Citations

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination is recommended for all individuals with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including those on immunosuppressive therapies; however, little is known about vaccine safety and efficacy in these patients or the impact of vaccination on IBD disease course. Methods We evaluated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine–related adverse events (AEs) and the effect of vaccination on IBD disease course among participants in the PREVENT-COVID (Partnership to Report Effectiveness of Vaccination in populations Excluded from iNitial Trials of COVID) study, a prospective, observational cohort study. Localized and systemic reactions were assessed via questionnaire. Disease flare was defined by worsening IBD symptoms and change in IBD medications. Outcomes were stratified by vaccine type and IBD medication classes. Results A total of 3316 individuals with IBD received at least 1 COVID-19 vaccine. Injection site tenderness (68%) and fatigue (46% dose 1, 68% dose 2) were the most commonly reported localized and systemic AEs after vaccination. Severe localized and systemic vaccine-related AEs were rare. The mRNA-1273 vaccine was associated with significantly greater severe AEs at dose 2 (localized 4% vs 2%, systemic 15% vs 10%; P < .001 for both). Prior COVID-19 infection, female sex, and vaccine type were associated with severe systemic reactions to dose 1, while age <50 years, female sex, vaccine type, and antitumor necrosis factor and vedolizumab use were associated with severe systemic reactions to dose 2. Overall rates (2%) of IBD flare were low following vaccination. Conclusions Our findings provide reassurance that the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine is safe and well tolerated among individuals with IBD, which may help to combat vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine confidence.

349527 Background: Symptoms are common during cancer care but often go undetected. Digital systems that elicit patient-reported outcomes (PRO) surveys may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene, thereby alleviating suffering and averting complications. Methods: In a cluster-randomized trial, U.S.-based community oncology practices were randomized 1:1 to digital symptom monitoring with PRO surveys, or to usual care control. Patients receiving systemic treatment for metastatic cancer were eligible. At PRO practices, participants were invited to complete a weekly survey via web or automated telephone system for up to one year, including questions about nine common symptoms, performance status, and falls. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered electronic alerts to care team nurses, and reports showing longitudinal symptom data were available to oncologists at visits. Pre-specified secondary outcomes included impact on physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). The primary outcome of survival is not yet mature. Results: At 52 practices, 1,191 patients were eligible and enrolled (593 PRO; 598 control). Clinically meaningful benefits were experienced in physical function by 13.8% more patients with PRO versus control (P=0.009); symptom control by 16.1% (P=0.003); and HRQL by 13.4% (P=0.006). Mean changes from baseline were superior with PRO versus control for physical function (mean difference 2.47, 95% CI 0.41-4.53; P=0.02), symptom control (2.56, 0.95-4.17; P=0.002), and HRQL (2.43, 0.90-3.96; P=0.002). Patients completed 20,565/22,486 (91.5%) of expected weekly PRO surveys. Conclusions: Digital symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers clinical benefits. Clinical trial information: NCT03249090.

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.

