evaluated baseline factors associated with PSA PFS in this study. Methods: PRESTO is a randomized phase 3, open-label trial in pts with BRPC following radical prostatectomy (RP) and PSA doubling time (PSADT) ≤ 9 months (mo), without distant metastases on conventional imaging (NCT03009981). Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to receive a finite 52-week treatment course with ADT, ADT + APA, or ADT + APA + AAP, stratified by PSADT (< 3 vs 3–9 mo), with post-treatment follow-up. Baseline factors associated with PSA PFS including Gleason sum at RP (6-7, 8, ≥ 9) were analyzed in a post hoc fashion. Results: 504 pts were randomized to ADT alone (N = 167), ADT + APA (N = 168) or ADT + APA + AAP (N = 169). Baseline patient characteristics including Gleason sum at diagnosis, serum PSA and PSADT at study entry, time interval from radical prostatectomy, and receipt of prior radiation (none, adjuvant, salvage) were well balanced across the three treatment arms. At the first planned interim analysis, both experimental arms significantly prolonged PSA PFS compared to the control arm (median 24.9 mo for ADT + APA vs 20.3 mo for ADT, HR = 0.52 (95% CI: 0.35–0.77); median 26.0 mo for ADT + APA + AAP vs 20.0 mo for ADT, HR = 0.48 (95% CI: 0.32–0.71)). Across the study cohort, Gleason sum ≥ 9 at diagnosis was associated with shorter PSA PFS (median 21.9 mo for Gleason ≥ 9 vs. 31.1 mo for Gleason 8 vs. 25.2 mo for Gleason 6-7, log-rank p-value = 0.0409). In addition, within each treatment arm, a shorter observed median PSA PFS was detected for patients with Gleason ≥ 9 prostate cancer. Serum PSA and PSADT at study entry, time from prior radical prostatectomy, and prior radiation were not associated with PSA PFS in the overall study cohort or in individual study arms. Conclusions: Gleason sum ≥ 9 prostate cancer at diagnosis was associated with shorter time to PSA progression following subsequent intensified ADT administered for a finite treatment interval in BRPC. Follow-up is ongoing to integrate genomic profiling of primary prostate cancer tissue with these results and validate with longer term endpoints including metastasis-free survival. Clinical trial information: NCT03009981 .

AbstractBackgroundPARP (poly(ADP‐ribose) polymerase) inhibitors (PARPi) are now standard of care in metastatic castrate‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with select mutations in DNA damage repair (DDR) pathways, but patients with ATM‐ and BRCA2 mutations may respond differently to PARPi. We hypothesized that differences may also exist in response to taxanes, which may inform treatment sequencing decisions.MethodsmCRPC patients (N = 158) with deleterious ATM or BRCA2 mutations who received taxanes, PARPi, or both were retrospectively identified from 11 US academic centers. Demographic, treatment, and survival data were collected. Kaplan−Meier analyses were performed and Cox hazard ratios (HR) were calculated for progression‐free survival (PFS) as well as overall survival (OS), from time of first taxane or PARPi therapy.ResultsFifty‐eight patients with ATM mutations and 100 with BRCA2 mutations were identified. Fourty‐four (76%) patients with ATM mutations received taxane only or taxane before PARPi, while 14 (24%) received PARPi only or PARPi before taxane. Patients with ATM mutations had longer PFS when taxane was given first versus PARPi given first (HR: 0.74 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37−1.50]; p = 0.40). Similarly, OS was longer in patients with ATM mutations who received taxane first (HR: 0.56 [CI: 0.20−1.54]; p = 0.26). Among patients with BRCA2 mutations, 51 (51%) received taxane first and 49 (49%) received PARPi first. In contrast, patients with BRCA2 mutations had longer PFS when PARPi was given first versus taxane given first (HR: 0.85 [CI: 0.54−1.35]; p = 0.49). Similarly, OS was longer in patients with BRCA2 mutations who received PARPi first (HR: 0.75 [CI: 0.41−1.37]; p = 0.35).ConclusionsOur retrospective data suggest differential response between ATM and BRCA2 mutated prostate cancers in terms of response to PARPi and to taxane chemotherapy. When considering the sequence of PARPi versus taxane chemotherapy for mCRPC with DDR mutations, ATM, and BRCA2 mutation status may be helpful in guiding choice of initial therapy.

