Citations

Abstract Background The objective of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of early PSA decline following initiation of second-generation hormone therapy (2nd HT), namely abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide, in patients with taxane-refractory metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and evaluate utility of this metric in informing intensified surveillance/imaging protocols. Methods We retrospectively identified 75 mCRPC patients treated with 2nd HT following docetaxel failure (defined as PSA rise and radiographic progression). Patients were categorized patients into two cohorts based on the first PSA within 3 months after initiation of therapy: PSA reduction ≥ 50% (Group A) and PSA reduction < 50% (Group B). The primary endpoint was cancer-specific mortality (CSM). The secondary endpoint was radiographic disease progression (rDP) on 2nd HT. In univariate and multivariate analyses, we investigated factors associated with rPD and CSM. Results We included 75 patients (52 in Group A, 23 in Group B) in the analytic cohort. Baseline clinico-demographic characteristics, including median age, primary Gleason score risk group, median pre-treatment PSA, disease burden, site of metastases, and pre-treatment ECOG score were not statistically different between the two groups. Median follow up time was 30 months and the median time to radiographic disease progression was 28.1 and 12.5 months (p = 0.002) in cohorts A and B, respectively. On univariate and multivariate analyses, both PSA reduction ≥ 50% and volume of metastatic disease were significantly associated with a decreased risk of radiographic disease progression (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21–0.80, p = 0.0113) as well as a decreased risk of cancer-specific mortality (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09–0.87, p = 0.0325). Conclusion PSA reduction ≥ 50% within 3 months of starting 2nd HT was associated with significantly improved radiographic disease progression-free survival and 3-year cancer-specific mortality. This suggests using PSA 50%-decline metric in surveillance patients with on 2nd HT and identifies patients who require further evaluation with imaging.

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.

Background: Radiation necrosis (RN) is a clinically relevant complication of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for intracranial metastasis (ICM) treatments. Radiation necrosis development is variable following SRS. It remains unclear if risk factors for and clinical outcomes following RN may be different for melanoma patients. We reviewed patients with ICM from metastatic melanoma to understand the potential impact of RN in this patient population. Methods: Patients who received SRS for ICM from melanoma at Mayo Clinic Arizona between 2013 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Data collected included demographics, tumor characteristics, radiation parameters, prior surgical and systemic treatments, and patient outcomes. Radiation necrosis was diagnosed by clinical evaluation including brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and, in some cases, tissue evaluation. Results: Radiation necrosis was diagnosed in 7 (27%) of 26 patients at 1.6 to 38 months following initial SRS. Almost 92% of all patients received systemic therapy and 35% had surgical resection prior to SRS. Patients with RN trended toward having larger ICM and a prior history of surgical resection, although statistical significance was not reached. Among patients with resection, those who developed RN had a longer period between surgery and SRS start (mean 44 vs 33 days). Clinical improvement following treatment for RN was noted in 2 (29%) patients. Conclusions: Radiation necrosis is relatively common following SRS for treatment of ICM from metastatic melanoma and clinical outcomes are poor. Further studies aimed at mitigating RN development and identifying novel approaches for treatment are warranted.