Abstract Background: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men. Monitoring of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can enhance provider-patient communication, promote better decision-making, and improve survival. Geospatial factors, namely rurality and neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation, could influence the experience across cancer treatment, thus impacting PROs and survival. This study examined associations of rurality, neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation (Area Deprivation Index [ADI]) with cancer treatment-related PROs and survival in men with prostate cancer. Methods: Data from men with prostate cancer in the trial NRG Oncology/RTOG 0415 were analyzed. In this trial, 1092 men were randomized to receive conventional radiotherapy (RT) or hypofractionated RT. Patients had Gleason scores of 2-6 and prostate-specific antigen of <10 ng/mL. Rurality was categorized as urban vs rural using Rural-Urban Continuum Codes via patient zip codes. Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation was assessed by the ADI calculated via the American Community Survey by patient zip codes. The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) measures cancer-specific quality of life (QOL); Hopkins Symptom Checklist measures anxiety and depression; EuroQoL-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) VAS and Index scores assess general health. All PROs were measured at baseline before and 6, 12, 24 and 60 months after RT. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. Mixed effects models and generalized estimating equations were used to analyze PROs. Results: We analyzed 751 patients with complete data. Patients from the ADI 25% most deprived neighborhoods (vs. the other 75% of neighborhoods) were more likely to be non-white, unmarried and from rural areas. At baseline, patients from the most deprived areas had worse EPIC bowel score (P=0.011), worse sexual score (P=0.042) and worse hormonal score (P=0.015); patients from the most deprived areas had worse self-care (P=0.04) and more pain (P=0.047). Patients from rural areas had worse EPIC urinary score (P=0.03) and sexual score (P=0.003). Longitudinal analyses showed that ADI 25% most deprived areas (β=4.05, P=0.001) and rural areas (β=-5.70, P=0.003) were associated with worse EQ-5D VAS score. Compared to the 75% less deprived neighborhoods and urban, the ADI 25% most deprived neighborhoods and rural areas respectively had 47% (HR=1.466, P=0.033) and 93% (HR=1.925, P=0.026) relative increase in risk of recurrence or death (DFS). No differences were seen in OS. Conclusions: Patients with prostate cancer from the most deprived neighborhoods and rural areas had low QOL at baseline, poor general health and DFS. Interventions should target populations from socioeconomic deprived neighborhoods and rural areas to improve patient access to supportive care services and DFS. Citation Format: Jinbing Bai, Stephanie L. Pugh, Ronald Eldridge, Katherine Yeager, Qi Zhang, W Robert Lee, Amit B. Shah, Ian S. Dayes, David P. D'Souza, Jeff M. Michalski, Jason A. Efstathiou, John M. Longo, Thomas M. Pisansky, Jordan M. Maier, Sergio L. Faria, Anand B. Desai, Samantha A. Seaward, Howard M. Sandler, Mary E. Cooley, Deborah W. Bruner. Rurality and neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation associated with patient-reported outcomes andsurvivalin men with prostate cancer in NRG RTOG 0415 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 2528.

60 Background: Mapping algorithms informing economic evaluations are often derived using baseline data from clinical trials. It is unclear if these algorithms can predict health utilities accurately in post-intervention data. Thus, this study examines the longitudinal predictive ability of mapping algorithms derived from baseline trial data and explores the factors associated with prediction errors. Methods: This methodological study utilized data from an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial of patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PC), conducted by NRG Oncology (NCT00331773). In addition to patient demographic and clinical data, this study utilized PRO data collected at baseline and 6, 12 and 24 months post-intervention. The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire measures health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and has four domains (urinary, sexual, hormonal, and bowel) and two subdomains per domain (function and bother); EuroQOL-5D-3L (EQ5D) captures health utilities. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression models were used to map EPIC scores to EQ5D utilities in the baseline data through 5-fold cross-validation. Predictive performance was tested in the post-intervention data; predicted and reported utilities were compared using t-tests, and the absolute prediction error was modeled using fixed effects, as a function of baseline demographic and clinical covariates, as well as observed and predicted EQ5D utilities. Results: A total of 267 (199) patients had complete EQ5D and EPIC domain (or subdomain) data at baseline and all subsequent assessments. In the EPIC domain sample, mean ± standard deviation observed EQ5D utility was 0.90±0.13 at baseline, 0.92±0.11 at 6 months, 0.90±0.13 at 12 months and 0.89±0.14 at 24 months. Mean absolute differences (MDs) between reported and predicted were lower for models using EPIC subdomain data compared to EPIC domain data, and generally decreased as the time of assessment increased. The mapping functions over-predicted utilities for patients in perfect health while the prediction errors were increasingly negative for lower reported EQ5D scores. According to the fixed effects model for EPIC domain data, lower observed and predicted baseline EQ5D scores, and time of assessment were significant predictors of the absolute prediction error; for EPIC subdomain data, lower observed and predicted baseline EQ5D scores, hormonal bother and function, and bowel function significantly predicted the absolute prediction error. Conclusions: This study is the first to demonstrate the longitudinal validity of EPIC questionnaire, and builds upon existing research on longitudinal validity of mapping functions. The low MDs in prediction errors in post-intervention data indicate that the mapping functions are sensitive to treatment effect, thereby increasing confidence in their use in economic evaluations in PC.