There are no biomarkers predictive of resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel validated for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We assessed the association between ABCB1 amplification and primary resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel for patients with mCRPC, using circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA). Patients with ≥1 plasma sample drawn within 12 months before starting docetaxel (cohort A) or cabazitaxel (cohort B) for mCRPC were identified from the Dana–Farber Cancer Institute IRB approved database. Sparse whole genome sequencing was performed on the selected cfDNA samples and tumor fractions were estimated using the computational tool ichorCNA. We evaluated the association between ABCB1 amplification or other copy number alterations and primary resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel. Of the selected 176 patients, 45 samples in cohort A and 21 samples in cohort B had sufficient tumor content. No significant association was found between ABCB1 amplification and primary resistance to docetaxel (p = 0.58; odds ratio (OR) = 1.49) or cabazitaxel (p = 0.97; OR = 1.06). No significant association was found between exploratory biomarkers and primary resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel. In this study, ABCB1 amplification did not predict primary resistance to docetaxel or cabazitaxel for mCRPC. Future studies including ABCB1 amplification in a suite of putative biomarkers and a larger cohort may aid in drawing definitive conclusions.

PURPOSE Two poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (olaparib and rucaparib) are US Food and Drug Administration–approved for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) harboring BRCA1/ 2 mutations, but the relative efficacy of PARP inhibition in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC is understudied. METHODS We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis involving 12 sites. We collected genomic and clinical data from 123 patients with BRCA1/ 2-altered mCRPC who were treated with PARP inhibitors. The primary efficacy end point was the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥ 50% PSA decline) rate. Secondary end points were PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), clinical or radiographic PFS, and overall survival. We compared clinical outcomes, and other genomic characteristics, among BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. RESULTS A total of 123 patients (13 BRCA1 and 110 BRCA2) were included. PARP inhibitors used were olaparib (n = 116), rucaparib (n = 3), talazoparib (n = 2), and veliparib (n = 2). At diagnosis, 72% of patients had Gleason 8-10 disease. BRCA1 patients were more likely to have metastatic disease at presentation (69% v 37%; P = .04). Age, baseline PSA, metastatic distribution, and types of previous systemic therapies were similar between groups. There were equal proportions of germline mutations (51% v 46%; P = .78) in both groups. BRCA1 patients had more monoallelic (56% v 41%; P = .49) and concurrent TP53 (55% v 36%; P = .32) mutations. PSA 50 responses in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered patients were 23% versus 63%, respectively ( P = .01). BRCA2 patients achieved longer PSA-PFS (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.92 to 4.09; P = .08), PFS (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.99 to 4.40; P = .05), and overall survival (HR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.32 to 6.83; P = .008). Biallelic (compared with monoallelic) mutations, truncating (compared with missense) mutations, and absence of a concurrent TP53 mutation were associated with PARP inhibitor sensitivity. CONCLUSION PARP inhibitor efficacy is diminished in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. This is not due to an imbalance in germline mutations but might be related to more monoallelic mutations and/or concurrent TP53 alterations in the BRCA1 group.

