Search

Study treatment disposition

Adverse events

Purpose:Preclinically, AKT kinase inhibition restores drug sensitivity in platinum-resistant tumors. Here the pan-AKT kinase inhibitor afuresertib was given in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin (PC) in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (PROC) and primary platinum-refractory ovarian cancer (PPROC).Patients and Methods:Part I was a combination 3+3 dose escalation study for recurrent ovarian cancer. Patients received daily continuous oral afuresertib at 50–150 mg/day with intravenous paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) and carboplatin (AUC5) every 3 weeks for six cycles followed by maintenance afuresertib at 125 mg/day until progression or toxicity. Part II was a single-arm evaluation of the clinical activity of this combination in recurrent PROC (Cohort A) or PPROC (Cohort B). Patients received oral afuresertib at the MTD defined in Part I in combination with PC for six cycles, followed by maintenance afuresertib. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability of afuresertib in combination with PC (Part I, dose escalation), and investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) as per RECIST version 1.1 (Part II).Results:Twenty-nine patients enrolled into Part I, and 30 into Part II. Three dose-limiting toxicities of grade 3 rash were observed, one at 125 mg and two at 150 mg afuresertib. The MTD of afuresertib in combination with PC was therefore identified as 125 mg/day. The most common (≥50%) drug-related adverse events observed in Part I of the study were nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, alopecia, fatigue, and neutropenia and, in Part II, were diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and alopecia. The Part II ORR in the intention to treat patients was 32% [95% confidence interval (CI), 15.9–52.4] by RECIST 1.1 and 52% (95% CI, 31.3–72.2) by GCIG CA125 criteria. Median progression-free survival was 7.1 months (95% CI, 6.3–9.0 months).Conclusions:Afuresertib plus PC demonstrated efficacy in recurrent PROC with the MTD of afuresertib defined as 125 mg/day.

Summary of exposure to afuresertib, paclitaxel and carboplatin

AIM There is scarcity of research for the nutritional management of pelvic radiotherapy in gynaecological malignancies and delivery of specialised nutrition care is limited due to the current knowledge gap in guidelines. This study aimed to better understand the nutritional risk, weight changes and pattern of nutrition impact symptoms occurring at various treatment timepoints in this population, to inform an effective model of care. METHODS This retrospective, observational study included women with gynaecological cancers receiving pelvic radiotherapy at a tertiary hospital from January 2017 to December 2018 (n = 104). Information was collected on: first day of radiotherapy; weekly during treatment; acute-phase post-treatment (0-6 weeks); and intermediate-phase post-treatment (6 weeks to 6 months). This study reported on incidence of clinically significant weight change (±5%), documented nutrition impact symptoms and the current nutrition care model (nutrition screening, referral, assessment and interventions). RESULTS Clinically significant weight loss was experienced by 38% (n = 40/104) of patients prior to commencing treatment and 19% (n = 14/73) during treatment. Diarrhoea (n = 40/79), fatigue (n = 54/79), nausea (n = 38/79) and pain (n = 31/79) were frequently reported during treatment, and fatigue (n = 33/92) and pain (n = 25/92) continued acutely post-treatment. Despite high rates of weight loss and prevalence of nutrition impact symptoms, only 38% (n = 40/104) of patients were referred to a dietitian. CONCLUSIONS A considerable proportion of patients with gynaecological cancers are at nutrition risk before and during treatment due to clinically significant weight loss and prevalence of nutrition impact symptoms experienced. This highlights the importance of nutrition-risk screening and access to specialised dietetic care as part of their model of care.

INTRODUCTION: Bone metastases occur frequently in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and may lead to skeletal-related events (SREs), including symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs). Bone-modifying agents (BMAs) delay SREs and SSEs. However, the real-world use of BMAs is debated given the absence of demonstrated survival advantage and potential adverse events (AEs). Our retrospective study examined BMA use and SSE rates in Australian patients with CRPC. METHODS: Patients with CRPC and bone metastases were identified from the electronic CRPC Australian Database. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns and AEs were analysed. Descriptive statistics reported baseline characteristics, SSE rates and BMA use. Comparisons between groups used t-tests and Chi-square analyses. Overall survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 532 eligible patients were identified with a median age of 73 years (range: 44-97 years). BMAs were prescribed in 232 men (46%), 183 of whom received denosumab. Patients receiving first-line docetaxel for CRPC were more likely to commence BMAs than those receiving abiraterone or enzalutamide (51% vs 31% vs 38%; p = 0.004). SSEs occurred in 148 men (28%), most commonly symptomatic lesions requiring intervention (75%). At the time of initial SSEs, only 28% were receiving BMAs. Patients treated at sites with lower BMA use (

Background Hormonal therapies are commonly prescribed to patients with metastatic granulosa cell tumours (GCT), based on high response rates in small retrospective studies. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are reported to have high response rates and an accepted treatment option. We report the results of a phase 2 trial of an AI in recurrent/metastatic GCTs. Methods 41 patients with recurrent ER/PR + ve GCT received anastrozole 1 mg daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 12 weeks, evaluated by RECIST1.1 criteria. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), CBR duration, quality of life and toxicity. Results The CBR at 12 weeks in 38 evaluable patients was 78.9%, which included one (2.6%; 95% CI: 0.5–13.5%) partial response and 76.3% stable disease. Two additional patients without measurable disease were stable, based on inhibin. Median PFS was 8.6 m (95% CI 5.5–13.5 m). There were delayed responses observed after 12 weeks with a total of 4 pts. (10.5%; 95% CI 4.2%–24.1%) with a RECIST partial response; 23 (59%) patients were progression-free at 6 months. The adverse effects were predominantly low grade. Conclusions This is the first prospective trial of hormonal therapy in GCTs. Although there was a high CBR, the objective response rate to anastrozole was much lower than the pooled response rates of >70% to AIs reported in most retrospective series and case reports. PARAGON demonstrates the importance of prospective trials in rare cancers and the need to reconsider the role of AIs as single agents in GCTs.

BackgroundPhysical symptoms, anxiety, depression, fear of recurrence, sexual dysfunction, and social withdrawal are common in women after treatment for ovarian cancer. Most patients would like and need help dealing with these symptoms. The traditional model of follow-up care is unstructured and largely focused on diagnosing recurrent disease, and most oncologists lack skills to identify and manage psychosocial issues. No high quality prospective clinical trials have been conducted to determine the optimal follow-up regimen or the cost effectiveness of ovarian cancer surveillance strategies.Primary Objective(s)To assess emotional wellbeing, acceptability, safety, and cost effectiveness of nurse led follow-up via telehealth for women with ovarian cancer following completion of primary treatment.Study HypothesisWe hypothesize that compared with routine clinic based follow-up, nurse led follow-up via telehealth, including serum CA125 monitoring and completion of a patient reported outcome instrument, the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment concerns-Surveillance (MOST-S26), will improve emotional wellbeing in women with ovarian cancer; be feasible, safe, acceptable, and not delay the time to diagnosis of recurrent disease; will result in greater patient satisfaction; will identify more patients with psychological distress, lead to better care, and improved psychological outcomes; and be cost-effective.Trial DesignPhase II multicenter randomized trial comparing 3 monthly nurse led telehealth consultations that include serum CA125 monitoring and completion of the MOST-S26, with routine clinic based follow-up. The allocation ratio will be 1:1.Major Inclusion/Exclusion CriteriaEligible patients will be women with high grade epithelial ovarian cancer who have normalized serum CA125 (to Primary Endpoint(s)Emotional wellbeing at 12 months.Sample Size150 patients.Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting ResultsJuly 2023. Results expected in 2025, 24 months after the last participant is enrolled.Trial RegistrationACTRN12620000332921

The efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus cabozantinib as compared with those of sunitinib in the treatment of previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are not known.In this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned adults with previously untreated clear-cell, advanced renal-cell carcinoma to receive either nivolumab (240 mg every 2 weeks) plus cabozantinib (40 mg once daily) or sunitinib (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response as determined by independent review, and safety. Health-related quality of life was an exploratory end point.Overall, 651 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus cabozantinib (323 patients) or sunitinib (328 patients). At a median follow-up of 18.1 months for overall survival, the median progression-free survival was 16.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.5 to 24.9) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 8.3 months (95% CI, 7.0 to 9.7) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.64; P0.001). The probability of overall survival at 12 months was 85.7% (95% CI, 81.3 to 89.1) with nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 75.6% (95% CI, 70.5 to 80.0) with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.60; 98.89% CI, 0.40 to 0.89; P = 0.001). An objective response occurred in 55.7% of the patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 27.1% of those receiving sunitinib (P0.001). Efficacy benefits with nivolumab plus cabozantinib were consistent across subgroups. Adverse events of any cause of grade 3 or higher occurred in 75.3% of the 320 patients receiving nivolumab plus cabozantinib and in 70.6% of the 320 patients receiving sunitinib. Overall, 19.7% of the patients in the combination group discontinued at least one of the trial drugs owing to adverse events, and 5.6% discontinued both. Patients reported better health-related quality of life with nivolumab plus cabozantinib than with sunitinib.Nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significant benefits over sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival, overall survival, and likelihood of response in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 9ER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03141177.).