Abstract Context. —Establishing adequate interobserver agreement is crucial not only for standardization of patient care but also to ensure validity of findings in multi-institutional trials. Objective. —To evaluate interobserver agreement in assessing chronic hepatitis C (HCV) and acute cellular rejection (ACR) among 17 hepatopathologists involved in the “Hepatitis C 3” trial. Design. —The trial is a randomized multicenter (17 institutions) study involving 312 patients undergoing transplantation for HCV. Patients are randomized to 3 treatment arms. For final data analysis, all biopsy specimens are reviewed by a central pathologist (G.J.N.). Recurrence of HCV is evaluated according to the Batts and Ludwig schema. The 1997 Banff schema is used to evaluate ACR. To assess interobserver agreement, hematoxylin-eosin–stained sections from 11 liver biopsy specimens (6 HCV and 5 ACR) were sent by the central pathologist to 16 local pathologists from 13 institutions. Statistical analysis was performed on raw ACR/HCV data as well as data grouped according to clinically significant primary endpoint cutoffs. Results. —Statistically significant agreement was found among all participating pathologists ( P < .001). On κ analysis, the degree of agreement was rated “moderate” for HCV grade and stage and ACR global grading (κ = 0.30, 0.33, and 0.37, respectively). Interobserver agreement was weaker for rejection activity index scoring of ACR (κ = 0.15). A stronger degree of agreement was found when scores were grouped based on endpoint cutoffs (κ = 0.76 “almost perfect” for HCV and 0.62 “substantial” for ACR). Conclusions. —An overall statistically significant interobserver agreement was found among 17 pathologists using the 1997 Banff schema and the Batts and Ludwig schema.

Background: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events is an item library designed for eliciting patient-reported adverse events in oncology. For each adverse event, up to three individual items are scored for frequency, severity, and interference with daily activities. To align the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events with other standardized tools for adverse event assessment including the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, an algorithm for mapping individual items for any given adverse event to a single composite numerical grade was developed and tested. Methods: A five-step process was used: (1) All 179 possible Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events score combinations were presented to 20 clinical investigators to subjectively map combinations to single numerical grades ranging from 0 to 3. (2) Combinations with <75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network cooperative group meeting to gain majority consensus via anonymous voting. (3) The resulting algorithm was refined via graphical and tabular approaches to assure directional consistency. (4) Validity, reliability, and sensitivity were assessed in a national study dataset. (5) Accuracy for delineating adverse events between study arms was measured in two Phase III clinical trials (NCT02066181 and NCT01522443). Results: In Step 1, 12/179 score combinations had <75% initial agreement. In Step 2, majority consensus was reached for all combinations. In Step 3, five grades were adjusted to assure directional consistency. In Steps 4 and 5, composite grades performed well and comparably to individual item scores on validity, reliability, sensitivity, and between-arm delineation. Conclusion: A composite grading algorithm has been developed and yields single numerical grades for adverse events assessed via the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and can be useful in analyses and reporting.