TPS292 Background: PT-112 is a novel small I-O molecule currently in development for several cancers. Preclinical studies have shown the robust induction of immunogenic cell death by PT-112, leading to an anti-cancer adaptive immune response. Biodistribution experiments in mice showed PT-112’s partial bone affinity. In two prior phase I studies, late-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients (mCRPC pts) were treated with evidence of anti-cancer activity, including tumor volume reductions, improvements in PET and bone scans, PSA and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) reductions, and anecdotal cases of improvement in disease-related pain. This, taken together with the immunogenic and osteotropic properties observed in preclinical work, provided a strong rationale to further explore PT-112 in mCRPC, an immunologically “cold” disease with a high prevalence of bone metastases. Moreover, in an analysis of >6,000 mCRPC pts, circulating tumor cell (CTC) declines (CTC0 and CTC conversions) were correlated with improvements in survival to a greater extent than PSA declines (PSA50) (Heller et al., JCO, 36:6 2017), prompting incorporation of CTC changes as a secondary endpoint. Methods: The primary objective of the study is to define the dose regimen of PT-112 for pivotal study. Pts are randomized to one of three arms, receiving IV PT-112 on 28-day cycles via one hour infusions on (1) Days 1 and 15 at 250 mg/m2, (2) Days 1 and 15 at 360 mg/m2, or (3) Days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 at 360 mg/m2 followed by 250 mg/m2 on Day 15 of subsequent cycles. Key eligibility criteria include radiographically progressive disease at study entry; ≥3 life-prolonging therapies for metastatic disease including 1-2 taxanes, ≥1 new generation anti-androgen therapies, and other drugs FDA approved on the basis of survival; and allowing bone-only metastatic disease. Efficacy assessments comprise disease control rate at 4 months (DCR4) using RECIST and PCWG3 criteria, objective response rate, CTC0 and CTC conversion, PSA50 and ALP reductions. Additionally, T cell receptor sequencing is conducted to characterize treatment-induced changes in T cell fraction and clonal expansions, as a means of generating meaningful supportive data on the immune mechanism of PT-112 monotherapy. A Fleming two-stage design will be used to assess each arm, with a 20% DCR4 as the null hypotheses, requiring ≥6 of 25 pts responding in stage one and ≥14 of 45 in total to reject the null. In addition, other efficacy measures, such as CTC responses, as well as exposure/response and exposure/safety analyses will be applied to characterize the risk/benefit ratio and select the optimal dose regimen for PT-112. As of October 11th, 2022, 38 pts have been enrolled out of a planned maximum of 135. Clinical trial information: NCT02266745 .

695 Background: Recent results from COSMIC 313 trial and updated findings from other contemporary trials have added to the existing body of evidence for 1L mRCC. Therefore, we present the most up-to-date results from our living, interactive systematic review (LISR) to facilitate the choice of optimal therapy in 1L mRCC setting. Methods: This LISR and network meta-analysis is maintained using a novel living evidence synthesis (LIvE) framework. The framework facilitates the identification of new or updated studies using an automated ‘living’ search which is followed by screening and extraction in a semi-automated fashion within a machine learning assisted graphical user interface. Relevant data is parsed and analyzed to compute mixed treatment comparisons and certainty of evidence is adjudicated using a rule-based algorithm. Detailed methods have been published before (PMID: 33824031). Results: As of October 1st 2022, this LISR includes 16 clinical trials (30 references). Mixed treatment comparisons showed statistically significant PFS benefit with lenvatinib-pembrolizumab (LenPem; rank 1) when compared to cabozantinib-nivolumab (CabNivo; rank 3; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.69, 95% confidence interval: 0.52-0.93), CaboNivo-ipilimumab (CaboNivoIpi; rank 4; HR: 0.62; 0.43-0.89), avelumab-axitinib (AveAxi; rank 5; HR: 0.56; 0.43-0.75), PemAxi (rank 6; HR: 0.55; 0.42-0.72), atezolizumab-bevacizumab (AteBev; rank 7; HR: 0.46; 0.35-0.59), and NivoIpi (rank 8; HR: 0.45; 0.35-0.59). No significant differences were observed between CaboNivoIpi and other combination therapies for PFS improvement. Similarly, for OS, LenPem (rank 1), PemAxi (rank 2) and CaboNivo (rank 3) were ranked as potentially more efficacious treatment options than other counterparts. However, no statistically significant difference was observed for OS benefit with mixed treatment comparisons. The odds of achieving an ORR were higher with LenPem (rank 1; odds ratio [OR]: 2.44; 1.43-4.17), and CaboNivo (rank 2; OR: 1.77; 1.04-3.03) when compared to CaboNivoIpi (rank 6). NivoIpi (rank 1), LenPem (rank 2), CaboNivoIpi (rank 3) were ranked potentially as more efficacious treatments for achieving a CR. In terms of grade 3 or higher treatment related adverse events, NivoIpi (rank 3) was ranked as potentially the safest option among other combinations while CaboNivoIpi (rank 12), LenPem (rank 11), and CaboNivo (rank 10) were more likely to increase the risk of toxicity compared to most other treatments. Conclusions: Triplet combination of CaboNivoIpi may not provide additional survival benefit compared to other immunotherapy combinations and may increase toxicity. Patient-level considerations such as treatment toxicity, and quality of life should be factored in when opting intensified 1L therapies in mRCC patients.