Summary Background Lutetium-177 [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 is a radiolabelled small molecule that delivers β radiation to cells expressing prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), with activity and safety in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We aimed to compare [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 with cabazitaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Methods We did this multicentre, unblinded, randomised phase 2 trial at 11 centres in Australia. We recruited men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer for whom cabazitaxel was considered the next appropriate standard treatment. Participants were required to have adequate renal, haematological, and liver function, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2. Previous treatment with androgen receptor-directed therapy was allowed. Men underwent gallium-68 [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-flourine-18[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG) PET-CT scans. PET eligibility criteria for the trial were PSMA-positive disease, and no sites of metastatic disease with discordant FDG-positive and PSMA-negative findings. Men were randomly assigned (1:1) to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (6·0–8·5 GBq intravenously every 6 weeks for up to six cycles) or cabazitaxel (20 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks for up to ten cycles). The primary endpoint was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response defined by a reduction of at least 50% from baseline. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03392428. Findings Between Feb 6, 2018, and Sept 3, 2019, we screened 291 men, of whom 200 were eligible on PET imaging. Study treatment was received by 98 (99%) of 99 men randomly assigned to [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus 85 (84%) of 101 randomly assigned to cabazitaxel. PSA responses were more frequent among men in the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group than in the cabazitaxel group (65 vs 37 PSA responses; 66% vs 37% by intention to treat; difference 29% (95% CI 16–42; p Interpretation [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 compared with cabazitaxel in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer led to a higher PSA response and fewer grade 3 or 4 adverse events. [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 is a new effective class of therapy and a potential alternative to cabazitaxel. Funding Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Endocyte (a Novartis company), Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization, Movember, The Distinguished Gentleman's Ride, It's a Bloke Thing, and CAN4CANCER.

BACKGROUND: Little has been published regarding how doctors think and talk about prognosis and the potential benefits of adjuvant therapy. OBJECTIVE: We sought predictions of survival rates and survival times, for patients with and without adjuvant therapy, from the clinicians of patients participating in a randomised trial of adjuvant sorafenib after nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: A subset of medical oncologists and urologists in the SORCE trial completed questionnaires eliciting their predictions of survival rates and survival times, with and without adjuvant sorafenib, for each of their participating patients. To compare predictions elicited as survival times versus survival rates, we transformed survival times to survival rates. To compare predicted benefits elicited as absolute improvements in rates and times, we transformed them into hazard ratios (HR), a measure of relative benefit.We postulated that a plausible benefit in overall survival (OS) should be smaller than that hypothesized for disease–free survival (DFS) in the trials original sample size justification (i.e. HR for OS should be ≥ 0.75). RESULTS: Sixty–one medical oncologists and 17 urologists completed questionnaires on 216 patients between 2007 and 2013. Predictions of survival without adjuvant sorafenib were similar whether elicited as survival rates or survival times (median 5–year survival rate of 61% vs 60%, p = 0.6). Predicted benefits of sorafenib were larger when elicited as improvements in survival rates than survival times (median HR 0.76 vs 0.83, p < 0.0001). The proportion of HR for predicted OS with sorafenib that reflected a plausible benefit (smaller effect of sorafenib on OS than hypothesized on DFS, i.e. HR ≥ 0.75) was 51% for survival rates, and 65% for survival times. CONCLUSIONS: The predicted benefits of adjuvant sorafenib were larger when elicited as improvements in survival rates than as survival times, and were often larger than the sample size justification for the trial. These potential biases should be considered when thinking and talking about individual patients in clinical practice, and when designing clinical trials.

131 Background: The phase 3, randomized KEYLYNK-010 trial (NCT03834519) of pembro + ola vs next-generation hormonal agent (NHA) abi or enza did not significantly improve rPFS or OS in molecularly unselected pts with mCRPC treated with prior NHA and docetaxel. The study was stopped for futility after the second prespecified interim analysis. PROs for pembro + ola vs NHA in KEYLYNK-010 are presented. Methods: Pts were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive pembro 200 mg IV Q3W for ≤35 cycles (~2 y) + ola 300 mg orally BID or NHA (either abi 1000 mg orally QD + prednisone 5 mg orally BID, if pt previously received enza, or enza 160 mg orally QD if pt previously received abi). PROs were evaluated in pts who received ≥1 dose of study treatment and had ≥1 PRO assessment. FACT-P and BPI-SF were administered at baseline, Q3W until wk 24, Q6W until wk 72, and Q12W thereafter for ≤2 y. Time to pain progression (TTPP) based on BPI-SF was a prespecified secondary end point. Prespecified exploratory end points included least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline to wk 15 for FACT-P total and subscales scores (FACT-G total, TOI, FAPSI-6, FWB, PWB, and PCS) and BPI-SF scores (pain interference, pain severity, and worst pain), and time to deterioration (TTD) and overall improvement rate in FACT-P total and subscale scores. Differences were evaluated using 2-sided nominal P values not controlled for multiplicity. Results: A total of 793 pts were randomly assigned to pembro + ola (n = 529) or NHA (n = 264). As of January 18, 2022, median follow-up was 18.7 mo (range, 6.1-31.7). In all randomized pts, completion rate for FACT-P and BPI-SF at baseline and wk 15 was >84% and >57%, respectively. No differences were observed in the median TTPP for pembro + ola (13.5 mo [95% CI, 9.7-NR]) vs NHA (12.0 mo [95% CI, 10.1-NR]; HR, 0.95 [0.72-1.26]). No LSM differences were observed in FACT-P total scores (pembro + ola, –4.62 [95% CI, –6.47 to –2.77] vs NHA, –5.86 [95% CI, –8.58 to –3.13]) or BPI-SF scores (Table). There were no differences in TTD in FACT-P total, FACT-G total, TOI, FAPSI-6, FWB, PWB, and PCS scores between groups. A numerically higher proportion of pts had improved + stable FACT-P total scores for pembro + ola (44.0%) vs NHA (39.0%). FACT-P and BPI-SF scores were generally maintained across all evaluated time points up to wk 81. Conclusions: No clinically meaningful changes from baseline were observed in HRQoL or disease-related symptom scores with either pembro + ola or NHA. PRO scores were generally similar between pembro + ola and NHA at all analyzed time points, suggesting HRQoL was maintained in heavily pretreated pts receiving pembro + ola. Clinical trial information: NCT03834519 . [Table: see text]

BACKGROUND: Results from the phase 3 CLEAR study showed that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared with sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess the health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) outcomes from the CLEAR study. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, phase 3 study was done across 200 hospitals and cancer centres in 20 countries. Patients were required to be 18 years or older, with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, and a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher. Patients who had received previous systemic anticancer therapy for renal cell carcinoma were not eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to lenvatinib (oral 20 mg per day) plus pembrolizumab (intravenous 200 mg every 21 days), lenvatinib (oral 18 mg per day) plus everolimus (oral 5 mg per day) in 21-day cycles, or sunitinib (oral 50 mg per day, 4 weeks on followed by 2 weeks off). Patients were assigned to treatments with a computer-generated randomisation scheme and were stratified by geographical region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic groups. The primary endpoint, previously reported, was progression-free survival, and HRQOL was a secondary endpoint. Most HRQOL analyses were done in patients who underwent randomisation, received at least one dose of study treatment, and had any HRQOL data. Completion and compliance analyses were done in the full analysis set. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS), European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), and the EQ-5D-3 Level (EQ-5D-3L) preference questionnaire were administered at baseline and on day 1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811861, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Oct 13, 2016, and July 24, 2019, 355 patients were randomly assigned to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 357 to the sunitinib group. Median follow-up for HRQOL analyses was 12·9 months (IQR 5·6–22·3). Because of the promising efficacy and safety results of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the first-line setting, we focus the HRQOL results in this report on that combination versus sunitinib. Mean change from baseline in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with the sunitinib group was −1·75 (SE 0·59) versus −2·19 (0·66) for FKSI-DRS, −5·93 (0·86) versus −6·73 (0·94) for EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL), and −4·96 (0·85) versus −6·64 (0·94) for the EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS). Median time to first deterioration in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with the sunitinib group was 9·14 weeks (95% CI 6·43–12·14) versus 12·14 weeks (9·14–15·29; HR 1·13 [95% CI 0·94–1·35], log-rank p=0·20) for FKSI-DRS, 12·00 weeks (7·29–15·14) versus 9·14 weeks (6·29–12·14; 0·88 [0·74–1·05], log-rank p=0·17) for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL, and 9·43 weeks (6·43–12·29) versus 9·14 weeks (6·29–12·00; 0·83 [0·70–0·99], log-rank p=0·041) for the EQ-5D VAS. Median time to definitive deterioration in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with the sunitinib group was 134·14 weeks (95% CI 120·00–not estimable) versus 117·43 weeks (90·14–131·29; HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·53–0·92], log-rank p=0·0081) for FKSI-DRS, 114·29 weeks (102·14–153·29) versus 75·14 weeks (57·29–105·14; 0·60 [0·47–0·77], log-rank p

