Search

Cancer of unknown primary site (CUP) represents up to 5% of all cancer diagnoses and is associated with poor survival. We have performed a prospective multicentre phase 2 trial to evaluate efficacy and toxicity of the combination of gemcitabine (G) and carboplatin (C) for patients with CUP. Patients with histologically confirmed metastatic carcinoma in which the primary site of cancer was not evident after prospectively designated investigation and who had ECOG performance status 0–2 were treated with G 1000 mg m−2 intravenously (i.v.) days 1 and 8, and C AUC 5 i.v. on day 8 every 3 weeks to a maximum of nine cycles. The primary end points were response rate, and toxicity, with secondary end points of progression-free survival and overall survival. Fifty-one (23 male, 27 female) patients were enrolled (one patient ineligible), with a median age of 69 years (range 41–83 years). Fifty patients were evaluable for toxicity and 46 patients were evaluable for efficacy. The overall response rate to the GC regimen was 30.5%. With a median follow-up of 24 months, the median progression-free survival was 18 weeks (4.2 months) and the median overall survival was 34 weeks (7.8 months). The frequency of grade 3 or 4 toxicity was low. Nausea/vomiting was the most common side effect, but was usually only mild in severity. Uncomplicated neutropenia (14%), thrombocytopenia (10%) and anaemia (8%) were the most common causes of grade 3–4 toxicity. The regimen was very well tolerated, particularly in the elderly. The GC regimen is an active regimen in CUP with excellent tolerability and should be considered particularly for elderly patients with CUP.British Journal of Cancer (2006) 95, 1309–1313. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6603440 www.bjcancer.com Published online 31 October 2006 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Enzalutamide, an androgen-receptor inhibitor, has been associated with improved overall survival in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer. It is not known whether adding enzalutamide to testosterone suppression, with or without early docetaxel, will improve survival in men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. METHODS In this open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial, we assigned patients to receive testosterone suppression plus either open-label enzalutamide or a standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy (standard-care group). The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points included progression-free survival as determined by the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, clinical progression-free survival, and adverse events. RESULTS A total of 1125 men underwent randomization; the median follow-up was 34 months. There were 102 deaths in the enzalutamide group and 143 deaths in the standardcare group (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [Cl], 0.52 to 0.86; P=0.002). Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival at 3 years were 80% (based on 94 events) in the enzalutamide group and 72% (based on 130 events) in the standard-care group. Better results with enzalutamide were also seen in PSA progression-free survival (174 and 333 events, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.39; PcO.001) and in clinical progressionfree survival (167 and 320 events, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.40; PcO.001). Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was more frequent in the enzalutamide group than in the standard-care group (33 events and 14 events, respectively). Fatigue was more common in the enzalutamide group; seizures occurred in 7 patients in the enzalutamide group (1%) and in no patients in the standard-care group. CONCLUSIONS Enzalutamide was associated with significantly longer progression-free and overall survival than standard care in men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer receiving testosterone suppression. The enzalutamide group had a higher incidence of seizures and other toxic effects, especially among those treated with early docetaxel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: In PROpel (NCT03732820), olaparib + abiraterone resulted in a statistically significant radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) benefit and numerically prolonged overall survival (OS) versus placebo + abiraterone in first-line (1L) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. Here, we report post hoc exploratory subgroup analyses in patients with asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic or symptomatic disease at baseline., Methods: Patients were randomised 1:1 to olaparib (300 mg b.i.d.) or placebo with abiraterone (1000 mg o.d.) + prednisone/prednisolone (5 mg b.i.d.). For this post hoc exploratory analysis, patients with a Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) item 3 score of <4 and no opiate use were classified as asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic; those with a BPI-SF item 3 score of ≥4 and/or opiate use were classified as symptomatic. Subgroup analyses included investigator-assessed rPFS, OS, objective response rate, time to second progression or death, health-related quality of life, and safety., Key Findings and Limitations: The median rPFS in asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic patients (n = 560) was 27.6 mo for olaparib + abiraterone versus 19.1 mo for placebo + abiraterone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.76). For symptomatic patients (n = 183), equivalent values were 14.1 versus 13.8 mo (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.54-1.13). At the final planned OS analysis, the median OS in asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic patients was not reached for olaparib + abiraterone versus 39.5 mo for placebo + abiraterone (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59-1.00). For symptomatic patients, equivalent values were 22.9 versus 22.8 mo (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.58-1.16). Other outcomes showed no meaningful differences between the subgroups., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: Olaparib + abiraterone provided efficacy benefits in 1L mCRPC patients with either asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic or symptomatic disease. A larger benefit occurred in asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic patients., Patient Summary: PROpel, a phase 3 clinical trial, looked at whether combining olaparib with abiraterone delays the progression of patients' cancer compared with placebo plus abiraterone. Patients with or without pain symptoms associated with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were eligible for enrolment into the trial. Results showed that olaparib plus abiraterone reduced the risk of disease progression and death, with a larger benefit observed in patients without or with mild pain symptoms than in those with pain symptoms., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of sequential treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab following progression on nivolumab monotherapy in individuals with advanced, non-clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC)., Materials and Methods: UNISoN (ANZUP1602; NCT03177239) was an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 clinical trial that recruited adults with immunotherapy-naïve, advanced nccRCC. Participants received nivolumab 240 mg i.v. two-weekly for up to 12 months (Part 1), followed by sequential addition of ipilimumab 1 mg/kg three-weekly for four doses to nivolumab if disease progression occurred during treatment (Part 2). The primary endpoint was objective tumour response rate (OTRR) and secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and toxicity (treatment-related adverse events)., Results: A total of 83 participants were eligible for Part 1, including people with papillary (37/83, 45%), chromophobe (15/83, 18%) and other nccRCC subtypes (31/83, 37%); 41 participants enrolled in Part 2. The median (range) follow-up was 22 (16-30) months. In Part 1, the OTRR was 16.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.5-26.7), the median DOR was 20.7 months (95% CI 3.7-not reached) and the median PFS was 4.0 months (95% CI 3.6-7.4). Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 71% of participants; 19% were grade 3 or 4. For participants who enrolled in Part 2, the OTRR was 10%; the median DOR was 13.5 months (95% CI 4.8-19.7) and the median PFS 2.6 months (95% CI 2.2-3.8). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 80% of these participants; 49% had grade 3, 4 or 5. The median OS was 24 months (95% CI 16-28) from time of enrolment in Part 1., Conclusions: Nivolumab monotherapy had a modest effect overall, with a few participants experiencing a long DOR. Sequential combination immunotherapy by addition of ipilimumab in the context of disease progression to nivolumab in nccRCC is not supported by this study, with only a minority of participants benefiting from this strategy., (© 2023 BJU International.)

