Search

Purpose: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) remains the backbone of prostate cancer treatment. Beyond the suppression of testosterone and tumor cell growth, emerging evidence suggests that ADT also modulates the immune tumor microenvironment. However, a more precise understanding of the timing and intricacies of these immunologic shifts is needed., Experimental Design: In this study, we analyzed 49 primary prostate cancers, comparing those surgically removed either without treatment or following treatment with degarelix at 4, 7, and 14 days before surgery. Utilizing next-generation DNA and RNA sequencing and multiplexed immunofluorescence, we examined alterations in immune phenotypes in the presence or absence of ADT., Results: Our findings reveal that ADT rapidly transforms the typically bland prostate tumor microenvironment into an inflamed environment within days. Notably, we observed an increase in activated CD8 T cells along with an increase in suppressive regulatory T cells (Treg). We also found an expansion of the myeloid compartment, particularly proinflammatory M1-like tumor-associated macrophages. Intriguingly, discernable changes which have not previously been described also occurred in tumor cells, including upregulation of antigen presentation by MHC classes I and II and, unexpectedly, a decrease in the "do not eat me" signal CD47., Conclusions: These observations underscore the critical role of timing and disease context in order to optimize the therapeutic efficacy of immune modulators combined with androgen ablation, for which the presurgical neoadjuvant setting may be ideal. Our findings warrant future prospective validation, which is currently underway., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) and high tumor mutational burden (TMB-H) prostate cancers are candidates for pembrolizumab. We define the genomic features, clinical course, and response to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in patients with MSI-H/dMMR and TMB-H prostate cancers without MSI [TMB-H/microsatellite stable (MSS)]., Experimental Design: We sequenced 3,244 tumors from 2,257 patients with prostate cancer. MSI-H/dMMR prostate cancer was defined as an MSIsensor score ≥10 or MSIsensor score ≥3 and <10 with a deleterious MMR alteration. TMB-H was defined as ≥10 mutations/megabase. PSA50 and RECIST responses were assigned. Overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) were compared using log-rank test., Results: Sixty-three (2.8%) men had MSI-H/dMMR, and 33 (1.5%) had TMB-H/MSS prostate cancers. Patients with MSI-H/dMMR and TMB-H/MSS tumors more commonly presented with grade group 5 and metastatic disease at diagnosis. MSI-H/dMMR tumors had higher TMB, indel, and neoantigen burden compared with TMB-H/MSS. Twenty-seven patients with MSI-H/dMMR and 8 patients with TMB-H/MSS tumors received ICB, none of whom harbored polymerase epsilon (polE) catalytic subunit mutations. About 45% of patients with MSI-H/dMMR had a RECIST response, and 65% had a PSA50 response. No patient with TMB-H/MSS had a RECIST response, and 50% had a PSA50 response. rPFS tended to be longer in patients with MSI-H/dMMR than in patients with TMB-H/MSS who received immunotherapy. Pronounced differences in genomics, TMB, or MSIsensor score were not detected between MSI-H/dMMR responders and nonresponders., Conclusions: MSI-H/dMMR prostate cancers have greater TMB, indel, and neoantigen burden than TMB-H/MSS prostate cancers, and these differences may contribute to profound and durable responses to ICB., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background and Objective: The source of tissue for genomic profiling of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is often limited to osseous metastases. To guide patient management, metastatic site selection and the technique for targeted bone biopsies are critical for identifying deleterious gene mutations. Our objective was to identify key parameters associated with successful large-panel DNA sequencing., Methods: We analyzed parameters for 243 men with progressing mCRPC who underwent 269 bone biopsies for genomic profiling between 2014 and 2018. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed for clinical, imaging (bone scan; fluorodeoxyglucose [FDG] positron emission tomography [PET]; computed tomography [CT]; magnetic resonance imaging), and technical (biopsy site, number of samples, needle gauge) features associated with successful genomic profiling., Key Findings and Limitations: Overall, 159 of 269 biopsies (59%) generated sufficient tumor material for a genomic profile. Seventy (26%) of the failures were histopathologically negative for mCRPC and 40 (15%) had insufficient tumor for genomic profiling. Of 199 mCRPC samples submitted for molecular testing, 159 (80%) yielded a genomic profile. On univariate analysis, PSA, serum acid phosphatase, number of biopsy samples, FDG PET positivity, CT attenuation, and CT morphology were significantly associated with genomic profiling success. On multivariate analysis, higher FDG maximum standardized uptake value (odds ratio [OR] 7.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.01-18.78; p < 0.001), higher number of biopsy samples (OR 4.73, 95% CI 1.49-15.02; p = 0.008), and lower mean CT attenuation (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.18-0.89; p = 0.025) were significantly associated with sequencing success., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: In patients with mCRPC, bone biopsies from sites with metabolic activity and lower CT attenuation are associated with higher success rates for genomic profiling via a large-panel DNA sequencing platform., Patient Summary: We identified factors associated with successful genetic testing of bone tissue for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Our findings may help in guiding the right scan technique and biopsy site for personalized treatment planning., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Studies have shown improved survival among individuals with cancer with higher levels of social support. Few studies have investigated social support and overall survival (OS) in individuals with advanced prostate cancer in an international cohort. We investigated the associations of marital status and living arrangements with OS among individuals with advanced prostate cancer in the International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer (IRONMAN)., Methods: IRONMAN is enrolling participants diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer (metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, mHSPC; castration-resistant prostate cancer, CRPC) from 16 countries. Participants in this analysis were recruited between July 2017 and January 2023. Adjusting for demographics and tumor characteristics, the associations were estimated using Cox regression and stratified by disease state (mHSPC, CRPC), age (<70, ≥70 years), and continent of enrollment (North America, Europe, Other)., Results: We included 2,119 participants with advanced prostate cancer, of whom 427 died during up to 5 years of follow-up (median 6 months). Two-thirds had mHSPC. Most were married/in a civil partnership (79%) and 6% were widowed. Very few married participants were living alone (1%), while most unmarried participants were living alone (70%). Married participants had better OS than unmarried participants [adjusted HR: 1.44; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-2.02]. Widowed participants had the worst survival compared with married individuals (adjusted HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.22-2.94)., Conclusions: Among those with advanced prostate cancer, unmarried and widowed participants had worse OS compared with married participants., Impact: This research highlighted the importance of social support in OS within this vulnerable population., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Bone pain is a well-known quality-of-life detriment for individuals with prostate cancer and is associated with survival. This study expands previous work into racial differences in multiple patient-reported dimensions of pain and the association between baseline and longitudinal pain and mortality. This is a prospective cohort study of individuals with newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer enrolled in the International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer (IRONMAN) from 2017 to 2023 at U.S. sites. Differences in four pain scores at study enrollment by race were investigated. Cox proportional hazards models and joint longitudinal survival models were fit for each of the scale scores to estimate HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association with all-cause mortality. The cohort included 879 individuals (20% self-identifying as Black) enrolled at 38 U.S. sites. Black participants had worse pain at baseline compared with White participants, most notably a higher average pain rating (mean 3.1 vs. 2.2 on a 10-point scale). For each pain scale, higher pain was associated with higher mortality after adjusting for measures of disease burden, particularly for severe bone pain compared with no pain (HR, 2.47; 95% CI: 1.44-4.22). The association between pain and all-cause mortality was stronger for participants with castration-resistant prostate cancer compared with those with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and was similar among Black and White participants. Overall, Black participants reported worse pain than White participants, and more severe pain was associated with higher mortality independent of clinical covariates for all pain scales., Significance: Black participants with advanced prostate cancer reported worse pain than White participants, and more pain was associated with worse survival. More holistic clinical assessments of pain in this population are needed to determine the factors upon which to intervene to improve quality of life and survivorship, particularly for Black individuals., (© 2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Introduction:  Use of the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) during chemotherapy is associated with decreased hospitalization rates, improved quality of life, and longer survival. Limited data exist on the benefit of this symptom assessment tool for monitoring immune-related adverse events (irAEs)., Methods:  We incorporated irAE-related items from the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) PRO-CTCAE in a trial evaluating ipilimumab in combination with androgen deprivation therapy in 16 patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For comparison, NCI's CTCAE version 4.0 was used by clinicians., Results:  IrAE-related PRO-CTCAE surveys and matched CTCAEs (184 pairs) reporting abdominal pain, diarrhea, fatigue, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, rash, and pruritus were collected at each treatment administration and during follow-up. Fatigue, diarrhea, rash, and pruritus were the symptoms most frequently reported by both patients and clinicians. Agreement was lowest for pruritus (κ = 0.10) and highest for rash (κ = 0.64). IrAEs were more commonly reported and of higher grade with PRO-CTCAE scores compared with CTCAE grades., Conclusion:  PRO-CTCAEs focused on irAEs capture the patient's immunotherapy experience while complementing the clinician's toxicity assessment measures. Further study is needed to assess PRO-CTCAE's utility in identifying and managing irAEs., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: Daniel Vargas P. de Almeida reports speaker compensation from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, and Sanofi-Aventis. Daniel C. Danila reports research support from US Department of Defense, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Prostate Cancer Foundation, Stand Up to Cancer, Janssen Research & Development, Agensys, Genentech, CreaTV; consultant for Angle LLT, Axiom LLT, Janssen Research & Development, AstraZeneca, BioView LTD, Clovis, Astellas, Medivation, Pfizer, and Agensys. Michael J. Morris reports travel support from Endocyte, Fujifilm; research funding (to institution) from Novartis, Bayer, Celgene, Corcept, Roche/Genentech, Janssen; is an uncompensated consultant to Bayer, Novartis, Johnson and Johnson; is a compensated consultant to Oric, Lantheus, Curium, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Daiichi, Convergent Therapeutics, Pfizer, and ITM Isotope Technologies. Wassim Abida reports speaking honoraria from Roche, Medscape, Aptitude Health, Clinical Education Alliance, MJH Life Sciences and touchIME, consulting fees from Clovis Oncology, Janssen, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca UK, and research funding (to institution) from AstraZeneca, Zenith Epigenetics, Clovis Oncology, Glaxo-Smith Kline, and ORIC Pharmaceuticals. Howard I. Scher reports compensated consultant/advisor to Ambry Genetics Corp, Konica Minolta Inc, Bayer, Pfizer Inc, Sun Pharmaceuticals, WCG Oncology; uncompensated consultant/advisory to Amgen, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen Biotech, Inc,; honoraria from Arsenal Capital; has received research funding (to institution) from AIQ Solutions, Epic Sciences, Illumina, Inc, Janssen, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Prostate Cancer Foundation and ThermoFisher; supported in part by NIH/NCI grant P50 CA092629 (MSK SPORE in Prostate Cancer); intellectual property rights BioNTech, Elucida Oncology, MaBVAX, Y-mAbs Therapeutics, Inc.; non-financial support from Amgen, Bayer, Epic Sciences, Promontory Therapeutics (formerly Phosplatin), Pfizer Inc, Prostate Cancer Foundation, and WCG Oncology. Karen A. Autio reports research funding (to institution) from Pfizer, Amgen, Trishula, CytomX, Astra-Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Glaxo-Smith Kline, and Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy. The remaining authors have no disclosures, (© This work is published under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International License.)

Purpose: Genetic testing may alter clinical management for individuals with metastatic prostate cancer by identifying additional therapies. Traditional counseling models are unlikely to enable time-sensitive therapeutic decision-making. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and clinical impact of an alternative hereditary genetic testing model., Materials and Methods: As part of a multicenter, single-arm prospective trial, individuals with advanced prostate cancer were referred by their oncologist for testing of 14 genes associated with hereditary prostate cancer. Pretest education (brochure and video) was provided in the oncology clinic. Questionnaires assessing participant satisfaction with both pretest education and decision to undergo genetic testing were collected. A genetic counselor contacted participants by phone to obtain family history and discuss results. Medical records were queried to determine whether a change in clinical management was discussed., Results: Of 501 participants consented to germline analysis, 51 (10.2%) had at least 1 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant. Change in treatment was discussed with 22/48 (45.8%) of eligible participants who tested positive. Feasibility of this model was assessed by participant satisfaction and turnaround time. Average±SD satisfaction with the pretest education (15.5±2.2, 4-20 scale) and with the decision to undergo genetic testing (17.1±2.9, 4-20 scale) were both high. Results were returned 20 days (median) after sample collection., Conclusions: Oncologist-initiated germline genetic testing in collaboration with a genetic counselor is a feasible approach to testing advanced prostate cancer patients with impactful clinical actionability. The testing model and educational material serve as resources to clinicians treating prostate cancer patients.

Background: This phase 1 study evaluated PF-06753512, a vaccine-based immunotherapy regimen (PrCa VBIR), in two clinical states of prostate cancer (PC), metastatic castration-resistant PC (mCRPC) and biochemical recurrence (BCR)., Methods: For dose escalation, patients with mCRPC received intramuscular PrCa VBIR (adenovirus vector and plasmid DNA expressing prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and prostate stem cell antigen (PSCA)) with or without immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs, tremelimumab 40 or 80 mg with or without sasanlimab 130 or 300 mg, both subcutaneous). For dose expansion, patients with mCRPC received recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of PrCa VBIR plus tremelimumab 80 mg and sasanlimab 300 mg; patients with BCR received PrCa VBIR plus tremelimumab 80 mg (Cohort 1B-BCR) or tremelimumab 80 mg plus sasanlimab 130 mg (Cohort 5B-BCR) without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The primary endpoint was safety., Results: Ninety-one patients were treated in dose escalation (mCRPC=38) and expansion (BCR=35, mCRPC=18). Overall, treatment-related and immune-related adverse events occurred in 64 (70.3%) and 39 (42.9%) patients, with fatigue (40.7%), influenza-like illness (30.8%), diarrhea (23.1%), and immune-related thyroid dysfunction (19.8%) and rash (15.4%), as the most common. In patients with mCRPC, the objective response rate (ORR, 95% CI) was 5.6% (1.2% to 15.4%) and the median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was 5.6 (3.5 to not estimable) months for all; the ORR was 16.7% (3.6% to 41.4%) and 6-month rPFS rate was 45.5% (24.9% to 64.1%) for those who received RP2D with measurable disease (n=18). 