BackgroundCheckMate 9KD (NCT03338790) is a non-randomized, multicohort, phase 2 trial of nivolumab plus other anticancer treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We report results from cohorts A1 and A2 of CheckMate 9KD, specifically evaluating nivolumab plus rucaparib.MethodsCheckMate 9KD enrolled adult patients with histologically confirmed mCRPC, ongoing androgen deprivation therapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1. Cohort A1 included patients with postchemotherapy mCRPC (1–2 prior taxane-based regimens) and ≤2 prior novel hormonal therapies (eg, abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide); cohort A2 included patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC and prior novel hormonal therapy. Patients received nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks plus rucaparib 600 mg two times per day (nivolumab dosing ≤2 years). Coprimary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) per Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA50-RR; ≥50% PSA reduction) in all-treated patients and patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)-positive tumors, determined before enrollment. Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.ResultsOutcomes (95% CI) among all-treated, HRD-positive, and BRCA1/2-positive populations for cohort A1 were confirmed ORR: 10.3% (3.9–21.2) (n=58), 17.2% (5.8–35.8) (n=29), and 33.3% (7.5–70.1) (n=9); confirmed PSA50-RR: 11.9% (5.9–20.8) (n=84), 18.2% (8.2–32.7) (n=44), and 41.7% (15.2–72.3) (n=12); median rPFS: 4.9 (3.7–5.7) (n=88), 5.8 (3.7–8.4) (n=45), and 5.6 (2.8–15.7) (n=12) months; and median OS: 13.9 (10.4–15.8) (n=88), 15.4 (11.4–18.2) (n=45), and 15.2 (3.0–not estimable) (n=12) months. For cohort A2 they were confirmed ORR: 15.4% (5.9–30.5) (n=39), 25.0% (8.7–49.1) (n=20), and 33.3% (7.5–70.1) (n=9); confirmed PSA50-RR: 27.3% (17.0–39.6) (n=66), 41.9 (24.5–60.9) (n=31), and 84.6% (54.6–98.1) (n=13); median rPFS: 8.1 (5.6–10.9) (n=71), 10.9 (6.7–12.0) (n=34), and 10.9 (5.6–12.0) (n=15) months; and median OS: 20.2 (14.1–22.8) (n=71), 22.7 (14.1–not estimable) (n=34), and 20.2 (11.1–not estimable) (n=15) months. In cohorts A1 and A2, respectively, the most common any-grade and grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were nausea (40.9% and 40.8%) and anemia (20.5% and 14.1%). Discontinuation rates due to TRAEs were 27.3% and 23.9%, respectively.ConclusionsNivolumab plus rucaparib is active in patients with HRD-positive postchemotherapy or chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC, particularly those harboring BRCA1/2 mutations. Safety was as expected, with no new signals identified. Whether the addition of nivolumab incrementally improves outcomes versus rucaparib alone cannot be determined from this trial.Trial registration numberNCT03338790.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the recent real-world use of first-generation antiandrogens (FGAs) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) using a retrospective multicentre cohort study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The electronic CRPC Australian Database (ePAD) was interrogated to identify patients with mCRPC. Clinicopathological features, treatment and outcome data, stratified by FGA use, were retrieved and reported through descriptive statistics. Survival analyses were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and groups compared using log-rank tests. Factors influencing overall survival (OS) were analysed using Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS: We identified 634 patients with mCRPC, enrolled in ePAD between January 2016 and March 2019, including 322 (51%) who received FGAs. The median follow-up was 21.9 months. Patients treated with FGAs were more likely to have lower International Society of Urological Pathologists (ISUP) grade group (P = 0.04), longer median time to CRPC (25.6 vs 16.0 months, P

Background The efficacy and safety of rucaparib maintenance treatment in ARIEL3 were evaluated in subgroups based on best response to most recent platinum‐based chemotherapy and baseline disease. Methods Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive either oral rucaparib at a dosage of 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Investigator‐assessed PFS was assessed in prespecified, nested cohorts: BRCA‐mutated, homologous recombination deficient (HRD; BRCA mutated or wild‐type BRCA/high loss of heterozygosity), and the intent‐to‐treat (ITT) population. Results Median PFS for patients in the ITT population with a complete response to most recent platinum‐based chemotherapy was 11.1 months in the rucaparib arm (126 patients) versus 5.6 months in the placebo arm (64 patients) (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.23–0.48]), and in patients with a partial response (249 vs. 125), it was 9.0 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.38 [0.30–0.49]). In subgroups of the ITT population based on baseline disease, median PFS was 8.2 versus 5.3 months (HR, 0.40 [0.28–0.57]) in patients with measurable disease (141 rucaparib vs. 66 placebo), 10.4 versus 4.5 months (HR, 0.31 [0.20–0.48]) in those with nonmeasurable but evaluable disease (104 vs. 56), and 14.1 versus 7.3 months (HR, 0.35 [0.24–0.51]) in those with no residual disease (130 vs. 67). Across subgroups, significantly longer median PFS was observed with rucaparib versus placebo in the BRCA‐mutated and HRD cohorts. Objective responses were reported in patients with measurable disease and in patients with nonmeasurable but evaluable baseline disease. Safety was consistent across subgroups. Conclusion Rucaparib maintenance treatment provided clinically meaningful efficacy benefits across subgroups based on response to last platinum‐based chemotherapy or baseline disease., The efficacy and safety of the PARP inhibitor rucaparib as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer were similar regardless of whether patients had a complete or partial response to their last platinum‐based chemotherapy or according to whether they had measurable, nonmeasurable but evaluable, or no residual disease at baseline. Rucaparib also reduced the disease burden in patients who had measurable or nonmeasurable but evaluable disease at baseline.

4540 Background: There is emerging role of the use of PSMA PET in RCC. Herein, we report our experience in use of PSMA PET in recurrent or metastatic RCC in Brisbane, Australia. Methods: Patients (pts) who underwent PSMA PET and conventional diagnostic CT for metastatic or recurrent RCC between 2015 and 2020 at three institutions were identified. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted using standardized collection template. The outcomes included percentage of patients who had a change in management secondary to PSMA PET findings, comparison of metastasis detection for PSMA PET vs. CT, and biopsy histology of PSMA avid sites. Results: 42 PSMA PET were performed in 40 patients. 10 pts (25%) and 30 pts (75%) had PSMA PET in the metastatic disease and recurrent disease setting, respectively. Table 1 highlights demographics. Overall, 12 pts (30%, n=3 metastatic, n=9 recurrent) had a change in management following PSMA PET. In the metastatic disease group, 2 pts (20%) underwent initial systemic therapy (after histological confirmation) due to higher burden of disease shown with PSMA PET than CT, while systemic therapy was changed for 1 pt (10%). In the recurrent disease group, PSMA improved delineation of suspected recurrence (compared to CT) resulting in resection rather than surveillance (n=4; 13%) or change in surgical approach for resection (n=1; 3%). PSMA PET distribution showed more metastatic sites than CT leading to systemic therapy rather than resection of recurrence (n=2; 7%), while absent PSMA activity for suspected recurrence on CT led to surveillance rather than resection (n=2; 7%). PSMA PET detected more sites of metastases compared with conventional scan in 6 pts (60%) with metastatic disease and in 9 pts (30%) with recurrent disease. 26 pts had biopsy of PSMA avid sites. Majority of pts had confirmed recurrence of clear cell renal carcinoma (n= 22; 85%). Other histology included sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma (n=2; 8%), carcinoid (n=1; 4%), and urothelial cancer (n=1; 4%). In 2 instances, biopsy/resection was performed of a suspected recurrence on CT that was not PSMA avid, and neither showed malignancy. Conclusions: PSMA PET detected more accurately metastatic and recurrent disease, with high pathological concordance, to result in change in management for 30% of patients. Prospective study is warranted to further investigate the utility of PSMA PET scan in advanced RCC.[Table: see text]

5544 Background: In ARIEL3 (NCT01968213), rucaparib maintenance treatment led to significant improvement vs placebo for the primary endpoint of investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma responsive to the last line of platinum therapy (Coleman et al. Lancet. 2017;390:1949–61). The largest benefit was observed in pts with carcinomas with a BRCA mutation or high loss of heterozygosity (LOH), a marker of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). However, rucaparib also improved PFS in pts with carcinomas negative by HRD test (ie, BRCA wild-type with low LOH), a subset of pts for which there is no identified molecular mechanism conferring PARP inhibitor sensitivity. Among these pts (rucaparib, n = 107; placebo, n = 54), median PFS was 6.7 vs 5.4 months, respectively (HR, 0.58 [95% CI 0.40–0.85]; P= 0.0049), and 31.8% vs 4.3% were progression-free at 1 yr. In this post hoc exploratory analysis, we further evaluated the efficacy of rucaparib maintenance vs placebo in this subset of pts. Methods: Pts were randomized 2:1 to oral rucaparib (600 mg BID) or placebo. For this analysis, investigator-assessed PFS and safety were evaluated in pts with HRD-negative carcinoma, defined as BRCA wild-type with genomic LOH < 16% using Foundation Medicine’s T5 NGS assay. Results: Visit cutoff dates for efficacy and safety were Apr 15, 2017, and Dec 31, 2019. Across subgroups based on demographic or disease characteristics, the trend of rucaparib benefit vs placebo was consistently observed in pts with HRD-negative carcinoma (Table). The safety profile of rucaparib in the HRD-negative population was consistent with that of the overall safety population reported previously. Conclusions: Rucaparib maintenance reduced risk of progression in pts with ovarian carcinomas, including those not associated with HRD, regardless of clinical prognostic factors. [Table: see text]