Purpose: International guidelines advocate for active surveillance as the preferred treatment strategy for patients with stage 1 testicular cancer after orchidectomy although a personalized discussion is required., Materials and Methods: We conducted an analysis of individuals registered in iTestis, Australia's testicular cancer registry, to describe the patterns of relapse and outcomes of patients treated in Australia where the Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group Surveillance Recommendations are widely adopted., Results: A total of 650 individuals diagnosed between 2000 and 2020 were included, 63% (411 of 650) seminoma and 37% (239 of 650) nonseminoma. The median age was 34 years (range 14-74). 26% (106 of 411) with seminoma and 15% (36 of 239) nonseminoma received adjuvant chemotherapy. After a median follow-up of 43 months (range 0-267) postorchidectomy, relapse occurred in 10% (43 of 411) of seminoma and 18% (43 of 239) of nonseminoma. The two-year relapse-free survival was 92% (95% CI, 89 to 95) and 82% (95% CI, 78 to 87) in seminoma and nonseminoma, respectively. All relapses (86 of 86) were detected at a routine surveillance visit; 98% (85 of 86) were asymptomatic and detected solely through imaging (62 of 86, 72%), tumor markers (6 of 86, 7%), or a combination (17 of 86, 20%). The most common relapse site was isolated retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy (53 of 86, 62%). No nonpulmonary visceral metastases occurred. At relapse, 98% (84 of 86) had International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) good prognosis; 2 of 86 intermediate prognosis (both nonseminoma). No deaths occurred., Conclusion: In our cohort of stage 1 testicular cancer, where national surveillance recommendations have been widely adopted, recurrences were detected at routine surveillance visits and, almost exclusively, asymptomatic with IGCCCG good-prognosis disease. This provides reassurance that active surveillance is safe.

Introduction: Prostate cancer (PC) is the second commonest malignancy and fifth leading cause of cancer death in men worldwide. Older men are more likely to develop PC but are underrepresented in pivotal clinical trials, leading to challenges in treatment selection in the real-world setting. We aimed to examine treatment patterns and outcomes in older Australians with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)., Materials and Methods: We identified 753 men with mCRPC within the electronic CRPC Australian Database (ePAD). Clinical data were analysed retrospectively to assess outcomes including time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), PSA doubling time (PSADT), PSA 50 response rate, and pre-defined adverse events of special interest (AESIs). Descriptive statistics were used to report baseline characteristics, stratified by age groups (<75y, 75-85y and >85y). Groups were compared using Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-square analyses. Time-to-event analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared through log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazards univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the influence of variables on OS., Results: Fifty-seven percent of men were aged <75y, 31% 75-85y, and 12% >85y. Patients ≥75y more frequently received only one line of systemic therapy (40% of <75y vs 66% 75-85y vs 68% >85y; P < 0.01). With increasing age, patients were more likely to receive androgen receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSIs) as initial therapy (42% of <75y vs 70% of 75-85y vs 84% of >85y; p < 0.01). PSA 50 response rates or TTF did not significantly differ between age groups for chemotherapy or ARSIs. Patients >85y receiving enzalutamide had poorer OS but this was not an independent prognostic variable on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.93(0.09-9.35); p = 0.95). PSADT >3 months was an independent positive prognostic factor for patients receiving any systemic therapy. Older patients who received docetaxel were more likely to experience AESIs (18% in <75y vs 37% 75-85y vs 33% >85y, p = 0.038) and to stop treatment as a result (21% in <75y vs 39% in 75-85y; p = 0.011)., Discussion: In our mCRPC cohort, older men received fewer lines of systemic therapy and were more likely to cease docetaxel due to adverse events. However, treatment outcomes were similar in most subgroups, highlighting the importance of individualised assessment regardless of age., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Angelyn Anton. Honoraria: Janssen, Bayer, Amgen. Christopher Steer: Honoraria- Advisory board membership: Janssen, Astra Zeneca, Sanofi, GSK, Ipsen, MSD; speakers fees: Novartis, Eisai and BMS. The ePAD registry received funding from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Astellas and Janssen during the period of data entry and analysis. These pharmaceutical companies were not involved in the study design, data analysis or manuscript preparation., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: PROpel met its primary endpoint showing statistically significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in patients with first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) unselected by homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) status, with benefit observed in all prespecified subgroups. Here we report the final prespecified overall survival analysis., Methods: This was a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial done at 126 centres in 17 countries worldwide. Patients with mCRPC aged at least 18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, a life expectancy of at least 6 months, with no previous systemic treatment for mCRPC and unselected by HRRm status were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by means of an interactive voice response system-interactive web response system to abiraterone acetate (orally, 1000 mg once daily) plus prednisone or prednisolone with either olaparib (orally, 300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The patients, the investigator, and study centre staff were masked to drug allocation. Stratification factors were site of metastases and previous docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive cancer stage. Radiographic progression-free survival was the primary endpoint and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint with alpha-control (alpha-threshold at prespecified final analysis: 0·0377 [two-sided]), evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03732820, and is completed and no longer recruiting., Findings: Between Oct 31, 2018 and March 11, 2020, 1103 patients were screened, of whom 399 were randomly assigned to olaparib plus abiraterone and 397 to placebo plus abiraterone. Median follow-up for overall survival in patients with censored data was 36·6 months (IQR 34·1-40·3) for olaparib plus abiraterone and 36·5 months (33·8-40·3) for placebo plus abiraterone. Median overall survival was 42·1 months (95% CI 38·4-not reached) with olaparib plus abiraterone and 34·7 months (31·0-39·3) with placebo plus abiraterone (hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·67-1·00; p=0·054). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was anaemia reported in 64 (16%) of 398 patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone and 13 (3%) of 396 patients in the placebo plus abiraterone group. Serious adverse events were reported in 161 (40%) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and 126 (32%) in the placebo plus abiraterone group. One death in the placebo plus abiraterone group, from interstitial lung disease, was considered treatment related., Interpretation: Overall survival was not significantly different between treatment groups at this final prespecified analysis., Funding: Supported by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests FS received honoraria from AAA, AbbVie, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Knight Therapeutics, Merck, Myovant Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; acted in a consulting or advisory role for AAA, AbbVie, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca–MedImmune, Bayer, Janssen Oncology, Knight Therapeutics, Myovant Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and received research funding (institutional) from Advanced Accelerator Applications, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi. NWC received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, and Pfizer; acted in a consulting or advisory role for AstraZeneca; and received travel and accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca. MO received honoraria from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, MSD, Janssen, Takeda, and Nippon Kayaku; acted in a consulting or advisory role for Bayer; and received research funding from Bayer and AstraZeneca. NS acted in a consulting or advisory role for AbbVie, Accord, Alessa Therapeutics, Antev, Arquer, Asieris, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Aura biosciences, Bayer, Bioprotect, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, CGOncology, Clarity, Dendreon, Exact Imaging, Ferring, Fize Medical, Genentech–Roche, Foundation Medicine, Genesis Care, Immunity