7.4% of patients with mCRPC achieved a ≥50% decline in baseline PSA (PSA-50), with a median duration of 4.6 (1.2-45.2) months. In patients with BCR, 9 (25.7%) achieved PSA-50; the median duration of PSA response was 3.9 (1.9-4.2) and 10.1 (6.9-28.8) months for Cohorts 5B-BCR and 1B-BCR. Overall, antigen specific T-cell response was 88.0% to PSMA, 84.0% to PSA, and 80.0% to PSCA., Conclusions: PrCa VBIR overall demonstrated safety signals similar to other ICI combination trials; significant side effects were seen in some patients with BCR. It stimulated antigen-specific immunity across all cohorts and resulted in modest antitumor activity in patients with BCR without using ADT., Trial Registration Number: NCT02616185., Competing Interests: Competing interests: This work was sponsored by Pfizer. KAA: PI/research funding to institution: Amgen, AstraZeneca, CytomX, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, Pfizer, Trishula. CSH: consulting fees: Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Carrick Therapeutics, Clovis Oncology, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, Hinova, Janssen, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Myovant Sciences, Novartis, Pfizer; contracted research support: Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Emergent BioSolutions, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Medivation, Roche; ownership interest: CTI BioPharma; honoraria: Astellas. LN and X-HZ: nothing to disclose. LJA: consulting or advisory role: AADi; research funding (institution as recipient): Amgen, Astellas, Aveo, Bayer, BioNTech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera Biosciences, Eisai, Eli Lilly and Company, Epizyme, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Inovio, Merck, Novartis, Peloton Therapeutics, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Surface Oncology; other relationship: Pfizer; uncompensated relationships: Exelixis. TZ: PI/research funding: AbbVie/StemCentrx, Acerta, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Merck, Merrimack, Mirati Therapeutics, Novartis, OmniSeq, Personal Genome Diagnostics, Pfizer, Regeneron; speaker: Genomic Health (end 2020), Sanofi-Aventis (end 2020); advisory board/consultant: Amgen, Aptitude Health, AstraZeneca, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera Biosciences, Clinical Care Options, Dendreon, Eisai, Eli Lilly and Company, Exelixis, Janssen, Merck, MJH Associates, Peerview, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, QED Therapeutics, Sanofi-Aventis, Seattle Genetics, Vaniam; employee/stockholder: Archimmune Therapeutics (spouse), Capio Biosciences (spouse), Nanorobotics (spouse). HB: consultancy: Caris, Idera, Myovant, Novocure, Tracon; speaker’s bureau: Guardant360. NJV: PI/research funding: none; advisory boards: Caris, Clovis, Eisai, Fujifilm, Gilead Sciences, Merck, OnQuality Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer-Myovant, Sanofi-Aventis, Seagen; speaker’s bureau: Aveo, Bayer, Caris, Janssen, PER, Pfizer-Myovant, Sanofi, Seagen. SMP: PI funding: Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, UroGen Pharma. MTS: paid consultant and/or received honoraria: AstraZeneca, PharmaIn, Resverlogix, Sanofi; research funding to institution: Ambrx, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Immunomedics, Janssen, Madison Vaccines, Merck, Pfizer, SignalOne Bio, Tmunity, Zenith Epigenetics. RAM: research funding: Bayer. SB, NC, OB, RL, MK, I-MW, JZ, S-YT, and KAK: employees of Pfizer with stock and/or stock options. KC, HC, and RH: employees of Pfizer at the time of the study. DPP: stock and other ownership interests: Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, TYME Technologies; consulting or advisory role: Advanced Accelerator Applications, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bicycle Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly and Company, Exelixis, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Ipsen, Janssen, Mirati Therapeutics, Monopteros Therapeutics, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Roche, Seattle Genetics, UroGen Pharma; research funding: Advanced Accelerator Applications (Inst), Agensys (Inst), Astellas Medivation (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Bayer (Inst), BioXcel Therapeutics (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Endocyte (Inst), Eli Lilly and Company (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), Innocrin Pharma (Inst), MedImmune (Inst), Medivation (Inst), Merck (Inst), Mirati Therapeutics (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Progenics (Inst), Replimune (Inst), Roche (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst); expert testimony: Celgene, Sanofi., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The phase I first-in-human study ENGAGE-1 evaluated the humanized IgG1 OX40 agonistic monoclonal antibody GSK3174998 alone (Part 1 (P1)) or in combination with pembrolizumab (Part 2 (P2)) in patients with advanced solid tumors., Methods: GSK3174998 (0.003-10 mg/kg) ± pembrolizumab (200 mg) was administered intravenously every 3 weeks using a continuous reassessment method for dose escalation. Primary objectives were safety and tolerability; secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity., Results: 138 patients were enrolled (45 (P1) and 96 (P2, including 3 crossovers)). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 51% (P1) and 64% (P2) of patients, fatigue being the most common (11% and 24%, respectively). No dose-toxicity relationship was observed, and maximum-tolerated dose was not reached. Dose-limiting toxicities (P2) included Grade 3 (G3) pleural effusion and G1 myocarditis with G3 increased troponin. GSK3174998 ≥0.3 mg/kg demonstrated pharmacokinetic linearity and >80% receptor occupancy on circulating T cells; 0.3 mg/kg was selected for further evaluation. Limited clinical activity was observed for GSK3174998 (P1: disease control rate (DCR) ≥24 weeks 9%) and was not greater than that expected for pembrolizumab alone (P2: overall response rate 8%, DCR ≥24 weeks 28%). Multiplexed immunofluorescence data from paired biopsies suggested that increased infiltration of natural killer (NK)/natural killer T (NKT) cells and decreased regulatory T cells (Tregs) in the tumor microenvironment may contribute to clinical responses: CD16+CD56-CD134+ NK /NKT cells and CD3+CD4+FOXP3+CD134+ Tregs exhibited the largest magnitude of change on treatment, whereas CD3+CD8+granzyme B+PD-1+CD134+ cytotoxic T cells were the least variable. Tumor gene expression profiling revealed an upregulation of inflammatory responses, T-cell proliferation, and NK cell function on treatment with some inflammatory cytokines upregulated in peripheral blood. However, target engagement, evidenced by pharmacologic activity in peripheral blood and tumor tissue, did not correlate with clinical efficacy. The low number of responses precluded identifying a robust biomarker signature predictive of response., Conclusions: GSK3174998±pembrolizumab was well tolerated over the dose range tested and demonstrated target engagement. Limited clinical activity does not support further development of GSK3174998±pembrolizumab in advanced cancers., Trial Registration Number: NCT02528357., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SP-V is a principal/subinvestigator of clinical trials for AbbVie, Adaptimmune, Adlai Nortye USA Inc, Aduro Biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Argenx BVBA, Arno Therapeutics, Astex Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca A, Aveo, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Bayer Healthcare AG, BBB Technologies BV, Beigene, BicycleTx Ltd, Bioalliance Pharma, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Cullinan-Apollo, Curevarc, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eisai Limited, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Faron Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Forma Tharapeutics, GamaMabs, Genentech, GSK, H3 Biomedicine, Hoffmann La Roche AG, Imcheck Therapeutics, Innate Pharma, Institut De Recherche Pierre Fabre, Iris Servier, Iteos Belgium SA, Janssen Cilag, Janssen Research Foundation, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Kirin Pharm. Dev, Lilly France, Loxo Oncology, Lytix Biopharma AS, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merus, Molecular Partners AG, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology NV, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides, Onyx Therapeutics, Orion Pharma, Oryzon Genomics, Ose Pharma, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre Medicament, Plexxikon, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Seattle Genetics, Sotio