Citations

PURPOSE This randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine with those of gemcitabine for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01964430 ). METHODS We assigned 866 treatment-naive patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m 2 ) + gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m 2 ) or gemcitabine alone to one 30-40 infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of six 28-day cycles. The primary end point was independently assessed disease-free survival (DFS). Additional end points included investigator-assessed DFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Two hundred eighty-seven of 432 patients and 310 of 434 patients completed nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine and gemcitabine treatment, respectively. At primary data cutoff (December 31, 2018; median follow-up, 38.5 [interquartile range [IQR], 33.8-43 months), the median independently assessed DFS was 19.4 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 18.8 months (gemcitabine; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.729 to 1.063; P = .18). The median investigator-assessed DFS was 16.6 (IQR, 8.4-47.0) and 13.7 (IQR, 8.3-44.1) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.694 to 0.965; P = .02). The median OS (427 events; 68% mature) was 40.5 (IQR, 20.7 to not reached) and 36.2 (IQR, 17.7-53.3) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.996; P = .045). At a 16-month follow-up (cutoff, April 3, 2020; median follow-up, 51.4 months [IQR, 47.0-57.0]), the median OS (511 events; 81% mature) was 41.8 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 37.7 months (gemcitabine; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.687 to 0.973; P = .0232). At the 5-year follow-up (cutoff, April 9, 2021; median follow-up, 63.2 months [IQR, 60.1-68.7]), the median OS (555 events; 88% mature) was 41.8 versus 37.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.678 to 0.947; P = .0091). Eighty-six percent ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) and 68% (gemcitabine) of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events. Two patients per study arm died of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION The primary end point (independently assessed DFS) was not met despite favorable OS seen with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine.

PURPOSE To describe a newly established international registry recruiting diverse patients with advanced prostate cancer across academic and community practices to address unmet needs in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS Initiated in 2017, IRONMAN (International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer) is a prospective cohort of patients with advanced prostate cancer. The study will enroll 5,000 patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) or castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), recruited from Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Jamaica, Kenya, Nigeria, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The study is collecting datatypes to study variation in care and treatment of advanced prostate cancer across countries and across academic, community-based, and government practices with a focus on clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, epidemiologic data, biologic subtypes, and clinician questionnaires. RESULTS Through July 2022, 2,682 eligible patients were enrolled in 11 of 12 active countries. Sixty-six percent of patients have mHSPC, and 34% have CRPC. On the basis of self-report, 11% of patients are Black and 9% are Hispanic. Five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers are enrolling patients. Globally, 23% of patients report being veterans of military service. CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this is the first international cohort of people newly diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer designed to describe variations in patient management, experiences, and outcomes. IRONMAN aims to identify optimal treatment sequences to improve survival, understand patient-reported outcomes, and explore novel biomarkers to understand treatment resistance mechanisms. Insights from IRONMAN will inform and guide future clinical management of people with mHSPC and CRPC. This cohort study will provide real-world evidence to facilitate a better understanding of the survivorship of people with advanced prostate cancer.

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.

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.

Abstract Purpose: Genomic alterations in DNA damage repair (DDR) genes other than BRCA may confer synthetic lethality with PARP inhibition in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). To test this hypothesis, the phase II TRITON2 study of rucaparib included patients with mCRPC and deleterious non-BRCA DDR gene alterations. Patients and Methods: TRITON2 enrolled patients who had progressed on one or two lines of next-generation androgen receptor–directed therapy and one taxane-based chemotherapy for mCRPC. Key endpoints were investigator-assessed radiographic response per modified RECIST/PCWG3 and PSA response (≥50% decrease from baseline). Results: TRITON2 enrolled 78 patients with a non-BRCA DDR gene alteration [ATM (n = 49), CDK12 (n = 15), CHEK2 (n = 12), and other DDR genes (n = 14)]. Among patients evaluable for each endpoint, radiographic and PSA responses were observed in a limited number of patients with an alteration in ATM [2/19 (10.5%) and 2/49 (4.1%), respectively], CDK12 [0/10 (0%) and 1/15 (6.7%), respectively], or CHEK2 [1/9 (11.1%) and 2/12 (16.7%), respectively], including no radiographic or PSA responses in 11 patients with confirmed biallelic ATM loss or 11 patients with ATM germline mutations. Responses were observed in patients with alterations in the DDR genes PALB2, FANCA, BRIP1, and RAD51B. Conclusions: In this prospective, genomics-driven study of rucaparib in mCRPC, we found limited radiographic/PSA responses to PARP inhibition in men with alterations in ATM, CDK12, or CHEK2. However, patients with alterations in other DDR-associated genes (e.g., PALB2) may benefit from PARP inhibition. See related commentary by Sokolova et al., p. 2439

BACKGROUND Regorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor that inhibits angiogenesis, growth, and proliferation, prolongs survival as monotherapy in patients with refractory colorectal cancer. This international, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, multicenter trial assessed the efficacy of regorafenib with folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as a second‐line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who progressed on first‐line oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine enrolled at 45 sites in the United States and Ireland. Patients, stratified by prior bevacizumab use, were randomized 2:1 to regorafenib or placebo. The treatment consisted of FOLFIRI on days 1 and 2 and days 15 and 16 with 160 mg of regorafenib or placebo on days 4 to 10 and days 18 to 24 of every 28‐day cycle. Crossover was not allowed. The primary endpoint was progression‐free survival (PFS). Under the assumption of a 75% event rate, 180 patients were required for 135 events to achieve 90% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.65 with a 1‐sided α value of .1. RESULTS One hundred eighty‐one patients were randomized (120 to regorafenib‐FOLFIRI and 61 to placebo‐FOLFIRI) with a median age of 62 years. Among these, 117 (65%) received prior bevacizumab or aflibercept. PFS was longer with regorafenib‐FOLFIRI than placebo‐FOLFIRI (median, 6.1 vs 5.3 months; HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53‐1.01; log‐rank P = .056). The median overall survival was not longer (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.71‐1.44). The response rate was higher with regorafenib‐FOLFIRI (34%; 95% CI, 25%‐44%) than placebo‐FOLFIRI (21%; 95% CI, 11%‐33%; P = .07). Grade 3/4 adverse events with a >5% absolute increase from regorafenib included diarrhea, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, hypophosphatemia, and hypertension. CONCLUSIONS The addition of regorafenib to FOLFIRI as second‐line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer only modestly prolonged PFS over FOLFIRI alone. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society .