Background: Plasmablastic lymphoma (PBL) is a rare subtype of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma with a well-known association with HIV infection. The outcomes of PBL patients are typically described with high relapse rates and poor prognosis. (Loghavi S, J Hematol Oncol. 2015; Morscio J, Am J of Pathol. 2014; Castillo JJ, Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2011; Castillo JJ, Am J Hematol. 2008) There has been a paucity of data suggesting that limited stage disease (Ann Arbor stage I-II) may have a more favorable prognosis. However, due to the rarity of this disease there have been no large-scale reviews to confirm this. Thus, many patients with limited stage disease are subject to the aggressive therapy recommendations based on the poor outcomes of PBL patients as a whole. (Loghavi S, J Hematol Oncol. 2015; NCCN Guidelines, version 2.2020; Al-Malki MM, BBMT. 2014) We attempted to determine the treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with limited stage PBL. Methods: We conducted a multi-center (13 US academic centers) retrospective study of patients with limited stage (Ann Arbor stage I-II) Plasmablastic lymphoma. Determination of limited stage and diagnosis of PBL was determined by the investigators at each individual center. Patients diagnosed between 1/1/1990 and 6/1/2018 were included. Baseline demographic, clinical, laboratory, pathology, and outcomes data were extracted by retrospective chart review. Kaplan Meier was utilized for time to event analysis. Results: Baseline characteristics are included in table 1. A total of 80 patients were identified with limited stage disease. With a median follow up of 34 months the 3-yr Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was 71.9% and 78.7% respectively (Figure 1A and 1B). Patients that received frontline chemotherapy with (n=29) and without RT (n=36) had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 84.6% and 96.2% as compared to 64.5% and 70.8%, respectively (Figure 2A and 2B; Figure 3A and 3B). The Hazard ratio (HR) for PFS and OS for chemo (reference) vs chemo-RT was 0.47 (95% CI 0.18-1.3; P=0.131) and 0.18 (95% CI 0.04-0.84; p=0.029) respectively. The HR for PFS and OS for CHOP (n=14, reference) vs EPOCH (n=33) based regimens was 0.37 (95% CI 0.11-1.2; p=0.106) and 0.36 (95% CI 0.079-1.6; p=0.182) respectively. Patients with stage I/IE disease (n=56) had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 73.1% and 81.2% respectively. Patients with stage II/IIE disease (n=24) had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 69.3% and 73.4% respectively. Patients that received aggressive treatment (n=17) with Hyper-CVAD based regimens and/or Auto-SCT as consolidation had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 63.6% and 72.7% respectively. Patients with concomitant HIV (n=16) had a 3-yr PFS and OS of 80.8% and 77.4% respectively. Seven patients received RT alone and 6 patients had surgical resection alone as frontline therapy; 1 patient received no therapy; 1 patient received HAART therapy only and remains in CR without any other treatment for PBL 29 months after diagnosis. There were 8 deaths (10%) related to PBL, 3 deaths (4%) related to treatment of PBL (2 during frontline chemo and 1 upon relapse with salvage chemo), and 9 deaths (11%) related to other causes. The 3-yr lymphoma free survival (LFS) of the entire cohort, pts receiving chemo alone, and pts receiving chemo-RT (without including treatment related mortality (TRM) as an event) was 89.1%, 85.2%, and 100% respectively. The 3-yr LFS survival of the entire cohort, pts receiving chemo alone, and pts receiving chemo-RT (including TRM as an event) was 85.1%, 80.0%, and 96.2% respectively. Discussion: Here we report the largest review to our knowledge of limited stage PBL. Outcomes appear to be excellent with 3-yr PFS and OS of 71.9% and 78.7% respectively and a 3-yr LFS of 89.1% (85.1% when attributing TRM as an event). There was no obvious benefit to receiving aggressive therapy with H-CVAD based regimens and/or Auto-SCT. Although this is a small, uncontrolled sample size the HR for OS was improved in patients receiving frontline chemo-RT vs chemo alone 0.18 (95% CI 0.04-0.84; p=0.029). However, this did not take into account TRM with or progression while receiving frontline chemotherapy. Patients who were HIV+ had similar PFS and OS outcomes compared to the entire cohort. This retrospective study clearly demonstrates the favorable outcomes in this patient population, especially in those able to receive definitive therapy for their disease. Disclosures Hess: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS, AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Patel:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Research Funding; Nektar: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski:Nanostrings: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Ryvu: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other; Kymera: Consultancy; Denovo: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding. Chavez:Bayer: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Hill:Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Maddocks:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. Wagner-Johnston:ADC Therapeutics, Regeneron, CALIB-R, Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kahl:AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche Laboratories Inc: Consultancy. Alderuccio:ADC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forma Therapeutics: Other: Family member; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Other: Family member; Oncinfo: Honoraria; Inovio Pharmaceuticals: Other: Family member; Foundation Medicine: Other: Family member; Puma Biotechnology: Other: Family member; OncLive: Honoraria. Lossos:Janssen Biotech: Honoraria; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen Scientific: Consultancy, Other; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Other; Stanford University: Patents & Royalties; NCI: Research Funding. Portell:Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Landsburg:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Triphase: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Curis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Castillo:TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kymera: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding.

PURPOSE There is increasing interest in implementing digital systems for remote monitoring of patients’ symptoms during routine oncology practice. Information is limited about the clinical utility and user perceptions of these systems. METHODS PRO-TECT is a multicenter trial evaluating implementation of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) among adults with advanced and metastatic cancers receiving treatment at US community oncology practices (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03249090 ). Questions derived from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) are administered weekly by web or automated telephone system, with alerts to nurses for severe or worsening symptoms. To elicit user feedback, surveys were administered to participating patients and clinicians. RESULTS Among 496 patients across 26 practices, the majority found the system and questions easy to understand (95%), easy to use (93%), and relevant to their care (91%). Most patients reported that PRO information was used by their clinicians for care (70%), improved discussions with clinicians (73%), made them feel more in control of their own care (77%), and would recommend the system to other patients (89%). Scores for most patient feedback questions were significantly positively correlated with weekly PRO completion rates in both univariate and multivariable analyses. Among 57 nurses, most reported that PRO information was helpful for clinical documentation (79%), increased efficiency of patient discussions (84%), and was useful for patient care (75%). Among 39 oncologists, most found PRO information useful (91%), with 65% using PROs to guide patient discussions sometimes or often and 65% using PROs to make treatment decisions sometimes or often. CONCLUSION These findings support the clinical utility and value of implementing digital systems for monitoring PROs, including the PRO-CTCAE, in routine cancer care.

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.