Search

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of apalutamide + androgen deprivation therapy versus androgen deprivation therapy alone in Japanese patients with metastatic castration‐sensitive prostate cancer from the phase 3, randomized, global TITAN study. Methods: Men with metastatic castration‐sensitive prostate cancer randomly (1:1) received 240 mg apalutamide + androgen deprivation therapy or matching placebo + androgen deprivation therapy. The primary efficacy endpoints were radiographic progression‐free survival and overall survival. Secondary efficacy endpoints were time to cytotoxic chemotherapy, pain progression, chronic opioid use, and skeletal‐related events. Safety was also assessed. Results: Of the 1052 patients included in the TITAN study, 51 (4.85%) were Japanese (apalutamide group, n = 28; placebo group, n = 23). In all, 81.8% of patients in the apalutamide and 71.8% in the placebo group did not experience radiographic progression or death, and the hazard ratio for radiographic progression‐free survival favored treatment with apalutamide (hazard ratio 0.712, 95% confidence interval 0.205–2.466; P = 0.59). At 24 months, 85.7% of patients in the apalutamide group and 81.5% in the placebo group were alive, and the hazard ratio for overall survival favored apalutamide (hazard ratio 0.840, 95% confidence interval 0.210–3.361; P = 0.805). In the interim analysis, the median radiographic progression‐free survival and overall survival were not reached in the apalutamide group and time to cytotoxic chemotherapy was delayed following apalutamide treatment. The safety profile of apalutamide in the Japanese subpopulation was comparable with that of the global population, except for skin rash. Conclusions: The results of the present analyses suggest that apalutamide + androgen deprivation therapy in Japanese patients had favorable efficacy compared with androgen deprivation therapy alone, and these findings are comparable to those in the overall population. Apalutamide + androgen deprivation therapy can be considered as one of the therapeutic options for a broad spectrum of metastatic castration‐sensitive prostate cancer regardless of prior treatment and disease extent in Japanese patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both retrograde and antegrade approach contributed to the success of a delicate endoscopic procedure. Even when guidewire did not pass thorough to the stenosis lesion, lightning and contrast reagents contributed the way through to the stenosis lesion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: TAS-115 is a novel MET, VEGFR, FMS and PDGFR inhibitor, developed to improve the continuity of drug administration with a relatively short half-life. We assessed its tolerability, safety, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and pharmacodynamics in patients with solid tumors. This open-label, dose-escalation phase I study of TAS-115 consisted of three parts: part 1 (TAS-115 was administered orally once daily [SID]); part 2 and an expansion part (SID in a 5 days on/2 days off [5-on/2-off] schedule for 21 days per cycle). In part 1 (200–800 mg SID administered to 21 patients), systemic exposure after single administration increased almost dose-proportionally. Three dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed in three patients: grade 3 rash (650 mg), thrombocytopenia with bleeding, and rash (800 mg). The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined as 650 mg SID. In part 2, the 5-on/2-off schedule was evaluated at the MTD to improve treatment exposure. No DLTs were observed and no patients required treatment interruption in cycle 1. During part 2 and the expansion part (N = 61), grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 47 patients, with neutropenia (24.6%), hypophosphatemia (21.3%), anemia, and thrombocytopenia (14.8% each), and leukocytopenia (11.5%) occurring in ≥10% of patients. The best overall response was stable disease in 31 of 82 patients (37.8%). An apparent reduction in fluorodesoxyglucose-uptake and bone scan index was observed in some patients. TAS-115 was generally well tolerated, with manageable toxicities and recommended phase II dose was estimated as 650 mg SID, 5-on/2-off. Furthermore, promising antitumor activity was observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: ERA 223 compared concurrent abiraterone acetate/prednisolone (AAP) plus radium-223 with AAP plus placebo in men with chemotherapy-naïve asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and bone metastases. We report data from a subgroup of Japanese patients in ERA 223. Methods: Patients were randomized to radium-223 (55 kBq/kg) or placebo once every 4 weeks (max. 6 cycles), and also received oral abiraterone acetate 1000 mg once daily plus prednisone/prednisolone 5 mg twice daily during and after radium-223/placebo treatment, until a symptomatic skeletal event (SSE). The primary endpoint was SSE-free survival (SSE-FS); overall survival (OS) was a secondary endpoint. Results: Of 806 patients randomized in ERA 223, 114 patients (57 per arm) were enrolled in Japan. SSE-FS was not improved significantly in the radium-223 arm [25.5 months, 95% CI 20.6–not estimated (NE)] compared with the placebo arm (28.7 months, 95% CI 19.7–NE) (HR = 0.907, 95% CI 0.501–1.642). OS and other secondary endpoints were not improved significantly in the radium-223 arm. The incidence of fracture was 23% and 11% in the radium-223 and placebo arms, respectively. The incidence of death was 32% and 36%, respectively. Conclusions: In the Japanese ERA 223 subgroup, concurrent treatment with AAP and radium-223 did not significantly improve SSE-FS and increased the incidence of fracture, similar to outcomes achieved in the overall population, while an increased incidence of death was not evident. The combination of radium-223 with AAP is not recommended in Japanese patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic mCRPC and bone metastases. Clinical trial registration: Clinical trial registration no: NCT02043678. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The present study aimed to indirectly compare apalutamide and enzalutamide with respect to tolerability and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC).Methods: Patient-level data from the SPARTAN study [apalutamide + androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus placebo + ADT] and aggregate published data from the PROSPER study (enzalutamide + ADT versus placebo + ADT) were used. Anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted by weighting patients' baseline characteristics from SPARTAN to match aggregated baseline characteristics in PROSPER. Odds ratios (ORs) of reported adverse events (AEs) and baseline-to-follow-up least squares mean differences in HRQoL [measured with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) score] with 95% credible intervals were re-estimated for SPARTAN arms using weighted population and indirectly compared with those in PROSPER through a Bayesian framework. Events of special interest included fatigue, hot flush, nausea, diarrhea, hypertension, falls, dizziness, decreased appetite, arthralgia, asthenia and headache. In addition, any AEs and serious AEs were explored.Results: Of 1207 SPARTAN patients, 1171 were matched to 1401 PROSPER patients. Relative to enzalutamide, apalutamide demonstrated better tolerability as evidenced by the highest probability of reduced occurrence of fatigue [p(OR < 1) = 99.5%], hypertension [p(OR < 1) = 99.2%], decreased appetite [p(OR < 1) = 98.3%], fall [p(OR < 1) = 90.3%], headaches [p(OR < 1) = 86.7%], and nausea [p(OR < 1) = 80.0%]. The probabilities of reduced occurrence of any AEs and SAEs with apalutamide versus enzalutamide were 66.9% and 90.9%, respectively. Relative to enzalutamide, apalutamide treatment was associated with a higher probability of a better HRQoL based on the FACT-P total score [p(diff > 0) = 73.1%]. The probability of a better HRQoL with apalutamide versus enzalutamide was highest for the physical [p(diff > 0) = 97.3%] and functional [p(diff > 0) = 86.7%] wellbeing subscales, and the pain-related subscale [p(diff > 0) = 90.1%].Conclusion: Anchored MAIC suggests that treatment of men with nmCRPC with apalutamide is associated with a higher probability of better tolerability due to fewer AEs and better HRQoL than enzalutamide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Apalutamide and enzalutamide are next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors that demonstrated efficacy in placebo-controlled studies (SPARTAN for apalutamide; PROSPER for enzalutamide) when used in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). In the absence of comparative studies between these agents, the present study sought to indirectly compare metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with nmCRPC who received these therapies.Methods: Individual patient-level data from SPARTAN (apalutamide plus ADT) and published data from PROSPER (enzalutamide plus ADT) were utilized. An anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted by weighting the patients from the SPARTAN study to match baseline characteristics reported for PROSPER. Hazard ratios (HRs) for MFS and OS were re-estimated for SPARTAN using weighted Cox proportional hazards models and indirectly compared with those of PROSPER using a Bayesian network meta-analysis.Results: From the SPARTAN population (N = 1207), a total of 1171 patients were matched to the PROSPER population (N = 1401). The recalculated HRs (95% confidence interval) for apalutamide versus ADT based on the reweighted SPARTAN data to mimic the PROSPER patient population were 0.26 (0.21; 0.33) for MFS and 0.62 (0.41; 0.94) for OS. MAIC-based HRs (95% credible interval) for apalutamide versus enzalutamide were 0.91 (0.68; 1.22) for MFS and 0.77 (0.46; 1.30) for OS. The Bayesian probabilities of apalutamide being more effective than enzalutamide were 73.6% for MFS and 83.5% for OS.Conclusions: MAIC results suggest that nmCRPC patients treated with apalutamide have a higher probability of a more favorable MFS and OS compared with those treated with enzalutamide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Apalutamide, a nonsteroidal potent androgen receptor antagonist, was safe and effective in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) and metastatic-CRPC (mCRPC) in global studies. In this phase 1 study, safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and efficacy of apalutamide were evaluated in Japanese patients with mCRPC. Methods: In this open-label, multi-center study, patients received apalutamide 240 mg (once-daily, orally) for first 1 week (PK week) during which PK parameters were assessed. 1 week later (Cycle 1 Day1), after reassessing safety, continuous daily dosing (4 weeks/cycle; once-daily orally) was initiated. Endpoints evaluated were: safety, tolerability, PK and antitumour efficacy of apalutamide. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were evaluated during PK week and Cycle 1. Results: All six patients received apalutamide. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were abdominal discomfort, nasopharyngitis, dysgeusia, rash, and hot flush [2/6 patients (33.3%) each]. No death or DLTs were reported. Grade 3 TEAEs were spinal-cord compression and renal disorder (1/6 patient each). In continuous daily dosing period, PK steady-state of apalutamide was reached approximately by week 4. A significant accumulation of apalutamide was observed (mean accumulation index 3.55), based on AUC0–24. Median (range) serum prostate-specific antigen level decreased from 54.42 (8.92–310.11) ng/mL at baseline to 11.70 (0.37–47.74) ng/mL at week 12 with ≥ 50% reduction in 4/6 (66.7%) patients and 90% reduction in 2/6 (33.3%) patients. Conclusion: Apalutamide had manageable safety profile, without any DLT or any new safety signals, and favourable efficacy in Japanese mCRPC patients. Thus, it was ascertained to be an adequate dosage regimen in Japanese mCRPC patients. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02162836. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]