Bio, Incyte, Invitae, Janssen, Lantheus, Lilly, mDxhealth, Merck, Minomic, Myovant, Myriad, Nonagen, Novartis, Nymox, Palette Life, Platform Q, Pacific Edge, Pfizer, Profound Medical, Promaxo, Protara, Photocure, Sanofi Genzyme, Specialty Networks, Telix, Tolmar, and Urogen; and acted in a leadership or fiduciary role for Photocure. GP acted in a consulting or advisory role for Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Pfizer. JDG received honoraria from Agenus, AstraZeneca–Merck, Daiichi-Sankyo, Merck, Pierre Fabre, and Pint Pharma; research funding from Agenus, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blau Farmacêutica, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, BRAVA, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eurofarma, ARO-Einstein, Genetech, HUYABIO, Incyte, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Polyphor, PTC Therapeutics, Roche, Sanofi, Seagen, Takeda, and Tigermed; and travel and accommodation expenses from Daiichi Sankyo and Gilead. NM received honoraria from Bureau Prevents, Medscape, and MedTalks; acted in a consulting or advisory role for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen-Cilag, and MSD Oncology (institutional); received research funding (institutional) from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca–Merck, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi; received travel and accommodation expenses from Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, and Roche; acted in a leadership–fiduciary role for Dutch Uro-Oncology study Group; and participated in a data safety monitoring–advisory board for the GLOW trial (glioblastoma). FP acted in a consulting or advisory role for Ipsen, Janssen Oncology, and Merck Serono. FS received honoraria from Advanced Accelerator Applications, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, and Merck; acted in a consulting or advisory role for Advanced Accelerator Applications, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, MSD/Merck, and Lilly; received travel and accommodations expenses from Advanced Accelerator Applications, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bayer, and Janssen; and provided expert testimony for Advanced Accelerator Applications, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD/Merck, and Lilly. MS received honoraria from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda; research funding from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, MSD, and Pfizer; and travel and accommodation expenses from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and MSD. OS acted in a consulting or advisory role for AAA, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Bavarian Nordic, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clarity Pharmaceuticals, Clovis, Constellation, Dendreon, EMD Serono, Fusion, Isotopen Technologien Muenchen, Janssen, Myovant, Myriad, Noria Therapeutics, Novartis, Noxopharm, Progenics, POINT Biopharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Tenebio, Telix, and Theragnostics; received research funding from AAA, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Endocyte, Invitae, Janssen, Lantheus, Merck, Progenics, and Tenebio; provided expert testimony for Sanofi; received travel and accommodation expenses from Lantheus and North Start; participated in a data safety monitoring–advisory board for AstraZeneca and Pfizer; and holds stock options with Ratio, Convergent, Fusion, and Telix. Y-ZL, LB, and PMdR are AstraZeneca employees and shareholders. CP is an employee and shareholder of Merck. AJA has acted in a consulting or advisory role for Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dendreon, Exelixis, FORMA Therapeutics, GoodRx, Janssen, Merck, Myovant Sciences, Novartis, and Pfizer; has received research funding (institutional) from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Constellation Pharmaceuticals, Dendreon, FORMA Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Oncology, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche–Genentech; owns patents, receives royalties, or other intellectual property for circulating tumour cell novel capture technology (institutional); and has received travel and accommodation expenses from Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs. CA, EB, and JYJ declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The combination of immuno-oncology (IO) agents ipilimumab and nivolumab (IPI-NIVO) and vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapies (VEGF-TT) combined with IO (IO-VEGF) are current standard of care first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)., Objective: To establish real-world clinical benchmarks for IO combination therapies based on the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC) criteria., Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients with mRCC who received first-line IPI-NIVO, IO-VEGF, or VEGF-TT from 2002 to 2021 were identified using the IMDC database and stratified according to IMDC risk groups., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Overall survival (OS), time to next treatment (TTNT), and treatment duration (TD) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between IMDC risk groups within each treatment cohort by the log-rank test. The overall response rate (ORR) was calculated by physician assessment of the best overall response. The primary outcome was OS at 18 mo., Results and Limitations: In total, 728 patients received IPI-NIVO, 282 IO-VEGF, and 7163 VEGF-TT. The median follow-up times for patients remaining alive were 14.3 mo for IPI-NIVO, 14.9 mo IO-VEGF, and 34.4 mo for VEGF-TT. OS at 18 mo for favorable, intermediate, and poor risk was, respectively, 90%, 78%, and 50% for those receiving IPI-NIVO; 93%, 83%, and 74% for IO-VEGF; and 84%, 64%, and 28% for VEGF-TT. ORRs in favorable-, intermediate-, and poor-risk groups were 41.3%, 40.6%, and 33.0% for those receiving IPI-NIVO; 60.3%, 56.8%, and 40.9% for IO-VEGF; and 39.3%, 33.5%, and 20.9% for VEGF-TT, respectively. The IMDC model stratified patients into statistically distinct risk groups for the three endpoints of OS, TTNT, and TD within each treatment cohort. Limitations of this study were the retrospective design and short follow-up., Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the IMDC model continues to risk stratify patients with mRCC treated with contemporary first-line IO combination therapies and provided real-world survival benchmarks., Patient Summary: The International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model continues to stratify patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma receiving modern combination treatments in the real-world setting., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The interim analysis of the ENZAMET trial of testosterone suppression plus either enzalutamide or standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy showed an early overall survival benefit with enzalutamide. Here, we report the planned primary overall survival analysis, with the aim of defining the benefit of enzalutamide treatment in different prognostic subgroups (synchronous and metachronous high-volume or low-volume disease) and in those who received concurrent docetaxel., Methods: ENZAMET is an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial conducted at 83 sites (including clinics, hospitals, and university centres) in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA. Eligible participants were males aged 18 years or older with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate adenocarcinoma evident on CT or bone scanning with 99 m Tc and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a centralised web-based system and stratified by volume of disease, planned use of concurrent docetaxel and bone antiresorptive therapy, comorbidities, and study site, to receive testosterone suppression plus oral enzalutamide (160 mg once per day) or a weaker standard oral non-steroidal antiandrogen (bicalutamide, nilutamide, or flutamide; control group) until clinical disease progression or prohibitive toxicity. Testosterone suppression was allowed up to 12 weeks before randomisation and for up to 24 months as adjuvant therapy. Concurrent docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 intravenously) was allowed for up to six cycles once every 3 weeks, at the discretion of participants and physicians. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This planned analysis was triggered by reaching 470 deaths. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02446405, ANZCTR, ACTRN12614000110684, and EudraCT, 2014-003190-42., Findings: Between March 31, 2014, and March 24, 2017, 1125 participants were randomly assigned to receive non-steroidal antiandrogen (n=562; control group) or enzalutamide (n=563). The median age was 69 years (IQR 63-74). This analysis was triggered on Jan 19, 2022, and an updated survival status identified a total of 476 (42%) deaths. After a median follow-up of 68 months (IQR 67-69), the median overall survival was not reached (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·58-0·84]; p<0·0001), with 5-year overall survival of 57% (0·53-0·61) in the control group and 67% (0·63-0·70) in the enzalutamide group. Overall survival benefits with enzalutamide were consistent across predefined prognostic subgroups and planned use of concurrent docetaxel. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia associated with docetaxel use (33 [6%] of 558 in the control group vs 37 [6%] of 563 in the enzalutamide group), fatigue (four [1%] vs 33 [6%]), and hypertension (31 [6%] vs 59 [10%]). The incidence of grade 1-3 memory impairment was 25 (4%) versus 75 (13%). No deaths were attributed to study treatment., Interpretation: The addition of enzalutamide to standard of care showed sustained improvement in overall survival for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and should be considered as a treatment option for eligible patients., Funding: Astellas Pharma., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CJS received institutional research grants from Bayer, Sanofi, Astellas Pharma (Pfizer), Dendreon, and Janssen and personal consulting fees from Bayer, Astellas Pharma, Janssen, CellCentric, Point Biopharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Genentech (Roche), Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Hengrui Europe Biosciences, and AstraZeneca. MRS received institutional research grants from Astellas Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bionomics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Medivation, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Tilray. KNC received institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, Point Biopharma, Roche, and Janssen; personal consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, Point Biopharma, and Roche; institutional consulting fees from Janssen; and honoraria from Janssen and AstraZeneca. SC had stock or ownership interests in Clovis Oncology; received honoraria from Novartis and Clovis Oncology; had a consulting or advisory role for Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, BeiGene, and Novartis; and received payment for speakers’ bureaus from Janssen-Cilag and Sanofi (Aventis). MF had a leadership or fiduciary role as a board director for the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. LGH received institutional research grants, honoraria, and Support for meetings or travel from Astellas Pharma. NJL was on the data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Thoracic Oncology Group of Australia; had a leadership or fiduciary role as a deputy director for Cancer Trials New Zealand; and was a member of the executive committee for New Zealand Society for Oncology. JM had a leadership or fiduciary role as a treasurer for the Irish Society of Medical Oncology; and was a chairman for National Annual Conferences. RM had stock or ownership interests in Bayer; received honoraria from Sanofi, Janssen, Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, and Clovis Oncology; had a consulting or advisory role for MSD Oncology; received research funding from Janssen, Bayer, and Astellas Pharma; provided expert testimony for Pfizer; and received support for meetings or travel from Janssen-Cilag, Roche, and Ipsen. SAN received honoraria from Janssen, Bayer, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Advanced Accelerator Application. FP received honoraria from Bayer and AstraZeneca. DWP received institutional research funding from Medivation, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Exelixis, MSD, Pfizer, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Symvivo, and Amgen; personal consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, MSD, Cipla, Astellas Pharma, and MSD (Pfizer); institutional consulting fees from Pfizer and MSD; honoraria from Bayer and MSD (Pfizer); and support for meetings or travel from Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Amgen, MSD (Pfizer), and Janssen. MNR was on the data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Pfizer, Ipsen, EMD, Serono, MSD, and Bayer. SKS received research grants from Novartis/AAA, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and MSD; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myer Squibb, MSD, and Janssen; and was on the data safety monitoring board or advisory board as the chair for the data safety monitoring committee at Novartis. AlvT had a leadership or fiduciary role as the head of department for the Te Whatu Ora hospital. THT received honoraria from AstraZeneca. AlvT received honoraria from Novartis and Gilead; support for meetings or travel from MSD, Lilly, Astellas Pharma, and Ipsen; and was on the data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Amgen, Novartis, and MSD. FV-B received institutional research grants from Janssen, MSD, and Seagen and consulting fees from Janssen, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Bayer. AYZ received institutional research grants from Astellas Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bionomics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Medivation, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Tilray; personal consulting fees from MSD; honoraria from MSD, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Pfizer, Mundipharma, Janssen, and AstraZeneca; and was on the data safety monitoring board or advisory board for MSD, Astellas Pharma, and Bayer. RRZ received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. IDD is the director and chair of the Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group (ANZUP); and a member or chair of advisory boards for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD (Pfizer), MSD, Pio Therapeutics, Roche, and Xennials Therapeutics (all honoraria are paid directly to ANZUP). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of upfront cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors is unclear., Objective: To evaluate the relationship between upfront CN and clinical outcomes in the setting of mRCC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapy., Design, Setting, and Participants: Using the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium, we retrospectively identified patients diagnosed with de novo mRCC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapy., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Overall survival (OS) was compared between the two groups using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox regressions adjusting for known prognostic factors., Results and Limitations: We identified a total of 4639 eligible patients with mRCC. Among the 4202 patients treated with targeted therapy and 437 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, 2326 (55%) and 234 (54%) patients received upfront CN prior to treatment start. In multivariable analyses, CN was associated with significantly better OS in both the immune checkpoint inhibitor-treated (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.90, p = 0.013) and the targeted therapy treatment (HR: 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67-0.78, p < 0.001) group. There was no difference in OS benefit of CN between the immune checkpoint inhibitor and targeted therapy treatment groups (interaction p = 0.6). Limitations include selection of patients from large academic centers and the retrospective nature of the study., Conclusions: Upfront CN is associated with a significant OS benefit in selected patients treated by either immune checkpoint inhibitors or targeted therapy, and still has a role in selected patients in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors., Patient Summary: Before effective systemic therapies were available for metastatic kidney cancer, surgical removal of the primary (kidney) tumor was the mainstay of treatment. The role of removing the primary tumor has recently been called into question given that more effective systemic therapies have become available. In this study, we find that removal of the primary kidney tumor still has a benefit for selected patients treated with highly effective modern systemic therapies, including targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors., (Copyright © 2022 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Health economic outcomes of real-world treatment sequencing of androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTA) and docetaxel (DOC) remain unclear., Material and Methods: Data from the electronic Castration-resistant Prostate cancer Australian Database (ePAD) were analyzed including median overall survival (mOS) and median time-to-treatment failure (mTTF). Mean total costs (mTC) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of treatment sequences were estimated using the average sample method and Zhao and Tian estimator., Results: Of 752 men, 441 received ARTA, 194 DOC, and 175 both sequentially. Of participants treated with both, first-line DOC followed by ARTA was the more common sequence (n = 125, 71%). mOS for first-line ARTA was 8.38 years (95% CI: 3.48, not-estimated) vs. 3.29 years (95% CI: 2.92, 4.02) for DOC. mTTF was 15.7 months (95% CI: 14.2, 23.7) for the ARTA-DOC sequence and 18.2 months (95% CI: 16.2, 23.2) for DOC-ARTA. In first-line, ARTA cost an additional $13,244 per mTTF month compared to DOC. In second-line, ARTA cost $6726 per mTTF month. The DOC-ARTA sequence saved $2139 per mTTF compared to ARTA-DOC, though not statistically significant., Conclusion: ICERs show ARTA had improved clinical benefit compared to DOC but at higher cost. There were no significant cost differences between combined sequences.