A.S, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro, Turning Point Therapeutics, and Xencor outside the submitted work; non-financial support (drug supplied) from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Medimmune, Merck, NH TherAGuiX, Pfizer, Roche; research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Merck KGaA for projects unrelated to this manuscript. VL reports consulting for Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Guardant Health; research funding from GSK, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Seattle Genetics. WR reports nothing to disclose. TMB reports consulting for Guardant Health, Loxo Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Exelixis, Blueprint Medicines, Foundation Medicine, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Ignyta, Moderna Therapeutics, Pfizer. Speakers Bureau: Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Lilly; research funding from Daiichi Sankyo, Medpacto, Inc., Incyte, Mirati Therapeutics, MedImmune, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Leap Therapeutics, MabVax, Stemline Therapeutics, Merck, Lilly, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Deciphera, Merrimack, Immunogen, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Ignyta, Calithera Biosciences, Kolltan Pharmaceuticals, Principa Biopharma, Peleton, Immunocore, Aileron Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Moderna Therapeutics, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas Pharma, Five Prime Therapeutics, Jacobio, Top Alliance BioScience, Loxo, Janssen, Clovis Oncology, Takeda, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Onyx, Phosplatin Therapeutics, Foundation Medicine, and ARMO BioScience; personal expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, EMD Serono, Genentech, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pharmacyclics, Sysmex, and Pfizer. AHa reports research funding from Genentech/Roche, Merck, GSK, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Boston Biomedical, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca/Medimmune Eisai; personal fees from Merck and GSK. DCC is a consultant for Nektar, Pfizer, Werewolf, and HUYA. FSH reports research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis; receives personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, Surface, Compass Therapeutics, Apricity, Sanofi, Pionyr, Torque, Bicara, Checkpoint Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Bioentre, Gossamer, Iovance, Trillium, Catalym, Immunocore, Amgen, Kairos, Eisai, and Rheos. JHMS is a shareholder and part-time employee of Modra Pharmaceuticals BV and patent holder of oral taxanes; reports consulting for Debiopharm. JKL reports other from GSK, Novartis, Medivation/Pfizer, Genentech, EMD-Serono, AstraZeneca, Medimmune, Zenith, Ayala, UpToDate review panels for NCCN, ASCO, NIH PDQ, Medlearning, Physicians Education Resource, Prime Oncology, Medscape, Clinical Care Options, Medpage. SA reports advisory board participation for MSD, Sanofi, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer; research support from Sanofi. KAA reports research funding (to institution) from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Trishula, GSK, Merck, and Eli Lilly. FO is a principal/subinvestigator of clinical trials for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Cytovation, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Revmed, Incyte, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Exelexis, Relay, and InterRNA. MM reports research funding from Alpine Immune Sciences, Arcus Biosciences, Arvinas, Ascentage Pharma Group, Bayer, Bicycle Therapeutics, BioMed Valley Discoveries, BioNTech, Dragonfly Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Epizyme, Erasca, Exelixis, Foghorn Therapeutics, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GSK, IDEAYA Biosciences, Ikena Oncology, ImmVira Pharma, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Jacobio Pharmaceuticals, Kechow Pharma, Kezar Life Sciences, Kinnate BioPharma, MedImmune, Mereo BioPharma, Metabomed, Moderna, NBE Therapeutics, Nektar, Novartis, Oncorus, PACT Pharma, Pfizer, Plexxikon, Prelude Therapeutics, Pyramid Biosciences, Regeneron, Sapience Therapeutics, Scholar Rock Seattle Genetics, Synthrox, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Teneobio, Tempest Therapeutics, Tizona Therapeutics, TMUNITY Therapeutics, TopAlliance Biosciences, and Xilio. M; consulting/advisory role for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BicycleTX Limited, Castle Biosciences, Eisai, Ideaya Biosciences, iTeos, Pfizer, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. NS reports consulting/advisory role for Deciphera, AADi, Blueprint Medicines, Bayer, Epizyme, and Boehringer Ingelheim; research funding from GSK, Karyopharm, Deciphera, Ascentage Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, and AstraZeneca/MedImmune. SC is the principal/subinvestigator of clinical trials for AbbVie, Adaptimmune, Adlai Nortye USA Inc, Aduro Biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Astex Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca AB, Aveo, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Bayer Healthcare AG, BBB Technologies BV, Beigene, BicycleTx Ltd, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Casi Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Celgene Corporation (a Bristol-Myers Squibb company), Cellcentric, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Cullinan-Apollo, Curevarc, Cytovasion, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Faron Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Forma Tharapeutics, GamaMabs, Genentech, GSK, H3 Biomedicine, Hoffmann La Roche AG, Imcheck Therapeutics, Incyte Corporation, Innate Pharma, Institut De Recherche Pierre Fabre, Iris Servier, Iteos Belgium SA, Janssen Cilag, Janssen Research Foundation, Janssen R&D LLC, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Kirin Pharm. Dev, Lilly France, Loxo Oncology, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Merus, Molecular Partners AG, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology NV, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides, Orion Pharma, Genomics, Ose Pharma, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre Medicament, Relay Therapeutics, Inc, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Seattle Genetics, Sotio, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro, Transgene SA, Turning Point Therapeutics, and Xencor; reports research grants from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, INCA, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; reports non-financial support (drug supplied) from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, Medimmune, Merck, NH TherAGuiX, Pfizer, and Roche; reports honoraria from Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Genmab, Janssen, Merck, Novartis and Roche; reports participation in advisory boards for Alderaan Biotechnology, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Avacta, Ellipses Pharma, Oncovita, Seagen, UltraHuman8; reports travel and congress support from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Ose Pharma, Roche, Sotio. MA reports research funding (to institution) from Genentech, Nektar Therapeutics, Merck, GSK, Novartis, Jounce Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Adaptimmune, Shattuck Lab, and Gilead. Advisory boards: GSK, Shattuck Lab, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca; reports speaker fees from AstraZeneca, and Nektar Therapeutics. AS reports participation in advisory boards for Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Oncorus, Janssen, Medison, and Immunocore; reports research support: Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Symphogen AstraZeneca/Medimmune, Merck, Bayer, Surface Oncology, Northern Biologics, Janssen Oncology/Johnson & Johnson, Roche, Regeneron, Alkermes, Array Biopharma/Pfizer, GSK, Treadwell, and Amgen. OR reports employment with AstraZeneca; reports research funding from Merck; reports speaker for activities supported by educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck; reports consulting for Merck, Celgene, Five Prime, GSK, Bayer, Roche/Genentech, Puretech, Imvax, Sobi, Boehringer Ingelheim; reports pending patent for “Methods of using pembrolizumab and trebananib”. EMP, CMA, HZ, HS, SAG, MW, KMY, NY, and AHo report employment with GSK. MJC is an employee of Merck and owns stock. EVS is an employee of Merck. AM has been a principal or coinvestigator of clinical trials using OX40-targeted agents and/or has provided consulting services for Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, GSK, HiFiBiO, Bristol Myers Squibb, Shattuck Labs. JW reports