Background The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the activity of intraperitoneal bevacizumab (IP-bev) in delaying re-accumulation of malignant ascites in women with chemotherapy-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (CR-EOC) who have ceased chemotherapy. Secondary outcomes were safety and quality of life. Methods Women with CR-EOC and malignant ascites that reaccumulated within 28 days of their last paracentesis (P-1) were administered IP-bev 5 mg/kg following their first therapeutic paracentesis on study (P0). Additional doses of IP-bev were allowed at each subsequent paracentesis (P1, P2, etc) provided the interval from the last dose was 42 days or greater (median time from first to second therapeutic ascitic drainage). Results 24 participants (median age 67 years [range 38–86]; median 4.5 lines prior systemic treatment [range 1–12]; ECOG performance status of 0 in 1, 1 in 8, and 2–3 in 15) were recruited. The doses of IP-bev administered were 1 in 13 participants, 2 in 5, 3 in 2, 4 in 1, and 5 in 1. The proportion with a TTP of >42 days using competing risk analysis was 77% (95% CI 58–92). Median time from P0 to P1 or death was 48 days (range 8–248). Median paracentesis-free interval (P0–P1 or death) was 4.29-fold (95% CI 2.4–5.8) higher following a first dose of IP-bev compared with the time between paracenteses prior to study entry (P-1–P0). Conclusion IP-bev was safe, active, and warrants further study as a palliative intervention for recurrent ascites in CR-EOC patients receiving best supportive care.

Introduction In ARIEL3 (NCT01968213), rucaparib maintenance for recurrent ovarian cancer (rOC) significantly improved investigator-assessed PFS and postprogression efficacy outcomes versus placebo regardless of biomarker status. PFS was also improved in patients with rOC associated with either BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations (HR, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.19–0.53] and 0.12 [0.06–0.26], respectively). This exploratory analysis further examined the subgroup of patients with rOC associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations to assess the durability of the clinical benefit of rucaparib maintenance following disease progression. Methods Patients were randomised 2:1 to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or placebo. Postprogression efficacy endpoints were assessed in patients with germline or somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Results Investigator-assessed postprogression efficacy endpoints for patients with either BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations are presented in the table 1. There was a trend for better outcomes across all endpoints in patients with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, with larger differences between the median values among patients with a BRCA2 mutation. The treatment-by-mutation group interaction test reached statistical significance for TFST and CFI. Among rucaparib-treated patients, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (any grade) in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 subgroups were nausea (81.0% and 78.0%) and asthenia/fatigue (74.7% and 80.0%). Conclusions/Implications All postprogression efficacy endpoints were longer with rucaparib maintenance than with placebo in both BRCA-mutant subgroups. Safety data for the two subgroups were similar and were consistent with the overall safety population.

BackgroundThe optimal treatment of recurrent ovarian clear cell carcinoma remains unknown. There is increasing rationale to support the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) axis in ovarian clear cell carcinoma.Primary objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of durvalumab (MEDI-4736) compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with recurrent ovarian clear cell carcinoma.Study hypothesisPatients with recurrent ovarian clear cell carcinoma treated with durvalumab will have improved progression-free survival compared with those treated with chemotherapy of physician’s choice.Trial designThe MOCCA study is a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase II trial in patients with recurrent ovarian clear cell carcinoma, which recruited from eight sites across Gynecologic Cancer Group Singapore (GCGS), Korean Gynecologic-Oncology Group (KGOG), and Australia New Zealand Gynecological Oncology Group (ANZGOG). Enrolled patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive durvalumab or physician’s choice of chemotherapy until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of patient consent.Major inclusion/exclusion criteriaEligible patients required histologically documented diagnosis of recurrent ovarian clear cell carcinoma, as evidenced by WT1 negativity. All patients must have been of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 2 or better, and have had previous treatment with, and progressed or recurred after prior platinum-based chemotherapy. No more than four prior lines of treatment were allowed and prior immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment was not permitted.Primary endpointsThe primary endpoint was the median progression-free survival following treatment with durvalumab, compared with physician’s choice of chemotherapy. Progression-free survival was defined as the time from the first day of treatment to the first observation of disease progression, or death due to any cause, or last follow-up.Sample sizeThe target sample size was 46 patients.Estimated dates for completing accrual and presenting resultsAccrual has been completed and results are expected to be presented by mid-2021.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT03405454.

Aim Optimal treatment for newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has evolved, with many patients deriving benefit from the addition of docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (D-ADT). This study sought to define the therapy used and associated activity following D-ADT. Methods Retrospective analysis of patients with mHSPC treated with one or more cycles of D-ADT who were identified from a prospectively maintained multisite prostate cancer database of patients treated in a community or academic center setting in Australia. The primary endpoint of this study was first-line time to treatment failure (1L TTF) for subsequent treatment of metastatic Castrate Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC), with secondary endpoints of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) reduction >50% and time from 1L to second-line (2L) treatment initiation. Results A total of 93 patients received D-ADT for mHSPC, 85 (91%) had subsequent treatment for mCRPC. Median time to mCRPC (biochemical, clinical or radiographic) had been 14.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.9-16.5). 1L treatment was enzalutamide 47 patients (55%), abiraterone 23 (27%), cabazitaxel 7 (8%), docetaxel 4 (5%) and other therapies 4 (5%). Median 1L TTF was 6.3 months (95% CI, 4.9-7.6), PSA > 50% reduction was achieved in 32 of 89 patients (36%), median time from 1L to second-line treatment was 7.3 months (1.3-27.4), which did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Conclusions Abiraterone, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel and docetaxel all demonstrate activity following progression on D-ADT. No difference in efficacy was detected between treatment options for mCRPC. Prospective trials investigating the optimal treatment sequence for prostate cancer following progression on D-ADT needed.

Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors have provided an effective standard of care for the treatment of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Survival is prolonged with emergence of modern immuno-oncology combination regimens. Prognostic risk assessment is essential for choosing between these therapies to determine the most appropriate first line treatment option, with selection based on International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium Risk Category. We review the current subsidized first line treatments for mRCC in Australia and consider the evidence for treatment selection and sequencing.

Introduction/Background In ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo in all patient populations, regardless of biomarker status (Coleman et al. Lancet. 2017;390:1949–61). This subgroup analysis examined the effect of the stratification factor PFI following penultimate platinum-based chemotherapy (also a prognostic factor in ovarian cancer) on primary and secondary endpoints of investigator-assessed and blinded independent central review (BICR)-assessed PFS in ARIEL3. Methodology Patients were randomised 2:1 to oral rucaparib (600 mg BID) or placebo. Analysis was based on the randomisation stratification factor of PFI following penultimate platinum-based regimen: 6–12 months or >12 months. PFS was assessed in 3 predefined cohorts: BRCA mutant; BRCA mutant + BRCA wild type/high loss of heterozygosity (LOH high); and intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received ≥1 dose of rucaparib. Results Visit cutoff dates for efficacy and safety were 15 April 2017 and 31 December 2017, respectively. For all predefined cohorts, investigator and BICR assessments showed a significant PFS improvement with rucaparib vs placebo in both PFI subgroups (figure 1). As expected, patients receiving placebo with a PFI 6–12 months had a shorter median PFS than those with a PFI >12 months. The treatment by PFI subgroup interaction was not significant, indicating that the treatment benefit was similar in both PFI subgroups. Safety data in the PFI subgroups were consistent with the overall study population, as previously reported. Conclusion In ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved PFS vs placebo in all cohorts, irrespective of PFI subgroup. The magnitude of treatment effect was similar for both PFI subgroups. Disclosure ARC: AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis AMO: Clovis, Amgen, Immunovaccine, Verastem, AstraZeneca, WebRx DL: Clovis, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, Merck, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Tesaro CA: Clovis, Mateon, Bayer, Cerulean, Tesaro, VentiRx AO: Clovis, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro AD: Precision Oncology Australia, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Specialised Therapeutics Australia NC: Clovis, Advaxis, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, MSD, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Tesaro JIW: AbbVie, AstraZeneca GS: Clovis, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro AL: Clovis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, GamaMabs, Merus, AstraZeneca RWH: Clovis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro MAG: Clovis, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche PCF: Clovis, AstraZeneca JCG: AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD, Astellas DMO’M: Clovis, AstraZeneca, Gynecologic Oncology Group, Janssen, Myriad, Tesaro, Amgen, ImmunoGen, AbbVie, Ambry, Health Analytics, Agenus, Ajinomoto, Array BioPharma, BMS, ERGOMED Clinical Research, Exelixis, Genentech, GSK, INC Research, inVentiv Health Clinical, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Novartis, PRA International, Regeneron, Serono, Stemcentrx, TRACON DKA: Morphotek, Clovis, Advaxis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Syndax, Tesaro SB: Clovis, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, GamaMabs, Merck Serono, PharmaMar, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro JG-D: AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genentech/Roche, Janssen EMS: nothing to disclose TC, LM, SG: Clovis RLC: Clovis, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Esperance, Janssen, Merck, Millennium, OncoMed, Roche/Genentech, Bayer, GamaMabs, Genmab, Gradalis, Pfizer, Tesaro JAL: Clovis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Artios Pharma, Cristal Therapeutics, MSD, Regeneron, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro.