694 Background: The treatment landscape of localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is rapidly evolving. Recent trials have demonstrated contrasting efficacy with adjuvant immunotherapy. Therefore, we sought to assess the mixed treatment comparisons among different adjuvant treatment options using updated data from trials and quantified the absolute effect with these treatments stratified by risk categories. Methods: This living network meta-analysis was conducted using the living interactive evidence (LIvE) synthesis framework. We used stratified baseline risks of disease progression from observational data and at 5, 10, 15 years from the Leibovich risk stratification system (based on risk scores ranging from 0 to ≥15). Corresponding intervention risks were then approximated using relative effect estimates (from NMA) and baseline risks. The difference between CIRs and baseline risks were calculated to present absolute risk differences in each risk category. Results: This NMA included eight RCTs with 8480 participants and seven unique treatment options. Pembrolizumab (pembro; rank 1) was associated with improved disease-free survival (DFS) when compared to atezolizumab (atezo; rank 6; hazard ratio: 0.68; 0.49;0.93), and nivolumab-ipilimumab (nivoipi; rank 5; 0.68; 0.48-0.97). However, no statistically significant difference was observed between pembro and atezo for overall survival (0.53; 0.28-1.01). Survival data for nivoIpi was not reported. No new statistically significant differences were observed since last update. The absolute benefit of atezo and nivoipi was minimal with higher T and N patients (Table). The results were similar with increasing Leibovich risk scores. Conclusions: Current evidence favors the use of a risk adapted approach when offering adjuvant immunotherapy. Adjuvant pembrolizumab remains a preferred treatment in patients with RCC who underwent nephrectomy. [Table: see text]

692 Background: Sarcomatoid mRCC exhibits poor prognosis and limited response to vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibition. Therefore, we assessed the efficacy of ICI combination therapy in this patient population using data from contemporary trials. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of ICI combinations with sunitinib monotherapy in patients with sarcomatoid mRCC. Patient important outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and complete response (CR). Precomputed hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for survival outcomes and binary outcome data for response rates (expressed as relative risk [RR] were meta-analyzed using a DerSimonian-Lairds random-effects method. Mixed treatment comparisons among different ICI combinations were made using a network-meta-analysis within the Bayesian framework. The surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) were computed to assess the relative treatment rankings. Results: Six RCTs with a total of 618 patients were considered eligible for inclusion. ICI combination therapy was significantly associated with improved OS (HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.43-0.72) and PFS (HR: 0.50; 0.40-0.62), increased ORR (RR: 2.42; 1.92-3.06), and CR (RR: 4.23; 2.00-8.93) when compared to sunitinib in patients with sarcomatoid mRCC (Table). The results were consistent with Hartung-Knapp adjustment. Mixed treatment comparisons using current data revealed no statistically significant differences among different ICI combinations. However, the combination of nivolumab-ipilimumab was consistently ranked higher (rank 2 for OS, ORR, and CR) and may potentially be more efficacious than other counterparts. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests improved survival, delayed disease progression and increased response rates with the use of ICI combination therapy in patients with sarcomatoid mRCC. [Table: see text]