consulting for Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, GSK, Novartis, Nektar, Celldex, Incyte, Biond, ImCheck, Sellas, Evaxion and EMD Serono; reports participation in advisory boards for Bristol Myers Squibb (compensated), CytoMx, Incyte, ImCheck, Biond, Sellas, Instil Bio, OncoC4, and Neximmune; reports equity holdings in Biond, Evaxion, Instil Bio, OncoC4, and Neximmune; reports research support (to institution) from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, GSK, Moderna, Pfizer, Novartis, and AstraZeneca, Moffitt Cancer Center; reports patent for ipilimumab biomarker and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes preparation and a PD-1 patent (Biodesix). JVH reports other from GSK, AstraZeneca, Checkmate Pharmaceuticals, Brightpath Biotherapeutics, Eli Lilly & Co, Kairos Venture Investments, Triptych Health Partners; reports patent with Spectrum Pharmaceuticals., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Tumor-only genomic profiling is an important tool in therapeutic management of men with prostate cancer. Since clinically actionable germline variants may be reflected in tumor profiling, it is critical to identify which variants have a higher risk of being germline in origin to better counsel patients and prioritize genetic testing., Objective: To determine when variants found on tumor-only sequencing of prostate cancers should prompt confirmatory germline testing., Design, Setting, and Participants: Men with prostate cancer who underwent both tumor and germline sequencing at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from January 1, 2015 to January 31, 2020 were evaluated., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Tumor and germline profiles were analyzed for pathogenic and likely pathogenic ("pathogenic") variants in 60 moderate- or high-penetrance genes associated with cancer predisposition. The germline probability (germline/germline + somatic) of a variant was calculated for each gene. Clinical and pathologic factors were analyzed as potential modifiers of germline probability., Results and Limitations: Of the 1883 patients identified, 1084 (58%) had a somatic or germline pathogenic variant in one of 60 cancer susceptibility genes, and of them, 240 (22%) had at least one germline variant. Overall, the most frequent variants were in TP53, PTEN, APC, BRCA2, RB1, ATM, and CHEK2. Variants in TP53, PTEN, or RB1 were identified in 746 (40%) patients and were exclusively somatic. Variants with the highest germline probabilities were in PALB2 (69%), MITF (62%), HOXB13 (60%), CHEK2 (55%), BRCA1 (55%), and BRCA2 (47%), and the overall germline probability of a variant in any DNA damage repair gene was 40%. Limitations were that most of the men included in the cohort had metastatic disease, and different thresholds for pathogenicity exist for somatic and germline variants., Conclusions: Of patients with pathogenic variants found on prostate tumor sequencing, 22% had clinically actionable germline variants, for which the germline probabilities varied widely by gene. Our results provide an evidenced-based clinical framework to prioritize referral to genetic counseling following tumor-only sequencing., Patient Summary: Patients with advanced prostate cancer are recommended to have germline genetic testing. Genetic sequencing of a patient's prostate tumor may also identify certain gene variants that are inherited. We found that patients who had variants in certain genes, such as ones that function in DNA damage repair, identified in their prostate tumor sequencing, had a high risk for having an inherited cancer syndrome., (Copyright © 2022 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Routine clinical data from clinical charts are indispensable for retrospective and prospective observational studies and clinical trials. Their reproducibility is often not assessed. We developed a prostate cancer-specific database for clinical annotations and evaluated data reproducibility., Methods: For men with prostate cancer who had clinical-grade paired tumor-normal sequencing at a comprehensive cancer center, we performed team-based retrospective data collection from the electronic medical record using a defined source hierarchy. We developed an open-source R package for data processing. With blinded repeat annotation by a reference medical oncologist, we assessed data completeness, reproducibility of team-based annotations, and impact of measurement error on bias in survival analyses., Results: Data elements on demographics, diagnosis and staging, disease state at the time of procuring a genomically characterized sample, and clinical outcomes were piloted and then abstracted for 2261 patients (with 2631 samples). Completeness of data elements was generally high. Comparing to the repeat annotation by a medical oncologist blinded to the database (100 patients/samples), reproducibility of annotations was high; T stage, metastasis date, and presence and date of castration resistance had lower reproducibility. Impact of measurement error on estimates for strong prognostic factors was modest., Conclusions: With a prostate cancer-specific data dictionary and quality control measures, manual clinical annotations by a multidisciplinary team can be scalable and reproducible. The data dictionary and the R package for reproducible data processing are freely available to increase data quality and efficiency in clinical prostate cancer research., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Purpose: Black men die from prostate cancer twice as often as White men, a disparity likely due to inherited genetics, modifiable cancer risk factors, and healthcare access. It is incompletely understood how and why tumor genomes differ by self-reported race and genetic ancestry., Experimental Design: Among 2,069 men with prostate cancer (1,841 self-reported White, 63 Asian, 165 Black) with access to clinical-grade sequencing at the same cancer center, prevalence of tumor and germline alterations was assessed in cancer driver genes reported to have different alteration prevalence by race., Results: Clinical characteristics such as prostate-specific antigen and age at diagnosis as well as cancer stage at sample procurement differed by self-reported race. However, most genomic differences persisted when adjusting for clinical characteristics. Tumors from Black men harbored fewer PTEN mutations and more AR alterations than those from White men. Tumors from Asian men had more FOXA1 mutations and more ZFHX3 alterations than White men. Despite fewer TP53 mutations, tumors from Black men had more aneuploidy, particularly chromosome arm 8q gains, an adverse prognostic factor. Genetic ancestry was associated with similar tumor alterations as self-reported race, but also with modifiable cancer risk factors. Community-level average income was associated with chr8q gains after adjusting for race and ancestry., Conclusions: Tumor genomics differed by race even after accounting for clinical characteristics. Equalizing access to care may not fully eliminate such differences. Therapies for alterations more common in racial minorities are needed. Tumor genomic differences should not be assumed to be entirely due to germline genetics., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Phase 2 trial endpoints that can be utilized in high-risk biochemical recurrence (BCR) after prostatectomy as a way of more rapidly identifying treatments for phase 3 trials are urgently needed. The efficacy of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) in BCR is unknown., Objective: To compare the rates of complete biochemical responses after testosterone recovery after 8 mo of AAP and degarelix, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, alone or in combination., Design Setting and Participants: Patients with BCR (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥1.0 ng/ml, PSA doubling time ≤9 mo, no metastases on standard imaging, and testosterone ≥150 ng/dl) after prostatectomy (with or without prior radiotherapy) were included in this study., Intervention: Patients were randomized to AAP (arm 1), AAP with degarelix (arm 2), or degarelix (arm 3) for 8 mo, and monitored for 18 mo., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The primary endpoint was undetectable PSA with testosterone >150 ng/dl at 18 mo. Secondary endpoints were undetectable PSA at 8 mo and time to testosterone recovery., Results and Limitations: For the 122 patients enrolled, no difference was found between treatments for the primary endpoint (arm 1: 5.1% [95% confidence interval {CI}: 1-17%], arm 2: 17.1% [95% CI: 7-32%], arm 3: 11.9% [95% CI: 4-26%]; arm 1 vs 2, p = 0.93; arm 2 vs 3, p = 0.36). AAP therapy showed the shortest median time to testosterone recovery (36.0 wk [95% CI: 35.9-36.1]) relative