Introduction/Background Maintenance therapy for recurrent ovarian cancer is intended to extend progression-free survival (PFS) without compromising patient quality of life; therefore, the clinical benefits of prolonged PFS should be evaluated in the context of toxicities that may compromise patients‘ wellbeing. In ARIEL3 (CO-338-014; NCT01968213), rucaparib significantly improved PFS vs placebo in all predefined patient cohorts regardless of biomarker status (Coleman et al. Lancet. 2017;390:1949-61) or age (Ledermann et al. Presented at SGO 2019; abst 4). This post hoc exploratory analysis examined quality-adjusted PFS (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) in patients from ARIEL3, including the subgroup of patients with a BRCA mutation and subgroups based on patient age. Methodology Patients were randomised 2:1 to oral rucaparib (600 mg BID) or placebo. QA-PFS and Q-TWiST were analysed in patients with a BRCA mutation (germline, somatic, or origin unknown), the ITT population (ie, all randomised patients), and subgroups of the ITT population defined by patient age at baseline ( Results The visit cutoff date for these analyses was 15 April 2017. QA-PFS, Q-TWiST considering grade ≥3 TEAEs, and Q-TWiST considering select grade ≥2 TEAEs were significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo in patients with a BRCA mutation and in the ITT population (table). Across all age subgroups, QA-PFS and Q-TWiST (both analyses) were significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo (table 1). Conclusion In the ITT population, BRCA-mutant subgroup, and age subgroups analysed, the quality-adjusted analyses, which incorporated patient-centred perspectives, confirmed the benefit of rucaparib vs placebo. Disclosure NC: Clovis, Advaxis, AstraZeneca, BIOCAD, MSD, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Tesaro AMO: Clovis, Amgen, Immunovaccine, Verastem, AstraZeneca, WebRx DL: Clovis, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, Merck, PharmaMar, Roche, Takeda, Tesaro CA: Clovis, Mateon, Bayer, Cerulean, Tesaro, VentiRx AO: Clovis, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, Genmab/Seattle Genetics, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro AD: Precision Oncology Australia, Shire, Specialised Therapeutics Australia JIW: AbbVie, AstraZeneca ARC: AstraZeneca, Roche, Clovis GS: Clovis, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro AL: Clovis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, GamaMabs, Merus, AstraZeneca RWH: Clovis, AstraZeneca, Tesaro MAG: Clovis, AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche PCF: Clovis, AstraZeneca JCG: AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD, Astellas DMO’M: Clovis, AstraZeneca, Gynecologic Oncology Group, Janssen, Myriad, Tesaro, Amgen, ImmunoGen, AbbVie, Ambry, Health Analytics, Agenus, Ajinomoto, Array, BMS, ERGOMED Clinical Research, Exelixis, Genentech, GSK, INC Research, inVentiv Health Clinical, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Novartis, PRA International, Regeneron, Serono, Stemcentrx, TRACON DKA: Morphotek, Clovis, Advaxis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Syndax, Tesaro SB: Clovis, AstraZeneca, ImmunoGen, GamaMabs, Merck Serono, PharmaMar, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro JG-D: AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genentech/Roche, Janssen EMS: nothing to disclose JM: Modus Outcomes TC, LM, SG, JB: Clovis RLC: Clovis, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Esperance, Janssen, Merck, Millennium, OncoMed, Roche/Genentech, Bayer, GamaMabs, Genmab, Gradalis, Millennium, Pfizer, Tesaro JAL: Clovis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Artios Pharma, Cristal Therapeutics, Merck/MSD, Regeneron, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro.

Objectives In ARIEL3, rucaparib maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo. A prespecified exploratory analysis investigated postprogression outcomes. Additionally, a post hoc exploratory analysis investigated patient-centered outcomes during rucaparib maintenance treatment. Methods Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive oral rucaparib (600 mg BID) or placebo. Postprogression endpoints included time to start of first subsequent therapy (TFST), time to second investigator-assessed PFS or death (PFS2), and time to start of second subsequent therapy (TSST); overall survival data are not yet mature. Patient-centered outcomes included quality-adjusted investigator-assessed PFS (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted progression-free time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST). Analyses are presented for the predefined BRCA-mutant cohort and the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Results The visit cutoff dates for efficacy and safety were April 15, 2017, and December 31, 2017, respectively. Postprogression and patient-centered outcome data are given in the table 1. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any grade (rucaparib vs placebo) were nausea (75.8% vs 36.5%), asthenia/fatigue (70.7% vs 44.4%), dysgeusia (39.8% vs 6.9%), and anemia/decreased hemoglobin (39.0% vs 5.3%). Any grade TEAEs of nausea, asthenia/fatigue, and anemia/decreased hemoglobin led to discontinuation in only 2.7%, 1.6%, and 2.7% of rucaparib-treated patients. Conclusions Rucaparib significantly improved clinically meaningful postprogression outcomes vs placebo in the BRCA-mutant cohort and ITT population. The quality-adjusted analyses, which incorporated patient-centered perspectives during rucaparib maintenance treatment, confirmed the benefit of rucaparib vs placebo. The updated safety profile of rucaparib in ARIEL3 was consistent with prior reports.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment options are limited for patients with recurrent/metastatic low-grade ovarian cancers (LGOCs) and serous borderline ovarian tumors (SBOTs) as response rates to chemotherapy are low. A subset of patients appears to derive clinical benefit from antiestrogens, but most studies have been retrospective and clinical benefit rates (CBR) remain uncertain. The primary aim of PARAGON was to prospectively investigate the CBR of anastrozole, an aromatase inhibitor, in patients with estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PR) positive LGOC and SBOT. METHODS: Post-menopausal women with ER-positive and/or PR-positive recurrent/metastatic LGOCs and SBOTs and evaluable disease by RECIST v1.1 or GCIG CA125 criteria were treated with anastrozole 1 mg daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were enrolled. Clinical benefit at 3 months (primary endpoint) was observed in 23 patients (64%, 95% CI 48%-78%) and was similar at 6 months (61%, 95% CI 43%-75%). The median duration of clinical benefit was 9.5 months (95% CI 8.3-25.8). Best study response was partial response by RECIST in 5 patients (14%), stable disease in 18 patients (50%) with progressive disease in 13 patients (36%). Median PFS was 11.1 months (95% CI 3.2-11.9). Anastrozole was well-tolerated. Patients with evidence of clinical benefit at 3 months reported less pain, fatigue, and improved physical and role functioning as early as 1 month of commencing treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Anastrozole was associated with a CBR of 61% of patients with recurrent ER-positive and/or PR-positive LGOC or SBOT for at least 6 months with acceptable toxicity. ispartof: GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY vol:154 issue:3 pages:531-538 ispartof: location:United States status: published

4565 Background: Immunotherapy targeting PD1 is active across many cancers, but many people are failed by PD1 inhibition alone. UNISON (ANZUP 1602/NCT03177239) has previously reported the activity and outcomes of nivolumab monotherapy in people with nccRCC (OTRR 17%, PFS6 45%; part 1), and here we report the outcomes of combining ipilimumab (I) and nivolumab (N), in people whose cancers are refractory to N alone (part 2). Methods: Participants (pts) with advanced nccRCC with good performance status (ECOG 0/1), were initially enrolled and took N alone. 41 pts refractory to N were offered the combination I (1mg/kg) + N (3mg/kg) every 3 weeks for up to 4 doses. Pts with disease control after N, or N + I could continue N for up to 1 year. UNISON was powered to distinguish a clinically relevant improvement in objective tumour response rate (OTRR) from 15% to 30% in people taking I+N in part 2. Results: 85 pts were enrolled and received N. 41 pts were refractory to N, were well enough to take I+N, and had a representative spectrum of nccRCC histologies (n=41; papillary 44%, chromophobe 20%, Xp11 translocation 12%, RCC unclassified 7%, other 17%). The median time on treatment was 2.1 months, the median number of doses was 3; median follow up at the time of reporting was 20.3 months. The OTRR of I+N in pts refractory to N was 10% with 1 complete and 3 partial responses. Stable disease was experienced by 36% of pts and disease progression by 52%. The disease control rate at 6 months was 45% (95% CI: 34%, 56%). The median PFS was 2.6 months (95% CI: 2.2, 3.8). The 6 month progression-free survival (PFS) was 25% (95% CI: 13-39). Only 14% of patients were free of progression at 12 months. The safety of I+N appeared similar to previous reports. 68% of pts experienced serious adverse events, 34% treatment related SAE. One pt died from refractory pneumonitis. 11 pts (27%) experienced treatment delays or permanent treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: The primary endpoint of the study was not met. A minority of pts with nccRCC refractory to nivolumab derive benefit from combination I+N but many pts remain refractory to immunotherapy. No new safety issues were identified. More effective therapeutic options are needed for people with rare variant renal cell carcinoma. Clinical trial information: NCT03177239.