Background: Preserving health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is an important goal during renal cell carcinoma treatment. We report HRQOL outcomes from a phase II trial (NCT03173560)., Patients and Methods: HRQOL data were collected during a multicenter, randomized, open-label phase II study comparing the safety and efficacy of 2 different starting doses of lenvatinib (18 mg vs. 14 mg daily) in combination with everolimus (5 mg daily), following one prior vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted treatment. HRQOL was measured using 3 different instruments-FKSI-DRS, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EQ-5D-3L-which were all secondary endpoints. Change from baseline was assessed using linear mixed-effects models. Deterioration events for time to deterioration (TTD) analyses were defined using established thresholds for minimally important differences in the change from baseline for each scale. TTD for each treatment arm was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: Baseline characteristics of the 343 participants randomly assigned to 18 mg lenvatinib (n = 171) and 14 mg lenvatinib (n = 172) were well balanced. Least-squares mean estimates for change from baseline were favorable for the 18 mg group over the 14 mg group for the FKSI-DRS and most EORTC QLQ-C30 scales, but differences between treatments did not exceed the minimally important thresholds. Median TTD was longer among participants in the 18 mg group than those in the 14 mg group for most scales., Conclusions: Participants who received an 18 mg lenvatinib starting dose had favorable HRQOL scores and longer TTD on most scales compared with those who received a 14 mg starting dose., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Aims: Multiple life-prolonging therapies are available for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, the optimal treatment strategy following progression through standard treatment with docetaxel, androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI) and cabazitaxel, remains unclear. We aimed to describe treatment patterns in men with mCRPC following progression on standard treatments and determine whether subsequent treatment choice impacts overall survival., Methods: Clinicopathologic and treatment data were extracted from the electronic CRPC Australian Database (ePAD) for patients who had received docetaxel, ARSIs and cabazitaxel in any order. Data were analyzed to compare groups that did versus did not receive subsequent systemic therapy. Treatment sequences, median duration of treatment, and median overall survival (mOS) were reported for each treatment group., Results: Ninety-eight eligible patients were identified, with 51 receiving subsequent systemic therapy. Those who received further treatment were younger (68 vs. 71 years, p < .01) but did not have any other differences in clinicopathologic features compared to those who received no further treatment. Patients who received upfront docetaxel were more likely to proceed to subsequent treatment (p = .02). Subsequent systemic therapies varied, the most common being carboplatin-based regimens (n = 13, 25.5%) and many patients were rechallenged with ARSI (n = 10, 19.6%) or docetaxel (n = 6, 11.8%). There was no difference in mOS according to subsequent systemic therapy (p = .09)., Conclusion: This retrospective multicenter analysis demonstrates the variation in treatment sequences used for mCRPC in the real-world setting. In the absence of high quality, prospective evidence, our results suggest that subsequent treatment choice does not influence survival outcomes and the optimal choice is guided by individual patient and disease-related factors., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Elevated circulating sphingolipids are associated with shorter overall survival and therapeutic resistance in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), suggesting that perturbations in sphingolipid metabolism promotes prostate cancer growth. This study assessed whether addition of simvastatin to standard treatment for mCRPC can modify a poor prognostic circulating lipidomic profile represented by a validated 3-lipid signature (3LS). Men with mCRPC (n = 27) who were not on a lipid-lowering agent, were given simvastatin for 12 weeks (40 mg orally, once daily) with commencement of standard treatment. Lipidomic profiling was performed on their plasma sampled at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment. Only 11 men had the poor prognostic 3LS at baseline, of whom five (45%) did not retain the 3LS after simvastatin treatment (expected conversion rate with standard treatment = 19%). At baseline, the plasma profiles of men with the 3LS displayed higher levels (p < 0.05) of sphingolipids (ceramides, hexosylceramides and sphingomyelins) than those of men without the 3LS. These plasma sphingolipids were reduced after statin treatment in men who lost the 3LS (mean decrease: 23−52%, p < 0.05), but not in men with persistent 3LS, and were independent of changes to plasma cholesterol, LDL-C or triacylglycerol. In conclusion, simvastatin in addition to standard treatment can modify the poor prognostic circulating lipidomic profile in mCRPC into a more favourable profile at twice the expected conversion rate.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies and results of a phase 2 trial of abiraterone and olaparib suggest a combined antitumor effect when the poly(adenosine diphosphate[ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib is combined with next-generation hormonal agent abiraterone to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, phase 3 trial of abiraterone and olaparib versus abiraterone and placebo in patients with mCRPC in the first-line setting. Patients were enrolled regardless of homologous recombination repair gene mutation (HRRm) status. HRRm status was determined following enrollment by tumor tissue and circulating tumor DNA tests. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive abiraterone (1000 mg once daily) plus prednisone or prednisolone with either olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival (ibPFS) by investigator assessment. Overall survival was among the secondary end points. RESULTS: At this planned primary analysis at the first data cutoff, median ibPFS was significantly longer in the abiraterone and olaparib arm than in the abiraterone and placebo arm (24.8 vs. 16.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.81; P<0.001) and was consistent with blinded independent central review (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.74). At this data cutoff, overall survival data were immature (28.6% maturity; hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.12; P=0.29). The safety profile of olaparib and abiraterone was consistent with the known safety profiles of the individual drugs. The most common adverse events in the abiraterone and olaparib arm were anemia, fatigue/asthenia, and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: At primary analysis at this first data cutoff, abiraterone combined with olaparib significantly prolonged ibPFS compared with abiraterone and placebo as first-line treatment for patients with mCRPC enrolled irrespective of HRRm status. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03732820.)