to degarelix (52.9 wk [95% CI: 49.0-56.0], p < 0.001). Rates of undetectable PSA at 8 mo differed between AAP with degarelix and degarelix alone ( p = 0.04), but not between AAP alone and degarelix alone ( p = 0.12). Limitations of this study include a lack of long-term follow-up., Conclusions: Rates of undetectable PSA levels with testosterone recovery were similar between arms, suggesting that increased androgen suppression with AAP and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is unlikely to eradicate recurrent disease compared with ADT alone., Patient Summary: We evaluated the use of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), AAP alone, or ADT alone in men with biochemically recurrent, nonmetastatic prostate cancer. While more men who received the combination had an undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at 8 mo on treatment, once men came off treatment and testosterone level rose, there was no difference in the rates of undetectable PSA levels. This suggests that the combination is not able to eradicate disease any better than ADT alone., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Background: Probody® therapeutics are antibody prodrugs designed to be activated by tumor-associated proteases. This conditional activation restricts antibody binding to the tumor microenvironment, thereby minimizing 'off-tumor' toxicity. Here, we report the phase 1 data from the first-in-human study of CX-072 (pacmilimab), a Probody immune checkpoint inhibitor directed against programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), in combination with the anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (anti-CTLA-4) antibody ipilimumab., Methods: Adults (n=27) with advanced solid tumors (naive to PD-L1/programmed cell death protein 1 or CTLA-4 inhibitors) were enrolled in the phase 1 combination therapy dose-escalation portion of this multicenter, open-label, phase 1/2 study (NCT03013491). Dose-escalation pacmilimab/ipilimumab followed a standard 3+3 design and continued until the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was determined. Pacmilimab+ipilimumab was administered intravenously every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by pacmilimab administered every 2 weeks as monotherapy. The primary objective was identification of dose-limiting toxicities and determination of the MTD. Other endpoints included the rate of objective response (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors v.1.1)., Results: Twenty-seven patients were enrolled in pacmilimab (mg/kg)+ipilimumab (mg/kg) dose-escalation cohorts: 0.3+3 (n=6); 1+3 (n=3); 3+3 (n=3); 10+3 (n=8); 10+6 (n=6); and 10+10 (n=1). Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in three patients, one at the 0.3+3 dose level (grade 3 dyspnea/pneumonitis) and two at the 10+6 dose level (grade 3 colitis, grade 3 increased aspartate aminotransferase). The MTD and recommended phase 2 dose was pacmilimab 10 mg/kg+ipilimumab 3 mg/kg administered every 3 weeks. Pacmilimab-related grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) and grade 3-4 immune-related AEs were reported in nine (33%) and six (22%) patients, respectively. Three patients (11%) discontinued treatment because of AEs. The overall response rate was 19% (95% CI 6.3 to 38.1), with one complete (anal squamous cell carcinoma) and four partial responses (cancer of unknown primary, leiomyosarcoma, mesothelioma, testicular cancer). Responses lasted for >12 months in four patients., Conclusions: The MTD and recommended phase 2 dose of pacmilimab (10 mg/kg)+ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) every 3 weeks is active and has a favorable tolerability profile., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RES: Honoraria from Amgen and AstraZeneca. Advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Celldex, Daiichi Sankyo, EMD Serono, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, and Seagen. Research support from AstraZeneca and Merck. OH: Consulting/advisory boards for Aduro, Akeso, Amgen, Beigene, Bioatla, BMS, Roche Genentech, GSK, lmmunocore, ldera, lncyte, Janssen, Merck, Nextcure, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron, Seattle Genetics, Tempus, and Zelluna. Speakers’ bureau for BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi/Regeneron. Institutional financial support for contracted research from Arcus, Aduro, Akeso, Amgen, Bioatla, BMS, CytomX, Exelixis, Roche Genentech, GSK, lmmunocore, ldera, lncyte, lovance, Merck, Moderna, Merck-Serano, NextCure, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron, Seattle Genetics, Torque, and Zelluna. EGEdV: Institutional financial support for clinical trials or contracted research from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chugai Pharma, G1 Therapeutics Genentech, Nordic Nanovector, Radius Health, Regeneron, Roche, Servier, and Synthon. Institutional financial support for advisory boards from Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, NSABP, Pfizer, and Sanofi; all outside the submitted work. PAO: Research funding from and has advisory role for Neon Therapeutics, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Merck, CytomX, Pfizer, Novartis, Celldex, Amgen, Array, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Armo BioSciences and Roche/Genentech. JG-C: Speaker’s bureau for Bayer; Fees to support registration and attending scientific meetings from BMS, Novartis. VB: Consulting/advisory role for CytomX Therapeutics, Guidepoint, Ideaya Biosciences; Loxo Therapeutics, Oncoart, and Puma Biotechnology. Institutional financial support for clinical trials from Abbvie, ACEO, Adaptaimmune, Amcure, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Therapeutics, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi, DebioPharm, Dynavax, GSK, Genentech/Roche, H3, Incyte, Innovio, Janssen, Kura, Lilly, Loxo, Mersana, Nektar, Macrogenics, Menarini, Merck, Merus, Millenium, MSD, Nanobiotix, Novartis, ORCA, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Principia, PsiOxus, PUMA, Regeneron, Rigontec, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Spectrum, Synthon, Taiho, Tesaro, Transgene, Takeda, and Zenith. JB: Institutional financial support for clinical trials or contracted research from AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, ADC, Agios, Amgen, Apexigen, Arch Oncology, Arcus Bio, ARMO, Array, Arrys, AstraZeneca, AtlasMedx, Bayer, Beigene, Bellicum, BI, Bicycle Therapeutics, Blueprint, BMS, Boston Biomedical, CALGB, Calithera, Celgene, Celldex, Cyteir Therapeutics, Cytomx, Daiichi Sankyo, Effector, Eisai, EMD Serono, Evelo, Five Prime, FORMA, Forty Seven, Foundation Bio, Genentech / Roche, Gilead, Gossamer Bio, GSK, Harpoon, Hutchinson MediPharma, IGM Biosciences, Imclone, Incyte, Innate, Innate Pharma, Ipsen, Jacobio, Koltan, LEAP, Lilly, Mabspace, Macrogenics, Marshall Edwards, MedImmune, Merck, Merrimack, Mersana, Merus, Millennium, Morphotex, Nektar, NeoImmune Tech, NGM Biopharma, Novartis, Novocare, NuMab, Oncogenex, OncoMed, Ongologie, Onyx, Pfizer, Pieris, Prelude Oncology, PureTech Health, Regeneron, Relay Therapeutics, REPARE Therapeutics, Revolution Medicines, Rgenix, Sanofi, Scholar Rock, Seattle Genetics, Shattuck Labs, Sierra, Stemcentrx, SynDevRex, Synthorx, Taiho, Takeda, Tarveda, TempestTx, TG Therapeutics, Tracon, Treadwell Therapeutics, Tyrogenex, Unum Therapeutics, Vyriad, and Zymeworks. Institutional financial support for advisory boards/consulting from Array, Agios, Amgen, Apexigen, Arch Oncology, ARMO, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, BI, Bicycle Therapeutics, BMS, Celgene, Continuum Clinical, Cyteir, Daiichi Sankyo, Evelo, Five Prime, FORMA, Fusion Therapeutics, Genentech / Roche, Gilead, GSK, Incyte, Innate, Ipsen, Janssen, LEAP, Lilly, Macrogenics, MedImmune, Merck, Merrimack, Moderna Therapeutics, Molecular Partners, Novartis, Oncogenex, OncoMed, Pfizer, Phoenix Bio, Piper Biotech, Prelude Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics, Samsung Bioepios, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Taiho, Tanabe Research Laboratories, TD2 (Translational Drug Development), TG Therapeutics, Tizona, Tolero, and Torque. Food, beverages and/or travel expenses from ARMO, BI, BMS, Celgene, FORMA, Genentech / Roche, Gilead, Ipsen, Lilly, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Oncogenex, OncoMed, and Taiho. KAA: Advisory board for CytomX (unpaid). Institutional financial support for clinical trials or contracted research from Amgen, AstraZeneca, CytomX, GSK, Merck, Pfizer, and Tizona. DCC: Consultant for Nektar Therapeutics, GSK, Torque, PureTech, and HUYA. RP: Honoria for attending advisory boards from Pierre Faber, Bayer, Octimet, Clovis Oncology, Novartis, Karus