4502 Background: LEN + PEMBRO improved PFS, OS and ORR vs SUN in the first-line treatment of pts with aRCC; LEN + EVE improved PFS and ORR vs SUN (Motzer R et al. NEJM. 2021). We report results of a secondary objective of the CLEAR trial comparing the impact of LEN + PEMBRO or EVE vs SUN, on HRQoL. Methods: Pts (N=1069) were randomized (1:1:1) to receive LEN 20 mg PO QD + PEMBRO 200 mg IV Q3W; LEN 18 mg + EVE 5 mg PO QD; or SUN 50 mg PO QD (4 wks on/2 wks off). HRQoL was assessed per FKSI-DRS, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EuroQoL EQ-5D-3L, at baseline, on day 1 of subsequent 3 wk cycles starting with cycle 2, and at the off-treatment visit. HRQoL analyses (unless otherwise noted) were based on data from randomized pts with any HRQoL data who received ≥1 dose of study treatment. No adjustments for multiple testing or estimation were used; P-values and CIs are nominal and descriptive. Results: For comparisons of LEN + PEMBRO vs SUN, overall changes from baseline at mean follow-up (wk 46) favored LEN + PEMBRO with significant differences between treatments for physical functioning (least squares mean difference [LS MD] [95% CI]: 3.0 [0.5, 5.5]) and fatigue (−2.8 [−5.5, −0.1]), dyspnea (−2.8 [−5.3, −0.3]), and constipation (−2.2 [−4.2, −0.2]). LS MD of the FKSI-DRS total score was 0.2 (−0.4, 0.7). For comparisons of LEN + EVE vs SUN, overall changes from baseline at wk 46 favored SUN with significant differences in overall HRQoL (−2.8 [−5.1, −0.5] assessed by the EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scale) and pain (2.8 [0.1, 5.5]), appetite loss (4.2 [1.3, 7.1]), and diarrhea (5.3 [2.6, 7.9]). LS MD of the FKSI-DRS total score was −0.4 (−1.0, 0.2). 14 of 18 scales for both LEN + PEMBRO and LEN + EVE vs SUN had no significant differences in LS MD comparisons. The LEN + PEMBRO arm is favored over SUN for the median time to first deterioration (TTD) for physical functioning, dyspnea, appetite loss and EQ-5D VAS (Table). 15 of 19 scales for both LEN + PEMBRO and LEN + EVE vs SUN had no significant differences in TTD comparisons. Conclusions: Compared with SUN, pts in LEN + PEMBRO group had similar or better symptoms and HRQoL. Clinical trial information: NCT02811861. [Table: see text]

5537 Background: ARIEL3 is a placebo-controlled randomized trial of the PARP inhibitor (PARPi) rucaparib as maintenance treatment in HGOC patients (pts) who responded to the latest line of platinum therapy (NCT01968213). Rucaparib improved progression-free survival (PFS) across all predefined subgroups. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of clinical and molecular characteristics associated with exceptional benefit from rucaparib. Methods: Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive rucaparib 600 mg BID or placebo. At the data cutoff of Dec 31, 2019, 33/375 (9%) and 1/189 (0.5%) pts were still ongoing and receiving rucaparib or placebo, respectively. Molecular features (genomic alterations, BRCA1 promoter methylation) and baseline clinical characteristics were compared between pts who derived exceptional benefit (PFS ≥2 yrs), and those with disease progression on first scan (≈12 wks; the short-term [ST] subgroup) within each treatment arm. Results: Of 564 pts, 83 (15%) showed exceptional benefit: 79/375 (21%) in the rucaparib arm and 4/189 (2%) in the placebo arm. Within the rucaparib arm, exceptional benefit pts had more favorable clinical prognostic factors at baseline compared with the ST subgroup (Table). While BRCA mutations were enriched in the rucaparib exceptional benefit subgroup, 34/79 (43%) of these pts were BRCA wild type. Among other biomarkers, RAD51C/D mutations were associated with exceptional benefit; low genome-wide loss of heterozygosity was enriched within the ST subgroup; and high BRCA1 methylation was present at similar fractions. Trends were similar in the placebo arm (Table). Conclusions: Exceptional benefit in ARIEL3 was more common in, but not exclusive to, pts with favorable clinical characteristics and known mechanisms of PARPi sensitivity. Our results suggest that rucaparib can deliver exceptional benefit to a diverse set of HGOC pts. Clinical trial information: NCT01968213. [Table: see text]

5044 Background: CheckMate 9KD is a phase 2 trial of NIVO (anti-PD-1) combined with either rucaparib, docetaxel, or enzalutamide for mCRPC. PARP inhibitors, like rucaparib, increase cellular DNA damage, particularly in tumors with DNA repair defects, leading to genomic instability and cell death. This DNA damage promotes immune priming and adaptive PD-L1 upregulation. Consequently, dual PD-(L)1 and PARP inhibition is a plausible therapeutic strategy for mCRPC. We report final results for cohort A1 (NIVO + rucaparib for post-CT mCRPC) of CheckMate 9KD. Methods: Cohort A1 enrolled patients (pts) with post-CT mCRPC (1–2 prior taxane regimens), ongoing ADT, ≤ 2 prior novel hormonal therapies (abiraterone, enzalutamide, etc) for mCRPC, and no prior PARP inhibitor treatment. Pts received NIVO 480 mg Q4W + rucaparib 600 mg BID until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity (NIVO dosing limited to 2 yrs). Coprimary endpoints: objective response rate (ORR) per PCWG3 criteria and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA-RR; ≥ 50% PSA reduction) in all treated pts and pts with homologous recombination deficiency positive (HRD+) tumors, determined before enrollment. Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: Of 88 treated pts, median age 66 yrs (range, 46–85), 34.1% had visceral metastases and 65.9% had measurable disease. Median follow-up was 11.9 mo. Pts had a median of 4.5 NIVO doses and 3.8 mo of rucaparib. The table summarizes primary and key secondary efficacy results, and shows better outcomes for HRD+ vs HRD–/not evaluable (NE) tumors. In pts with BRCA2 mutations, confirmed ORR was 37.5% (3/8 pts) and confirmed PSA-RR was 45.5% (5/11 pts). Any-grade treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred in 93.2% of pts, most commonly nausea (40.9%) and fatigue (33.0%). Grade ≥ 3 TRAEs occurred in 54.5% of pts, most commonly anemia (20.5%) and neutropenia (10.2%). TRAEs led to discontinuation in 27.3% of pts. One pt had a stroke, considered related to rucaparib by the investigator, after 28 days on rucaparib and 2 NIVO doses and died 2 months later due to post-thrombolysis hematoma. Conclusions: NIVO + rucaparib is active in pts with HRD+ post-CT mCRPC, although the trial design and short follow-up limit assessment of benefits of the combination vs individual components. Pts with HRD– tumors did not appear to benefit from either drug. No new safety signals were observed with NIVO + rucaparib. Additional biomarker analyses are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03338790. [Table: see text]

TPS367 Background: Inhibitors of the programmed death-1 pathway (PD-1) are effective in clear cell renal cell cancer (ccRCC). Preclinical data and case reports suggest that denosumab, an inhibitor of Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor κ-B Ligand (RANKL) signaling, could potentiate the anti-tumour effects of anti-PD1 inhibitors without overlapping toxicities. We aim to determine the activity and safety of combining denosumab and pembrolizumab in advanced ccRCC. Methods: This single arm, multi-center, phase II trial will recruit 70 participants with metastatic or unresectable ccRCC, progressing during or after treatment with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and with no prior treatment with immunotherapy or denosumab. Participants will receive pembrolizumab 200mg IV every 3 weeks plus denosumab 120mg SC on days 1, 8 and 22 and then every 3 weeks until disease progression, prohibitive toxicity or maximum treatment of 24 months. Response will be assessed at weeks 12, 18, 24, then every 12 weeks until disease progression. Bloods for translational studies are collected at baseline, week 6 and on disease progression. The primary endpoint is objective tumour response rate (OTRR) per RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints include OTRR per iRECIST, progression free survival (PFS), time to OTRR, time to first skeletal related event, adverse events, and frequency of treatment delays/discontinuations. Correlative studies will include identification of prognostic and/or predictive biomarkers relating to immune and RANKL signaling. A sample size of 70 provides 90% power with a 1-sided type 1 error rate of 10% to distinguish the observed OTRR (and PFS at 6 months) from an OTRR of 40% (worthy of pursuit) versus 25% (not worthy of pursuit). 15 sites are open across Australia. As of September 23, 2020, 40 patients have been recruited. Clinical trial information: NCT03280667 .