Background: Lenvatinib (18 mg) plus everolimus (5 mg) is approved for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after one or more prior antiangiogenic therapies., Objective: To assess whether a lower starting dose of lenvatinib has comparable efficacy with improved tolerability for patients with advanced RCC treated with lenvatinib plus everolimus., Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized, open-label, phase 2 global trial was conducted in patients with advanced clear cell RCC and disease progression after one prior vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy (prior anti-programmed death-1/programmed death ligand-1 therapy permitted)., Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to the 14- or 18-mg lenvatinib starting dose, both in combination with everolimus 5 mg/d. Patients in the 14-mg arm were to be uptitrated to lenvatinib 18 mg at cycle 2, day 1, barring intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) requiring dose reduction occurring in the first 28-d cycle., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary efficacy endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) as of week 24 (ORR wk24 ); the noninferiority threshold of the 14- versus 18-mg arm was p ≤ 0.045. The primary safety endpoint was the proportion of patients with intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 TEAEs within 24 wk of randomization., Results and Limitations: The ORR wk24 for the 14-mg arm (32% [95% confidence interval {CI} 25-39]) was not noninferior to the ORR wk24 in the 18-mg arm (35% [95% CI 27-42]; odds ratio: 0.88; 90% CI 0.59-1.32; p = 0.3). The proportion of intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 TEAEs was similar between the two arms (14 mg, 83% vs 18 mg, 80%; p = 0.5). The secondary endpoints of overall ORR, progression-free survival, and overall survival numerically favored the 18-mg arm. A limitation of this study was that the study design did not allow for a full comparison of progression-free survival between treatment arms., Conclusions: The study findings support the approved dosing regimen of lenvatinib 18 mg plus everolimus 5 mg daily for patients with advanced RCC., Patient Summary: In this report, we examined two doses of lenvatinib (the approved 18-mg dose and a lower dose of 14 mg) in people with advanced renal cell carcinoma to determine whether the lower dose (which was increased to the approved 18-mg dose after the first treatment cycle) could improve safety without affecting efficacy. The results showed that the efficacy of the lower lenvatinib dose (14 mg) was not the same as that of the approved (18 mg) dose, although safety results were similar, so the approved lenvatinib 18-mg dose should still be used., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cabozantinib inhibits pathways involved in medullary thyroid cancer (MTC). Cabozantinib is approved as 140 mg/day in capsules for MTC and 60 mg/day in tablets for other solid tumors. This study compared the two doses in progressive metastatic MTC. Methods: In this Phase 4, randomized, double-blind noninferiority (NI) trial (NCT01896479), patients with progressive metastatic MTC were randomized 1:1 to cabozantinib 60 mg/day tablet or 140 mg/day capsules. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent radiology committee (BIRC) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1. NI would be concluded if the upper 95% confidence interval [CI] for the PFS hazard ratio (HR) was less than the NI margin, 1.58. The secondary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by BIRC per RECIST v1.1; additional end points included safety and pharmacokinetics. Results: At data cutoff (July 15, 2020), 247 patients were randomized to the 60 mg/day tablet arm ( n  = 123) and the 140 mg/day capsules arm ( n  = 124). NI was not met (median PFS 11.0 months vs. 13.9 months in the 60 and 140 mg/day arms [HR 1.24; CI 0.90-1.70; p  = 0.19]). The ORR was 33% in both arms. Generally, adverse event (AE) incidence was lower in the 60 mg/day arm (Grade 3/4, 63% vs. 72%), as were dose reductions (69% vs. 81%) and treatment discontinuations due to AEs (23% vs. 36%). Initially, cabozantinib plasma concentrations were higher in the 140 mg/day arm but became similar between arms at later time points. Conclusions: PFS NI of the cabozantinib 60 mg/day tablet vs. 140 mg/day capsules was not met. The 60 mg/day tablet had the same ORR and lower rates of AEs. Clinical Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01896479.

Background: Darolutamide is a potent androgen-receptor inhibitor that has been associated with increased overall survival among patients with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. Whether a combination of darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel would increase survival among patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is unknown., Methods: In this international, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in a 1:1 ratio to receive darolutamide (at a dose of 600 mg [two 300-mg tablets] twice daily) or matching placebo, both in combination with androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel. The primary end point was overall survival., Results: The primary analysis involved 1306 patients (651 in the darolutamide group and 655 in the placebo group); 86.1% of the patients had disease that was metastatic at the time of the initial diagnosis. At the data cutoff date for the primary analysis (October 25, 2021), the risk of death was significantly lower, by 32.5%, in the darolutamide group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.80; P<0.001). Darolutamide was also associated with consistent benefits with respect to the secondary end points and prespecified subgroups. Adverse events were similar in the two groups, and the incidences of the most common adverse events (occurring in ≥10% of the patients) were highest during the overlapping docetaxel treatment period in both groups. The frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 66.1% in the darolutamide group and 63.5% in the placebo group; neutropenia was the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event (in 33.7% and 34.2%, respectively)., Conclusions: In this trial involving patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, overall survival was significantly longer with the combination of darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel than with placebo plus androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel, and the addition of darolutamide led to improvement in key secondary end points. The frequency of adverse events was similar in the two groups. (Funded by Bayer and Orion Pharma; ARASENS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02799602.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Purpose: We previously reported that enzalutamide improved overall survival when added to standard of care in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Here, we report its effects on aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQL)., Methods: HRQL was assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality-of-life questionnaire and QLM-PR25 at weeks 0, 4, 12, and then every 12 weeks until progression. Scores from week 4 to 156 were analyzed with repeated measures modeling to calculate group means and differences. Deterioration-free survival was from random assignment until the earliest of death, clinical progression, discontinuation of study treatment, or a worsening of 10 points or more from baseline in fatigue, physical function, cognitive function, or overall health and quality of life (OHQL). HRQL scores range from 0 (lowest possible) to 100 (highest possible)., Results: HRQL was assessed in 1,042 of 1,125 participants (93%). Differences in means favored control over enzalutamide for fatigue (5.2, 95% CI, 3.6 to 6.9; P < .001), cognitive function (4.0, 95% CI, 2.5 to 5.5; P < .001), and physical function (2.6, 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.9; P < .001), but not OHQL (1.2, 95% CI, -0.2 to 2.7; P = .1). Deterioration-free survival rates at 3 years, and log-rank P values comparing the whole distributions, favored enzalutamide over control for OHQL (31% v 17%; P < .0001), cognitive function (31% v 20%; P = .001), and physical function (31% v 22%; P < .001), but not fatigue (24% v 18%; P = .16). The effects of enzalutamide on HRQL were independent of baseline characteristics., Conclusion: Enzalutamide was associated with worsening of self-reported fatigue, cognitive function, and physical function, but not OHQL. Enzalutamide was associated with improved deterioration-free survival for OHQL, physical function, and cognitive function because delays in disease progression outweighed early deteriorations in these aspects of HRQL., Competing Interests: Martin R. StocklerSpeakers' Bureau: Astellas PharmaResearch Funding: Astellas, Celgene, Bayer, Bionomics, Medivation, Sanofi, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Tilray, BeiGeneExpert Testimony: Medivation/Pfizer Ian D. DavisResearch Funding: Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Janssen Oncology, Eisai, Bayer, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Movember Foundation, Exelixis, Ipsen, Medivation, SeagenPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: International Patent Application No: PCT/US2004/032147 (NY-ESO-1) through Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Haryana M. DhillonHonoraria: Janssen Oncology Stephen D. BegbieHonoraria: Janssen OncologyConsulting or Advisory Role: Astellas Pharma, MSD Oncology, Merck SeronoSpeakers' Bureau: Astellas MedivationResearch Funding: Merck Serono, Janssen Oncology, Boston Biomedical, Pfizer/EMD Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb Kim N. ChiStock and Other Ownership Interests: JanssenHonoraria: Astellas Pharma, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck, ESSAConsulting or Advisory Role: Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Sanofi, Amgen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Roche, POINT Biopharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Constellation PharmaceuticalsSpeakers' Bureau: JanssenResearch Funding: Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, ESSAPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: AstraZenecaExpert Testimony: Novartis Simon ChowdhuryStock and Other Ownership Interests: Clovis OncologyHonoraria: Novartis, Clovis OncologyConsulting or Advisory Role: Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag, BeiGene, NovartisSpeakers' Bureau: Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi/Aventis Mark FrydenbergEmployment: Genesis Cancer Care, Telix Pharmaceuticals Lisa G. HorvathEmployment: Connected Medical SolutionsLeadership: Connected Medical SolutionsStock and Other Ownership Interests: Imagion BiosystemsHonoraria: Imagion BiosystemsSpeakers' Bureau: Astellas PharmaExpert Testimony: Astellas PharmaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer Anthony M. JoshuaStock and Other Ownership Interests: Pricilium TherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Neoleukin Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Noxopharm, IQvia, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, EisaiResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mayne Pharma, Roche/Genentech, Bayer, Macrogenics, Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Lilly Gavin M. MarxStock and Other Ownership Interests: JanssenHonoraria: RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen Ray McDermottStock and Other Ownership Interests: BayerHonoraria: Sanofi, Janssen, Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Novartis, Clovis OncologyConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD OncologyResearch Funding: Janssen, Bayer, Astellas PharmaExpert Testimony: PfizerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen-Cilag, Roche, Ipsen Scott A. NorthStock and Other Ownership Interests: Janssen-OrthoHonoraria: Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Merck, Roche Canada, BMSConsulting or Advisory Role: Sanofi, Pfizer, Roche Canada, Merck, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD SeronoSpeakers' Bureau: Astellas PharmaResearch Funding: Janssen, AstraZenecaExpert Testimony: AstraZenecaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Astellas Pharma Francis ParnisHonoraria: Janssen OncologyConsulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Merck Serono M. Neil ReaumeStock and Other Ownership Interests: NovartisHonoraria: Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, EMD SeronoSpeakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca Shahneen SandhuStock and Other Ownership Interests: Bristol Myers SquibbHonoraria: Merck, Merck Serono, AstraZenecaConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb/Roche, Bristol Myers SquibbSpeakers' Bureau: Merck, Roche/Genentech, AmgenResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Merck, Endocyte/Advanced Accelerator Applications, Genentech/Roche, Novartis Thean Hsiang TanSpeakers' Bureau: Janssen Oncology Alastair ThomsonConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, RocheSpeakers' Bureau: Genomic Health, Novartis, LillyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Ipsen, BMS, Astellas Pharma, EUSA Pharma Francisco Vera-BadilloHonoraria: BayerConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Janssen OncologySpeakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca/MedImmune Scott G. WilliamsHonoraria: AmgenConsulting or Advisory Role: JanssenExpert Testimony: Astellas Pharma Alison Y. ZhangStock and Other Ownership Interests: Astellas PharmaHonoraria: Mundipharma, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bayer, MSD Oncology, Merck Sharp & DohmeConsulting or Advisory Role: Janssen Oncology, Pfizer, Merck Robert R. ZielinskiStock and Other Ownership Interests: BMSHonoraria: Pfizer, Roche/GenentechConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD OncologySpeakers' Bureau: BMSiResearch Funding: AstraZeneca Christopher J. SweeneyStock and Other Ownership Interests: LeuchemixConsulting or Advisory Role: Sanofi, Janssen Biotech, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Amgen, LillyResearch Funding: Janssen Biotech, Astellas Pharma, Sanofi, Bayer, Dendreon, PfizerPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Leuchemix, Parthenolide, Dimethylaminoparthenolide; Exelixis: Abiraterone plus cabozantinib combinationNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Introduction: Several systemic therapies have demonstrated a survival advantage in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Access to these medications varies significantly worldwide. In Australia until recently, patients must have received docetaxel first, unless unsuitable for chemotherapy, despite no evidence suggesting superiority over androgen receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSIs). Our study investigated real-world systemic treatment patterns in Australian patients with mCRPC., Methods: The electronic CRPC Australian Database (ePAD) was interrogated to identify mCRPC patients. Clinicopathological features, treatment and outcome data, stratified by first-line systemic therapies, were extracted. Comparisons between groups utilised Kruskal-Wallis tests and Chi-Square analyses. Time-to-event data were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods and groups compared using log-rank tests. Factors influencing overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) were analysed through Cox proportional hazards regression models., Results: We identified 578 patients who received first-line systemic therapy for mCRPC. Enzalutamide (ENZ) was most commonly prescribed ( n  = 240, 41%), followed by docetaxel (DOC, n  = 164, 28%) and abiraterone (AA, n  = 100, 17%). Patients receiving ENZ or AA were older (79, 78.5 years respectively) compared with DOC (71 years, p  = 0.001) and less likely to have ECOG performance status 0 (45%, 44%, 59% in ENZ, AA and DOC groups respectively p  < 0.0001). Median TTF was significantly higher in those receiving ENZ (12.4 months) and AA (11.9 months) compared to DOC (8.3 months, p  < 0.001). PSA50 response rates and OS were not statistically different. Time to developing CRPC > 12 months was independently associated with longer TTF (HR 0.67, p  < 0.001) and OS (HR 0.49, p  = 0.002)., Conclusion: In our real-world population, ENZ and AA were common first-line systemic therapy choices, particularly among older patients and those with poorer performance status. Patients receiving ENZ and AA demonstrated superior TTF compared to DOC, while OS was not statistically different. Our findings highlight the important role of ARSIs, given the variability of access worldwide., (© 2021 The Authors. BJUI Compass published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International Company.)

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 (

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 < 0.001), and were less likely to have visceral metastases (5.0% vs 11.2%, P = 0.005) or to have received upfront docetaxel (P < 0.001). A ≥50% reduction from pre-treatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (PSA50 response) during FGA treatment occurred in 119 (37%) patients and was independently associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.233, P < 0.001). Prior FGA treatment did not significantly influence the selection of subsequent life-prolonging treatments for mCRPC or their PSA50 response rates., Conclusion: In our present cohort, FGAs were commonly used in lower-risk mCRPC and their use did not significantly influence the choice or duration of subsequent systemic therapy. A PSA50 response to FGA therapy was an independent favourable prognostic marker associated with improved OS., (© 2021 The Authors. BJU International © 2021 BJU International.)