Therapeutics, Biosceptre, BMS, Cybrexa, Ellipses, CV6 Therapeutics, Astex Therapeutics and Sanofi Aventis. Fees for delivery of educational talks or chairing educational meetings by AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bayer, Tesaro and BMS. Funds to support attendance at conferences from BMS and MSD. MS is a former employee and Lawrence Lu is a current employee of CytomX Therapeutics and both own stock in CytomX Therapeutics. FT: Research funding and conference registration from Novartis. Consultancy/advisory role for GSK, Achilles Therapeutics, BMS, Zelluna, Enara Bio, Bayer, T-Knife., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Probody ® therapeutics are antibody prodrugs that are activated in the tumor microenvironment by tumor-associated proteases, thereby restricting the activity to the tumor microenvironment and minimizing 'off-tumor' toxicity. We report dose-escalation and single-agent expansion phase data from the first-in-human study of CX-072 (pacmilimab), a Probody checkpoint inhibitor directed against programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)., Methods: In the dose-escalation phase of this multicenter, open-label study (NCT03013491), adults with advanced solid tumors (naive to programmed-death-1/PD-L1 or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 inhibitors) were enrolled into one of seven dose-escalation cohorts, with pacmilimab administered intravenously every 14 days. The primary endpoints were safety and determination of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). In the expansion phase, patients with one of six prespecified malignancies (triple-negative breast cancer [TNBC]; anal squamous cell carcinoma [aSCC]; cutaneous SCC [cSCC]; undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma [UPS]; small bowel adenocarcinoma [SBA]; and thymic epithelial tumor [TET]); or high tumor mutational burden (hTMB) tumors were enrolled. The primary endpoint was objective response (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors v.1.1)., Results: An MTD was not reached with doses up to 30 mg/kg. A recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of 10 mg/kg was chosen based on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic findings in the expansion phase. Ninety-eight patients enrolled in the expansion phase: TNBC (n=14), aSCC (n=14), cSCC (n=14), UPS (n=20), SBA (n=14), TET (n=8), and hTMB tumors (n=14). Of 114 patients receiving pacmilimab at the RP2D, grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 10 patients (9%), serious TRAEs in six patients (5%), and treatment discontinuation due to TRAEs in two patients (2%). Grade ≥3 immune-related AEs occurred in two patients (rash, myocarditis). High PD-L1 expression (ie, >50% Tumor Proportion Score) was observed in 22/144 (19%) patients. Confirmed objective responses were observed in patients with cSCC (n=5, including one complete response), hTMB (n=4, including one complete response), aSCC (n=2), TNBC (n=1), UPS (n=1), and anaplastic thyroid cancer (n=1)., Conclusions: Pacmilimab can be administered safely at the RP2D of 10 mg/kg every 14 days. At this dose, pacmilimab had a low rate of immune-mediated toxicity and showed signs of antitumor activity in patients not selected for high PD-L1 expression., Trial Registration Number: NCT03013491., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AN: Research funding from Amplimmune, Arcus Biosciences, ARMO BioSciences, Atterocor, BMS, Calithera Biosciences, CytomX Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, EMD, HealiosOnc, ImmuneOncia, Incyte, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kymab, MedImmune, Merck, NCI, NeoimmuneTech, Neon Therapeutics, Novartis, Nutrition, Pfizer, PsiOxus, Regeneron, Serono, Surface Oncology, and TopAlliance Biosciences. Advisory boards for CytomX Therapeutics, Genome & Company, Kymab, Novartis, OncoSec KEYNOTE-695, and STCube Pharmaceuticals. Travel expenses from ARMO BioSciences. AN’s spouse has received research funding from Baxalta, Chao physician-scientist, Immune Deficiency Foundation, and Jeffery Modell Foundation; and has served on advisory boards for Behring, CSL, Horizon, Pharming, and Takeda. FT: Research funding and conference registration from Novartis. Consultancy/advisory role for Achilles Therapeutics, Bayer, BMS, Enara Bio, GSK, T-Knife, and Zelluna. EGEDV: Institutional financial support for clinical trials or contracted research from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Chugai Pharma, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Nordic Nanovector, Radius Health, Regeneron, Roche, Servier, and Synthon. Institutional financial support for advisory boards from Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, NSABP, Pfizer, and Sanofi; all outside the submitted work. FALME: Consultancy/advisory role for Servier, Novartis, Eisai, and Ipsen. NU: Consultant for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, QED, and Taiho. Research support from EMD, Ipsen, Serono, and Taiho. Holds stock in Exact Sciences and Natera. PAO: Research funding from and advisory role for Amgen, Armo BioSciences, Array, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celldex, CytomX, Merck, Neon Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche/Genentech. PL: Consultant/advisory board for AbbVie, ABL Bio, Agenus, Agios, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Black Diamond, Cybrexa, CytomX, EMD Serono, GenMab, Genentech, Glaxo-Smith Kline, ImmunoMet, IQVIA, Kineta Inc., Kyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical Development, MacroGenics, Molecular Templates, Pfizer, QED Therapeutics, Salarius, Shattuck, Silverback, SK Life Science, SOTIO, STCube Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, TRIGR, and Zentalis Pharmaceuticals. Data safety monitoring committee for Five Prime, Halozyme, and Tyme. Participant in imCORE Alliance (Roche/Genentech). JG-C: Speaker’s bureau for Bayer; fees to support registration and attending scientific meetings from BMS and Novartis. VB: Consulting/advisory role for CytomX Therapeutics, Guidepoint, Ideaya Biosciences, Loxo Therapeutics, Oncoart, and Puma Biotechnology. Institutional financial support for clinical trials from Abbvie, ACEO, Adaptaimmune, Amcure, AMGEN, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Therapeutics, Cytomx Therapeutics, Daiichi, DebioPharm, Dynavax, GSK, Genentech/Roche, H3, Incyte, Innovio, Janssen, Kura, Lilly, Loxo, Macrogenics, Menarini, Merck, Mersana, Merus, Millenium, MSD, Nanobiotix, Nektar, Novartis, ORCA, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Principia, PsiOxus, PUMA, Regeneron, Rigontec, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Spectrum, Synthon, Taiho, Tesaro, Transgene, Takeda, and Zenith. JB: Institutional financial support for clinical trials or contracted research from AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, ADC, Agios, Amgen, Apexigen, Arch Oncology, Arcus Bio, ARMO, Array, Arrys, AstraZeneca, AtlasMedx, Bayer, Beigene, Bellicum, BI, Bicycle Therapeutics, Blueprint, BMS, Boston Biomedical, CALGB, Calithera, Celgene, Celldex, Cyteir Therapeutics, Cytomx, Daiichi Sankyo, Effector, Eisai, EMD Serono, Evelo, Five Prime, FORMA, Forty Seven, Foundation Bio, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Gossamer Bio, GSK, Harpoon, Hutchinson MediPharma, IGM Biosciences, Imclone, Incyte, Innate, Innate Pharma, Ipsen, Jacobio, Koltan, LEAP, Lilly, Mabspace, Macrogenics, Marshall Edwards, MedImmune, Merck, Merrimack, Mersana, Merus, Millennium, Morphotex, Nektar, NeoImmune Tech, NGM Biopharma, Novartis, Novocare, NuMab, Oncogenex, OncoMed, Ongologie, Onyx, Pfizer, Pieris, Prelude Oncology, PureTech Health, Regeneron, Relay Therapeutics, REPARE Therapeutics, Revolution Medicines, Rgenix, Sanofi, Scholar Rock, Seattle Genetics, Shattuck Labs, Sierra, Stemcentrx, SynDevRex, Synthorx, Taiho, Takeda, Tarveda, TempestTx, TG Therapeutics, Tracon, Treadwell Therapeutics, Tyrogenex, Unum Therapeutics, Vyriad, and Zymeworks. Institutional financial support for advisory boards/consulting from Array, Agios, Amgen, Apexigen, Arch Oncology, ARMO, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, BI, Bicycle Therapeutics, BMS, Celgene, Continuum Clinical, Cyteir, Daiichi Sankyo, Evelo, Five Prime, FORMA, Fusion Therapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, GSK, Incyte, Innate, Ipsen, Janssen, LEAP, Lilly, Macrogenics, MedImmune, Merck, Merrimack, Moderna Therapeutics, Molecular Partners, Novartis, Oncogenex, OncoMed, Pfizer, Phoenix Bio, Piper Biotech, Prelude Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics, Samsung Bioepios, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Taiho, Tanabe Research Laboratories, TD2 (Translational Drug Development), TG Therapeutics, Tizona, Tolero, and