6 Background: TheraP is a randomized phase 2 trial that showed LuPSMA significantly improved the primary endpoint of PSA≥50% reduction (66% vs. 37%) compared to cabazitaxel in men with docetaxel-treated mCRPC. We now report results on other clinical endpoints and PROs reached the pre-specified target of 170 PFS events. Methods: 200 men with mCRPC (median age 72 y, prior enza/abi 91%) and high PSMA-expression by 68Ga-PSMA-11 and no sites of FDG-positive/PSMA-negative disease, were randomly assigned (1:1) to LuPSMA (6-8.5GBq q6wk up to 6 cycles; N = 99) or cabazitaxel (20mg/m2 q3wk up to 10 cycles; N = 101). Secondary endpoints include PSA/radiologic PFS (PCWG3), pain response (≥2 point reduction on McGill-Melzack Present Pain Intensity scale, objective response rate (ORR) (RECIST 1.1), adverse events (CTCAE), PROs (EORTC QLQ-C30) and overall survival (OS). Cut-off date for analysis of 20JUL20. Results: At a median follow-up of 18.4 months, PFS was significantly longer in those assigned Lu-PSMA rather than cabazitaxel (rates at 1y 19% [95%CI 12-27%] vs 3% [1-9%], hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95%CI 0.46-0.86; p = 0.003; 173 events). Similar benefit was seen for rPFS (HR 0.64, 95%CI 0.46-0.88; p = 0.007; 160 events) and PSA-PFS (HR 0.60 95%CI 0.44-0.83; p = 0.002; 172 events). ORR in 78 men with measurable disease was significantly greater in the LuPSMA arm (49% vs 24%, RR 2.1, 95%CI 1.1-4.1; p = 0.019). In 90 men with pain at baseline, pain responses occurred in 60% in the Lu-PSMA arm vs 43% for cabazitaxel (RR 1.42, 95%CI 0.84-4.48; p = 0.10). Patient-reported global health status was similar (LuPSMA 64 [95%CI 61-67] vs cabazitaxel 60 [57-64]) with significantly better outcomes reported for fatigue (34 [95%CI 31-37] vs 40 [36-43]), social functioning (79 [76-82] vs 73 [69-77]), insomnia (24 [20-27] vs 29 [25-33]) and diarrhoea (8.3 [5.6-11.0] vs 15.6 [12.6-18.6]) domains. No PRO domains were superior for cabazitaxel. G3-4 AEs were similar to previously reported (33% vs 53%). OS data remains immature (90 deaths). Conclusions: In men with docetaxel-treated mCRPC, LuPSMA is a promising alternative to cabazitaxel with significantly higher activity (PSA≥50%, PFS, ORR), fewer G3-4 AEs, similar effects on global health status, and improvements in some PRO domains. Clinical trial information: NCT03392428.

308 Background: First-line NIVO+CABO met primary and secondary efficacy endpoints by improving progression-free survival (PFS; HR 0.51, P < 0.0001), overall survival (OS; HR 0.60, P = 0.0010), and objective response rate (ORR; 55.7% vs 27.1%; P < 0.0001) vs SUN in patients (pts) with aRCC in CheckMate 9ER (Choueiri et al. ESMO 2020). Efficacy benefits with NIVO+CABO vs SUN were consistent across prespecified subgroups including by IMDC risk group, and regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression (database lock for primary analysis, March 30, 2020). Updated analyses are needed to establish durability of benefit with first-line NIVO+CABO and assess outcomes in aRCC pts with sarcomatoid features (sRCC)—an aggressive histologic subtype associated with poor prognoses. Methods: In this phase III open-label trial, adults with confirmed aRCC (with a clear cell component including those with sRCC) were randomized 1:1 (stratified by IMDC risk score, tumor PD-L1 expression, geographic region) to NIVO 240 mg IV Q2W + CABO 40 mg PO QD vs SUN 50 mg PO (4 weeks of 6-week cycles). The primary endpoint was RECIST v1.1-defined PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR) in all randomized (intent-to-treat [ITT]) pts; secondary endpoints included OS, ORR by BICR, and safety. Pts with and without sRCC were identified by local pathology report, and outcomes in these pts were evaluated via prespecified supportive subset analyses. Results: The presence of sRCC was assessed in ITT pts (N = 651) at enrollment. Overall, 75 (11.5%) pts had sRCC and 557 (85.6%) did not; sRCC status was not reported in 19 pts (2.9%). Overall, 34 vs 41 pts with sRCC were randomized to NIVO+CABO vs SUN, respectively. At a median follow-up of 18.1 months, NIVO+CABO improved PFS, OS, and ORR in sRCC pts vs SUN (Table). Notable PFS, OS, and ORR benefits were observed with NIVO+CABO vs SUN in the subgroup of pts without sRCC. Median PFS was doubled, the risk of death was lower, and ORR was consistently higher with NIVO+CABO vs SUN regardless of sarcomatoid status. Key updated PFS, OS, response, and safety outcomes in the ITT population and in pts with and without sRCC will be reported with additional follow-up based on a September 10, 2020 database lock. Conclusions: NIVO+CABO demonstrated improved efficacy and prolonged survival vs SUN in previously untreated aRCC pts regardless of sarcomatoid status. Updated results with extended follow-up will assess the durability of outcomes in this trial. Clinical trial information: NCT03141177 . [Table: see text]

325 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are active in many cancers, but people with rare variant, non clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) have been excluded from most clinical trials in RCC. UNISON (NCT03177239) aimed to test 2 hypotheses; the activity of nivolumab in nccRCC (Part 1), and the benefit of adding ipilimumab to nivolumab, in people whose cancers progress on nivolumab (Part 2). Methods: 83 participants (pts) with advanced nccRCC with good (ECOG0/1) performance status, were enrolled including papillary type 1 (17%), papillary type 2 (28%), chromophobe (18%), Xp11 translocation (6%), hereditary leiomyomatosis renal cell carcinoma syndrome-associated renal cell carcinoma (6%), RCC unclassified (10%) and other (15%) histological subtypes. Participants took nivolumab (N) 240mg every two weeks in Part 1 in total. If they experienced progression and remained eligible they could take N (3mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (I; 1mg/kg) every 3 weeks for up to 4 doses (Part 2). Pts with disease control after N or N + I could continue N for up to 1 year. UNISON was powered to distinguish a clinically-relevant improvement in objective tumor response rate (OTRR) from 15% to 30% in people taking N+I in Part 2 in pts whose cancers were refractory to single-agent first-line N. Here we report results of Part 1. Results: Pts experience of N appeared similar to previous reports, with most experiencing mild adverse events. 12 treatment related SAE occurred in 11 patients (13%). 14 pts (17%) experienced treatment delays, or permanent treatment discontinuation (10%). The median time on treatment was 5.1 months. The OTRR was 17% with 3 complete responses and 11 partial responses. The median duration of response was 21 months. Stable disease occurred in 49% of pts and disease progression in 34%. The disease control rate at 6 months was 45% (95% CI: 34%, 56%). The median PFS was 4.0 months (95% CI: 3.6, 7.4). The 6 month progression-free survival (PFS) was 45% (95% CI: 34-55) and the 12 months PFS was 30% (95% CI: 21%, 40%). Conclusions: Pts with nccRCC treated with N experience similar adverse events compared to pts with other cancers. A substantial minority of people with nccRCC derive benefit, but many pts have cancers refractory to anti-PD1, similar to other reports. The activity of I and N in this PD1-refractory population is of considerable interest and will be reported at a later date. Clinical trial information: NCT03177239 .