5040 Background: PARPi have shown promise in mCRPC pts with mutations in DNA repair, but ATM- and BRCA2-altered pts may respond differently to PARPi. We hypothesized that differences may also exist for taxane therapy, aiding in treatment sequencing decisions. Methods: mCRPC pts (N = 137) with deleterious ATM or BRCA2 mutations who received taxanes, PARPi, or both were identified from 8 US academic centers. Demographic, treatment, and survival data were collected. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed for time-to-treatment-discontinuation (TTD), as well as overall survival (OS), from time of first taxane or PARPi therapy. Cox hazard ratio (HR) regression analyses were performed, adjusting for Gleason sum (≤7 vs. 8-10). For OS, receipt of subsequent therapies following first taxane or PARPi was also included as a covariate. Results: 50 ATM- and 87 BRCA2-mutated pts were identified. 40/50 (80%) of ATM-mutated pts received taxane only or taxane prior to PARPi, while 10/50 (20%) received PARPi only or PARPi prior to taxane. ATM-mutated pts showed a trend towards longer TTD when taxane was given first vs PARPi given first (P = 0.08, adjusted HR for taxane treatment 0.50 [95% CI: 0.24–1.08]). Considering all pts who received taxane first, ATM-mutated pts had longer TTD than BRCA2-mutated pts who received taxane first ( P= 0.04, adjusted HR for ATM 0.61 [CI: 0.37–0.99]). Among ATM-mutated pts, OS was longer in those receiving taxane first ( P= 0.06, adjusted HR for taxane treatment 0.33 [CI: 0.10–1.05]). Among BRCA2-mutated pts, 43/87 (49%) received taxane first and 44/87 (51%) received PARPi first. BRCA2-mutated pts had longer TTD when PARPi was given first vs taxane given first ( P< 0.0001, adjusted HR for PARPi treatment 0.32 [CI: 0.19–0.56]). Considering all pts who received PARPi first, BRCA2-mutated pts also had longer TTD than ATM-mutated pts who received PARPi first ( P= 0.0031, adjusted HR for BRCA2 0.29 [CI: 0.12–0.66]). There was no significant OS difference in BRCA2-mutated pts regarding which treatment was given first ( P= 0.63, adjusted HR for PARPi treatment 1.18 [CI: 0.59–2.35]). Conclusions: Our data in ATM- and BRCA2-mutated mCRPC pts suggests a trend towards improved clinical outcomes when taxanes are used prior to PARPi in ATM-mutated pts, while the reverse sequence appears to be better for BRCA2-mutated pts.[Table: see text]

PURPOSE Radical prostatectomy (RP) alone is often inadequate in curing men with clinically localized, high-risk prostate cancer (PC). We hypothesized that chemohormonal therapy (CHT) with androgen-deprivation therapy plus docetaxel before RP would improve biochemical progression–free survival (BPFS) over RP alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS Men with clinically localized, high-risk PC were assigned to RP alone or neoadjuvant CHT with androgen deprivation plus docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 body surface area every 3 weeks for 6 cycles) and RP. The primary end point was 3-year BPFS. Biochemical failure was defined as a serum prostate-specific antigen level > 0.2 ng/mL that increased on 2 consecutive occasions that were at least 3 months apart. Secondary end points included 5-year BPFS, overall BPFS, local recurrence, metastasis-free survival (MFS), PC-specific mortality, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS In total, 788 men were randomly assigned. Median follow-up time was 6.1 years. The overall rates of grade 3 and 4 adverse events during chemotherapy were 26% and 19%, respectively. No difference was seen in 3-year BPFS between neoadjuvant CHT plus RP and RP alone (0.89 v 0.84, respectively; 95% CI for the difference, −0.01 to 0.11; P = .11). Neoadjuvant CHT was associated with improved overall BPFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.99), improved MFS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.95), and improved OS (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.94) compared with RP alone. CONCLUSION The primary study end point, 3-year BPFS, was not met. Although some improvement was seen in secondary end points, any potential benefit must be weighed against toxicity. Our data do not support the routine use of neoadjuvant CHT and RP in patients with clinically localized, high-risk PC at this time.

PURPOSE Germline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services. METHODS A multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider). RESULTS Large germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing—initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing—was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM, for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM, and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches. CONCLUSION This multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.