Men who initially present with localized prostate cancer and later develop metachronous metastases have a better prognosis than men with de novo metastatic disease and often have a low burden of disease on conventional imaging. Some have disease amenable to metastasis-directed therapy for lymph node or bone metastases, a strategy used by some because no documented overall survival (OS) benefit of combination systemic therapy in this setting. We report data for patients prospectively classified as "M0" at initial diagnosis from the interim analysis of the ENZAMET trial, with 34 mo of median follow-up for survivors. A total of 312 (28%) of the 1125 enrolled patients were classified as M0 at diagnosis, and 205 (66%) of the 312 patients had low-volume disease at study entry as per the CHAARTED criteria. The hazard ratio for OS, that is, HR(OS), was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29-1.06) with the addition of enzalutamide for all patients with metachronous metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, and for the low-volume subset the HR(OS) was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.16-0.97). The 3-yr OS was 83% without and 89% with enzalutamide for all patients with metachronous metastases, and 83% and 92%, respectively, for the low-volume subset. Intensification of hormonal therapy should strongly be considered for these men. PATIENT SUMMARY: Many men present with prostate cancer that has spread to distant sites beyond the prostate gland years after their initial diagnosis and treatment, while others have distant spread at the time the cancer is diagnosed. On average, men whose cancer comes back years after the initial diagnosis often survive much longer than men whose cancer has been found to spread to distant sites when it is first diagnosed. In this report, we demonstrate strong evidence for the first time that the survival of men whose cancer comes back years later is improved when drugs such as enzalutamide or apalutamide are added to testosterone suppression in this setting., (Copyright © 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The PI3K/AKT and androgen-receptor pathways are dysregulated in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers (mCRPCs); tumours with functional PTEN-loss status have hyperactivated AKT signalling. Dual pathway inhibition with AKT inhibitor ipatasertib plus abiraterone might have greater benefit than abiraterone alone. We aimed to compare ipatasertib plus abiraterone with placebo plus abiraterone in patients with previously untreated mCRPC with or without tumour PTEN loss., Methods: We did a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial at 200 sites across 26 countries or regions. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic mCRPC who had progressive disease and Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1; permuted block method) to receive ipatasertib (400 mg once daily orally) plus abiraterone (1000 mg once daily orally) and prednisolone (5 mg twice a day orally) or placebo plus abiraterone and prednisolone (with the same dosing schedule). Patients received study treatment until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, withdrawal from the study, or study completion. Stratification factors were previous taxane-based therapy for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, type of progression, presence of visceral metastasis, and tumour PTEN-loss status by immunohistochemistry. Patients, investigators, and the study sponsor were masked to the treatment allocation. The coprimary endpoints were investigator-assessed radiographical progression-free survival in the PTEN-loss-by-immunohistochemistry population and in the intention-to-treat population. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03072238., Findings: Between June 30, 2017, and Jan 17, 2019, 1611 patients were screened for eligibility and 1101 (68%) were enrolled; 554 (50%) were assigned to the placebo-abiraterone group and 547 (50%) to the ipatasertib-abiraterone group. At data cutoff (March 16, 2020), median follow-up duration was 19 months (range 0-33). In the 521 (47%) patients who had tumours with PTEN loss by immunohistochemistry (261 in the placebo-abiraterone group and 260 in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group), median radiographical progression-free survival was 16·5 months (95% CI 13·9-17·0) in the placebo-abiraterone group and 18·5 months (16·3-22·1) in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·77 [95% CI 0·61-0·98]; p=0·034; significant at α=0·04). In the intention-to-treat population, median progression-free survival was 16·6 months (95% CI 15·6-19·1) in the placebo-abiraterone group and 19·2 months (16·5-22·3) in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·71-0·99]; p=0·043; not significant at α=0·01). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 213 (39%) of 546 patients in the placebo-abiraterone group and in 386 (70%) of 551 patients in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group; adverse events leading to discontinuation of placebo or ipatasertib occurred in 28 (5%) in the placebo-abiraterone group and 116 (21%) in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group. Deaths due to adverse events deemed related to treatment occurred in two patients (<1%; acute myocardial infarction [n=1] and lower respiratory tract infection [n=1]) in the placebo-abiraterone group and in two patients (<1%; hyperglycaemia [n=1] and chemical pneumonitis [n=1]) in the ipastasertb-abiraterone group., Interpretation: Ipatasertib plus abiraterone significantly improved radiographical progression-free survival compared with placebo plus abiraterone among patients with mCRPC with PTEN-loss tumours, but there was no significant difference between the groups in the intention-to-treat population. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of each agent. These data suggest that combined AKT and androgen-receptor signalling pathway inhibition with ipatasertib and abiraterone is a potential treatment for men with PTEN-loss mCRPC, a population with a poor prognosis., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests All authors report editorial assistance from F Hoffmann-La Roche. CS reports grants or personal fees, or both from Janssen, F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech, Sanofi, Astellas, Pfizer, Bayer, and Lilly, during the conduct of the study; and has a patent abiraterone plus cabozantinib issued to Exelixis, a patent parthenolide as treatment for cancer licensed to Indiana University, and a patent dimethylaminoparthenolide as treatment for cancer licensed to Leuchemix, outside of the submitted work. SB reports serving as advisory board member for Astellas, Janssen, Pfizer, BMS, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Ipsen, MSD, Merck, AAA, and AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work. CNS reports grants and non-financial support from F Hoffmann-La Roche during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from Pfizer, MSD, Merck, AstraZeneca, Astellas, Sanofi and Genzyme, F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech, Incyte, and Clovis, outside of the submitted work. KNC reports grants from F Hoffmann-La Roche, during the conduct of the study; and grants or personal fees, or both from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Constellation Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Point Biopharma, F Hoffmann-La Roche, and Sanofi, outside of the submitted work. DO reports grants and non-financial support from F Hoffmann-La Roche, during the conduct of the study; and grants, personal fees, or non-financial support from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Astellas Medivation, F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech, Pfizer, Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, MSD, and Daiichi Sankyo, outside of the submitted work. SS reports grants and non-financial support from F Hoffmann-La Roche, during the conduct of the study; and grants or personal fees, or both from Amgen, MSD, Merck Serono, F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech, AstraZeneca, and Novartis, outside of the submitted work. CM reports grants and non-financial support from F Hoffmann-La Roche, during the conduct of the study; and personal fees from Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Celgene, Debiopharm Group, F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech, Innate Pharma, Ipsen, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Orion, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Sanofi, and Taiho, outside of the submitted work. NM reports grants and non-financial support from F Hoffmann-La Roche, during the conduct of the study; and grants or personal fees, or both from Janssen, MSD, Chugai, Astellas, Eli Lilly, Taiho, Pfizer, and Sanofi, outside of the submitted work. BA reports grants from F Hoffmann-La Roche, during the conduct of the study; and grants, personal fees, or non-financial support from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ferring, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, F Hoffmann-La Roche, and Sanofi, outside of the submitted work. RG reports grants from F Hoffmann-La Roche, during the conduct of the study; and grants, personal fees, or non-financial support from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Sanofi, and Pierre Fabre, outside of the submitted work. LC reports grants and non-financial support from F Hoffmann-La Roche, during the conduct of the study. GVA reports grants from MSD, BMS, Merck-Serono, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Ipsen, and Janssen, outside of the submitted work. EB reports personal fees from Sanofi Aventis, Astellas Pharmaceuticals, Roche Hellas, Bayer, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Pierre Fabre, and Merck, outside of the submitted work. JP reports grants and non-financial support from F Hoffmann-La Roche, during the conduct of the study; and grants or personal fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, Pierre Fabre, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Sanofi, Clovis Oncology, and MSD, and grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Pfizer, outside of the submitted work. M-LH-Y, JGal, and JGar are employees of F Hoffmann-La Roche. GC, JH, and MJW are employees of Genentech. JSdB reports personal fees and grants from F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech, during the conduct of the study; grants, personal fees, or travel expenses from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Taiho, Daiichi, Bayer, Orion Pharma, F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech, Merck Serono, Sierra Oncology, MSD, Astellas, Cellcentric, Sanofi Aventis, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and personal fees or travel expenses from Terumo, Menarini and Silicon Biosystems, Bioexcel Therapeutics, Eisai, and Qiagen, outside of the submitted work; and has a patent for DNA damage repair inhibitors for treatment of cancer (patent number WO 2005 053662 licensed to AstraZeneca) and a patent for 17-substituted steroids useful in cancer treatment (patent number US 5604213 licensed to Janssen). All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)