531 Background: Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy (NAC) is established in the management of MIBC. Pathologic complete response (pCR, ypT0N0) and downstaging (<ypT2N0) are associated with long term survival in patients with MIBC. Several trials have evaluated neoadjuvant immunotherapy (NAI) and chemoimmunotherapy (NACI) for MIBC. We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of available trials to compare the incidence of pathological response with NAC, NAI and NACI in MIBC patients undergoing radical cystectomy. Methods: Phase II/III clinical trials assessing neoadjuvant systemic therapies (NAC, NAI, or NACI) in patients with MIBC undergoing radical cystectomy were identified through a systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE. Outcomes of interest included pCR and pathological downstaging. A DerSimonian and Laird random-effect meta-analysis was conducted to estimate pooled incidence of events using the Freeman-Tukey transformation. Clopper-Pearson method was used to estimate the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Of the 5357 records initially identified, 28 trials with a total of 2138 patients were considered eligible for inclusion. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was assessed in 15 trials (1535 patients), NAI in 5 (288 patients), and NACI in 8 (315 patients). The pooled incidence of patients experiencing a pCR was 30.91% (95% CI: 26.54%-35.45%) with NAC, 30.92% (23.22%-39.14%) with NAI, and 42.25% (36.6%-48.0%) with NACI. The difference in pCR among these therapies was statistically significant (p <0.05). Similarly, the pooled incidence of achieving pathological downstaging was 40.91% (34.26%-47.72%) with NAC, 38.84% (26.73%-51.64%) with NAI, and 62.88% (57.22%-68.39%) with NACI. Consistently, there was statistically significant effect modification by the choice of neoadjuvant systemic therapy (p <0.01). The results were consistent across different clinically important subgroups (Table). Conclusions: NACI may achieve better pCR and pathological downstaging than NAC and NAI alone in MIBC patients which may potentially be associated with long-term survival. Definitive data from phase III trials are pending. [Table: see text]

40 Background: Previously we have reported enrollment disparities in PCa clinical trials. Funding source can influence minority representation in clinical trials. Hence, we aimed to evaluate the impact of source of funding on enrollment disparities in PCa clinical trials. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify phase II/III PCa trials. All relevant trials reporting age by 65 years were considered eligible for inclusion. Trials recruiting from the United States (US) were considered eligible for analysis by race and ethnicity. The trial proportions of age, or racial/ethnic subgroup category and the global incidence in the corresponding age subgroup (from the global burden of disease database), or the US-population-based incidence in the corresponding racial/ethnic subgroup (from SEER 21 database) were used to compute enrollment incidence ratio (EIR) at each trial. EIRs with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were then meta-analyzed using a random-effects model and stratified by sources of funding (industry, US-government, and others [academic and non-US govt]). A univariate meta-regression was conducted to assess the temporal changes in EIR by each funding category. Results: Of 127 trials recruiting from the US, 89 (70%) reported race, and 35 (27%) reported ethnicity. Among those, 57 (64%), 14 (16%), and 18 (20%) trials reported industry, US-government, and other sources of funding, respectively. Of those reporting ethnicity, 23 (66%), 4 (11%), and 8 (23%) trials reported industry, US-government, and other sources of funding, respectively. Among the 287 eligible trials, 49 trials (17%) reported age by 65 years. Of those, 36 (73%), 6 (12%), and 7 (13%) reported industry, US-government, and other sources of funding, respectively. In terms of racial/ethnic enrollment, Black patients were significantly under-represented in industry funded trials (0.33; 0.27-0.41). No significant disparity was observed in US-government funded trials (0.75: 0.57-1.00). The P-value of interaction was <0.0001. Hispanics were significantly under-represented in industry funded clinical trials (0.56; 0.43-0.74). The number of US-government funded trials reporting Hispanics were small (<10) which precluded any meaningful statistics. No significant disparity was observed in terms of older adults (EIR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.95; 1.05) overall and by funding sources. Black patients’ representation in industry funded PCa trials has significantly decreased over the last three decades. No significant change was observed in US-government funded PCa trials over the last three decades (P:0.004). Conclusions: Black and Hispanic men with PCa are likely to be under-represented in industry sponsored clinical trials. Black patients’ representation in industry sponsored trials has declined over time, thus widening the cancer-care inequities in these patients.

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 .