Denosumab, a bone-modifying agent, reduces the risk of skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors and is generally well tolerated. However, hypocalcemia, osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) and atypical fracture are potential and important toxicities of denosumab therapy that require attention. In pivotal phase III trials in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors, the incidence of hypocalcemia was 9.6% in denosumab-treated patients, with most events being asymptomatic, grade 2 and resolving by week 4. Established hypocalcaemia requires additional short-term calcium and vitamin D supplementation and, if severe, administration of intravenous calcium. ONJ was reported in 1.8% of patients receiving denosumab over 3 years in these trials. Involvement of an experienced oro-maxillary surgeon is important if ONJ is suspected. Atypical fractures were rare in a large study of denosumab using the dose and scheduling approved for the treatment of osteoporosis. To prevent toxicities, patients should maintain calcium and vitamin D supplementation, good oral hygiene and regular dental reviews throughout treatment. This article presents case studies from our clinical practice and discusses the pathophysiology of these toxicities along with guidance on prevention, diagnosis and management.

e17584 Background: Pembrolizumab monotherapy has shown antitumor activity and acceptable safety in patients with mCRPC previously treated with a next-generation hormone agent (NHA) and docetaxel. Presented herein are updated results from KEYNOTE-199 (NCT02787005), a multicohort phase 2 study, in patients with RECIST-measurable PD-L1+ disease (C1), RECIST-measurable, PD-L1− disease (C2), and bone-predominant disease, irrespective of PD-L1 (C3). Methods: Patients who previously received ≥1 NHA and 1 or 2 chemotherapies, including docetaxel, received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for 35 cycles or until progression/toxicity. The primary end point was ORR per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR). Key secondary end points were DCR, PSA response rate (≥50% decrease from baseline), time to PSA progression, rPFS, OS, DOR, and safety. rPFS and OS were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Of 258 treated patients (C1, 133; C2, 67; C3, 58), 6 completed therapy (C1, 4; C3, 2) and 252 discontinued (C1, 129; C2, 67; C3, 56), primarily due to progression (C1, 106; C2, 61; C3, 45). Median (range) time from enrollment to data cutoff was 31.3 mo (26.7-34.7) in C1, 30.6 mo (28.0-34.1) in C2, and 32.6 mo (27.4-34.4) in C3. Efficacy results are displayed in the table. ORR (95% CI) for patients with measurable disease was 6% (2.6-11.5) in C1 and 3% (0.4-10.4) in C2. Of 10 responders, 6 had a DOR ≥18 mo. Median time to PSA progression was 4 mo across cohorts. Any grade treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred in 57-60% of patients across C1-3. Grade ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 16% of patients in C1, 15% in C2, and 17% in C3; 1 patient in each cohort died of a TRAE (C1, sepsis; C2, unknown; C3, immune-related pneumonitis). Conclusions: Pembrolizumab monotherapy was well tolerated and showed durable, antitumor activity and disease control with survival up to 24 mo in 3 cohorts of docetaxel and NHA-pretreated patients with RECIST-measurable or bone-predominant mCRPC. Clinical trial information: NCT02787005 . [Table: see text]

5526 Background: In the phase II KEYNOTE-199 study (NCT02787005), pembrolizumab monotherapy demonstrated antitumor activity in pts with docetaxel-refractory mCRPC (n = 258). Here we evaluated the association between prespecified molecular biomarkers and clinical outcomes. Methods: Cohorts 1 (C1) and 2 (C2) enrolled pts with RECIST-measurable PD-L1–positive (combined positive score [CPS] ≥1 using immunohistochemistry) and PD-L1–negative (CPS

5500 Background: LuPSMA is a radiolabeled small molecule that delivers therapeutic β-radiation to PSMA-expressing tumors. Encouraging efficacy and safety has been shown in non-randomized studies of mCRPC. TheraP is a randomized phase II trial comparing LuPSMA vs cabazitaxel in men with mCRPC progressing after docetaxel. Methods: Men with mCRPC, and imaging with 68Ga-PSMA-11 and 18F-FDG PET/CT that confirmed high PSMA-expression and no sites of FDG-positive/PSMA-negative disease, were randomly assigned (1:1) to LuPSMA (6-8GBq q6weeks up to 6 cycles) vs cabazitaxel (20mg/m2 q3weeks up to 10 cycles); stratified by disease burden (>20 vs ≤20 sites), prior novel antiandrogens (NAA; abiraterone or enzalutamide), and study site. The primary endpoint was PSA response rate (PSA50-RR) defined by ≥50% reduction. Secondary efficacy endpoints included PSA-progression-free survival (PSA-PFS) and overall survival (OS). Data cut-off was 31DEC19 at this first pre-specified analysis. Results: 200 (median age 72 y, prior NAA 91%, >20 lesions 78%) of 291 PET screened men were randomised to LuPSMA (N=99) or cabazitaxel (N=101). 17 patients withdrew or died before receiving study treatment (1 LuPSMA vs 16 cabazitaxel). The PSA50-RR was higher in those assigned LuPSMA than cabazitaxel (65/99 [66%; 95%CI 56-75] vs 37/101 [37%; 95%CI 27-46]; P

TPS768 Background: Renal cell carcinomas (RCC) are predominantly the clear cell (cc) subtype, with a unique biology, characterized by sensitivity to angiogenesis inhibition. However vascular endothelial growth factor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors elicit modest responses in people with rare variant non-clear cell (ncc) RCC. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are active against many cancers, but people with rare variant nccRCC have been excluded from frontline trials despite experiencing a more aggressive disease course and poorer prognosis compared to those with ccRCC. UNISON (NCT03177239) aims to test 2 ideas; the activity of ICI in nccRCC, and the novel sequencing strategy of anti-programmed cell death protein (PD)1 immunotherapy, followed by the combination of anti-PD1 and anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein (CTLA)4 blockade, in people failed by single agent treatment. Methods: This single-arm, two-part trial recruits people of good performance status suffering metastatic or locally advanced unresectable rare variant nccRCC, including but not limited to papillary (type 1/2), chromophobe, sarcomatoid, Xp11 translocation, collecting duct, and unclassified histological subtypes. Participants are offered fixed dose nivolumab at 240mg every two weeks in Part 1 of the trial. If they experience progressive disease, eligible participants may proceed to Part 2 consisting of nivolumab (3mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (1mg/kg) every 3 weeks for up to 4 doses. People experiencing disease control after single-agent or combined ICI are eligible to continue treatment for up to 1 year. UNISON is powered to distinguish a clinically non-relevant objective tumor response rate (OTRR) of 15% in people taking combination ICI whose cancers are refractory to single-agent PD1, versus a clinically-relevant OTRR of 30% at 5% level of significance with 80% power. 85 participants were recruited in Part 1, on the assumption that 55% of those entering Part 1 will be eligible for inclusion in Part 2. Enrolment commenced in November 2017 and was completed ahead of schedule in September 2019. Of the 48 participants projected to experience progression on anti-PD1 immunotherapy, 36 have so far commenced combination ICI in Part 2. Clinical trial information: NCT03177239.

104 Background: The KEYNOTE-199 multicohort phase 2 study (NCT02787005) showed that pembro monotherapy has antitumor activity and acceptable safety in patients (pts) with mCRPC previously treated with a next-generation hormonal agent (NHA) and docetaxel in cohort 1 (C1) (RECIST-measurable, PD-L1+ disease), C2 (RECIST-measurable, PD-L1− disease), and C3 (bone-predominant disease, irrespective of PD-L1). Updated results with additional follow-up for C1-3 are presented. Methods: Pts previously received ≥1 NHAs and 1 or 2 chemotherapies, including docetaxel. Pts received pembro 200 mg Q3W for 35 cycles or until progression or intolerable toxicity. Primary end point was ORR. Key secondary end points were DCR, DOR, PSA (≥50%) response rate, rPFS, OS, and safety. Results: Of 258 pts enrolled (C1=133; C2=67; C3=58), 6 completed (C1=4; C3=2) and 252 discontinued (C1=129; C2=67; C3=56) therapy, primarily due to progression (C1=106; C2=61; C3=45). Median follow-up was 9.6 mo (C1, 9.5; C2, 7.9; C3, 14.2). ORR (95% CI) for pts with measurable disease was 6% (2.6-11.5) in C1 and 3% (0.4-10.4) in C2 (Table; includes other efficacy results). Treatment-related AEs of any grade/grade 3-5 occurred in 57%/16% in C1, 60%/15% in C2, and 71%/17% in C3. 1 pt in each cohort died of a treatment-related AE (C1, sepsis; C2, unknown; C3, immune-related pneumonitis). Conclusions: With additional follow-up, pembro monotherapy continued to show antitumor activity and disease control in pts with RECIST-measurable and bone-predominant mCRPC previously treated with both NHA and docetaxel. Pts experienced durable responses. Safety was consistent with the known safety profile of pembro. Clinical trial information: NCT02787005. [Table: see text]

Purpose Olaparib was originally formulated as 50 mg capsules with a recommended dose of 400 mg twice daily which requires patients to take 16 capsules a day. More recently, a tablet formulation with equivalent efficacy has become available and reduces the pill burden for patients to two tablets twice daily which is more convenient for patients. However, it is important to understand the key differences between the olaparib capsule and tablet formulations as they are not bioequivalent, and the doses are not interchangeable. Educating patients when transitioning from capsules to tablets is critical to avoid dosing errors and maintain both safety and efficacy of olaparib maintenance therapy. Main recommendations There are no established guidelines on transitioning patients from capsules to tablets. Patients taking 400 mg of the capsules twice daily should be switched to 300 mg of the tablets twice daily. In patients on a reduced dose of 200 mg capsules twice daily, consider switching to 250 mg twice daily of the tablet formulation. In patients on 100 mg capsules twice daily, consider 200 mg tablets twice daily. Particular care should be taken in transitioning patients who are on a reduced dose due to anemia and who have a low hemoglobin (9 g/dL) where a lower dose of the tablets should be considered initially. Close monitoring of patients for the first 3 months with further dose reductions based on tolerability is recommended. The tablet dose can be escalated or de-escalated depending on tolerance.