174 Background: Docetaxel (D) and cabazitaxel (C) are standard chemotherapies for mCRPC. A reliable biomarker predictive of resistance to D or C is yet to be identified. We aimed to assess the association between genetic amplification of the multidrug resistance transporter ABCB1 (ABCB1 amp) and primary resistance (RES) to D or C for mCRPC, using cfDNA. Methods: A cohort (A) of 136 patients (pts) with at least 1 plasma sample drawn and stored within 1 year prior to starting D for mCRPC (2002-2014) and a cohort (B) of 42 pts with at least 1 plasma sample from within 1 year prior to starting C for mCRPC (2010-2016) were identified from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute IRB approved database. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) at 0.1x coverage, termed ultra-low pass WGS (ULP-WGS), was performed on cfDNA extracted from the selected samples (1000μL/subject) and sequencing data were analyzed using a tool called ichorCNA to identify cases with sufficient tumor DNA content (>7%) for accurate detection of copy number alterations (CNAs) including ABCB1 amp. Primary objective was the association between ABCB1 amp and RES to D or C. RES was defined as lack of response (no PSA50 decline or radiologic response per RECIST criteria 1.1, within 4 months from treatment start). Odds ratio (OR) was used to compare odds of RES to D or C for pts with ABCB1 amp and P-values were calculated by Fisher’s exact test. Results: Of the selected 178 pts, 66 had tumor fraction >7%: 45 pts in cohort A and 21 in cohort B. No significant association was noted between ABCB1 amp and RES to D (P=0.7123; OR=1.600) or C (P=1.000; OR=1.0606). RES was observed in 26 pts (57.8%) of cohort A and 18 (85.7%) of cohort B. ABCB1 amp was found in 9 pts (20%; 95% CI, 9.6-34.6) in group A and 6 of them (66%) had RES to D. ABCB1 amp rate among D-resistant men was 23.1% (95% CI, 9.0-43.7). In group B, 2 pts (9.5%; 95% CI, 1.2-30.4) had ABCB1 amp and both of them had RES to C. ABCB1 rate among C-resistant pts was 11.1% (95% CI, 1.4-34.7). Conclusions: In this study, ABCB1 amp using cfDNA did not show statistically significant correlation with RES to D or C for pts with mCRPC. Future studies including ABCB1 amp in a suite of putative biomarkers and larger sample size may aid drawing definitive conclusions.

5079 Background: Neoadjuvant CHT followed by RP did not increase 3-year biochemical progression free-survival (bPFS) compared to RP alone in men with CLHRPC. However, there is evidence that bPFS and overall survival over time was improved. In the current analysis we assessed whether CHT followed by RP improved pathological specimen features compared to RP alone. Methods: CALGB 90203 (Alliance) is a Phase III study which randomly assigned, in a 1:1 fashion, men with CLHRPC [biopsy Gleason Grade Group (GGG) 4 or 5 or Kattan pre-op nomogram bPFS < 60%] to RP alone or RP plus neoadjuvant CHT [androgen deprivation plus docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks for 6 cycles)]. We conducted an exploratory analysis comparing histologic findings, determined at the treating center, in the RP specimens of men receiving CHT plus RP and men treated with RP alone. We used the Chi-square test, with P-values adjusted by the Holm method for multiple comparisons. Results: A total of 788 men (median age, 62; range: 32-83 years) were randomized, with 738 ultimately undergoing RP. There was no difference in pathologic GGG (Table). Men treated with neoadjuvant CHT had a lower pathologic T-stage and lower likelihood of having seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), positive pelvic lymph nodes, or positive surgical margins (SM) (Table). Conclusions: Most pathologic features in the RP specimen were improved in men receiving neoadjuvant CHT compared to RP alone. The relationship between pathologic changes and the development of metastasis and survival require further analysis. RP pathologic outcomes. Summary statistics are calculated for the number of patients with non-missing data for each characteristic. Clinical trial information: NCT00430183. [Table: see text]