Torque. Food, beverages and/or travel expenses from ARMO, BI, BMS, Celgene, FORMA, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Ipsen, Lilly, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Oncogenex, OncoMed, and Taiho. KAA: Advisory board for CytomX (unpaid). Institutional financial support for clinical trials or contracted research from Amgen, AstraZeneca, CytomX, GSK, Merck, Pfizer, and Tizona. MR: Honoraria from Bayer. GD: Research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck. Honoraria from AstraZeneca. Advisory board for Curio Science. MG-M: Speaker’s bureau for Astra Zeneca, Pharmamar, and Roche. Financial support for registration and attendance at scientific meetings from MDS, Pharmamar, and Roche. MS is a former employee and ALH is a current employee of CytomX Therapeutics, Inc. Both are stockowners in CytomX Therapeutics Inc. H-TA: Advisor for Bayer, Beigene, Bicycle, Engitix, Guardant, iOnctura, Roche, and Servier. Employed by HCA Healthcare UK and Sarah Cannon Research Institute. AS: Consultant for Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, Mirati, and Novartis. Institutional financial support for clinical trials or contracted research from CytomX., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background Treatment options for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are limited and checkpoint blockade inhibitors have been disappointing in this disease. Pegilodecakin has demonstrated single agent anti-tumor activity in immune-sensitive tumors. Phase 1 and preclinical data indicate synergy of pegilodecakin with 5-FU and platins. We assessed the safety and activity of pegilodecakin+FOLFOX in patients with PDAC. Methods IVY (NCT02009449) was an open-label phase 1b trial in the United States. Here we report on all enrolled patients from cohort C. Heavily pretreated patients were treated with pegilodecakin (self-administered subcutaneously daily at 2.5, 5, or 10 μg/kg) + 5-flurouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), dosed per manufacturers prescribing information, until tumor progression. Eligible patients had measurable disease per immune-related response criteria (irRC), were ≥ 18 years of age, and had ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were evaluated for primary(safety) and secondary (tumor response per irRC) endpoints. Results From 5 August 2014-12 July 2016, 39 patients enrolled in cohort C. All patients were evaluable for safety. In this advanced population, regimen had manageable toxicities with no immune-related adverse events (irAEs) greater than grade 1. The most common grade 3/4/5 TEAEs were thrombocytopenia (21[53.8%] of 39) and anemia (17[43.6%] of 39). In evaluable PDAC patients, the best overall response of pegilodecakin+FOLFOX was 3(14%) with CRs in 2(9%) patients. Conclusions Pegilodecakin+FOLFOX had an acceptable tolerability profile in PDAC, with no substantial irAEs seen, and promising efficacy with the combination yielding a 2-year OS of 24% (95% CI 10-42). These data led to the phase 3 study with pegilodecakin+FOLFOX as second-line therapy of PDAC (SEQUOIA).

Purpose: Tumor-associated macrophages correlate with increased invasiveness, growth, and immunosuppression. Activation of the colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor (CSF-1R) results in proliferation, differentiation, and migration of monocytes/macrophages. This phase I study evaluated the immunologic and clinical activity, and safety profile of CSF-1R inhibition with the mAb LY3022855., Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced refractory metastatic breast cancer (MBC) or metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) were treated with LY3022855 intravenously in 6-week cycles in cohorts: (A) 1.25 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W); (B) 1.0 mg/kg on weeks 1, 2, 4, and 5; (C) 100 mg once weekly; (D)100 mg Q2W. mCRPC patients were enrolled in cohorts A and B; patients with MBC were enrolled in all cohorts. Efficacy was assessed by RECIST and Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 2 criteria., Results: Thirty-four patients (22 MBC; 12 mCRPC) received ≥1 dose of LY3022855. At day 8, circulating CSF-1 levels increased and proinflammatory monocytes CD14 DIM CD16 BRIGHT decreased. Best RECIST response was stable disease in five patients with MBC (23%; duration, 82-302 days) and three patients with mCRPC (25%; duration, 50-124 days). Two patients with MBC (cohort A) had durable stable disease >9 months and a third patient with MBC had palpable reduction in a nontarget neck mass. Immune-related gene activation in tumor biopsies posttreatment was observed. Common any grade treatment-related adverse events were fatigue, decreased appetite, nausea, asymptomatic increased lipase, and creatine phosphokinase., Conclusions: LY3022855 was well tolerated and showed evidence of immune modulation. Clinically meaningful stable disease >9 months was observed in two patients with MBC., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

A number of trials have evaluated the use of single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The benefit appears to be limited to a small subset of patients, such as those with tumors with microsatellite instability, highlighting the importance of biomarkers to identify which patients may be more likely to respond. Given the lack of efficacy for most patients with mCRPC, our understanding of the mechanisms of primary resistance to checkpoint inhibitors and of the tumor immune microenvironment in prostate cancer is critical. Knowledge gained in these key areas will allow for the identification of novel combination therapies that will circumvent resistance mechanisms and should be tested in clinical trials. Improving our understanding of the effects of androgen deprivation therapy on immune cells and of the most favorable disease setting (e.g., biochemically recurrent vs. castration-resistant prostate cancer) may aid in the optimal use of checkpoint inhibitors in combination with other agents. If successful, this may move immune checkpoint inhibitors into the treatment armamentarium of prostate cancer management.

The deep and durable antitumor effects of antibody-based immunotherapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized oncology and transformed the therapeutic landscape for many cancers. Several anti-programmed death receptor 1 and anti-programmed death receptor ligand 1 antibodies have been approved for use in advanced solid tumors, including melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, bladder cancer, and other cancers. ICIs are under development across many tumor types and preliminary results are compelling. However, ICIs have been associated with severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including rash, diarrhea, colitis, hypophysitis, hepatotoxicity, and hypothyroidism, which in some cases lead to high morbidity, are potentially life-threatening, and limit the duration of treatment. The incidence of severe irAEs increases further when programmed cell death-1 and programmed cell death ligand-1 inhibitors are combined with anti-CTLA-4 and/or other multidrug regimens. Probody therapeutics, a new class of recombinant, proteolytically activated antibody prodrugs are in early development and are designed to exploit the hallmark of dysregulation of tumor protease activity to deliver their therapeutic effects within the tumor microenvironment (TME) rather than peripheral tissue. TME targeting, rather than systemic targeting, may reduce irAEs in tissues distant from the tumor. Probody therapeutic technology has been applied to multiple antibody formats, including immunotherapies, Probody drug conjugates, and T-cell-redirecting bispecific Probody therapeutics. In preclinical models, Probody therapeutics have consistently maintained anticancer activity with improved safety in animals compared with the non-Probody parent antibody. In the clinical setting, Probody therapeutics may expand or create therapeutic windows for anticancer therapies., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: IL-10 has anti-inflammatory and CD8+ T-cell stimulating activities. Pegilodecakin (pegylated IL-10) is a first-in-class, long-acting IL-10 receptor agonist that induces oligoclonal T-cell expansion and has single-agent activity in advanced solid tumours. We assessed the safety and activity of pegilodecakin with anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody inhibitors in patients with advanced solid tumours., Methods: We did a multicentre, multicohort, open-label, phase 1b trial (IVY) at 12 cancer research centres in the USA. Patients were assigned sequentially into cohorts. Here, we report on all enrolled patients from two cohorts treated with pegilodecakin combined with anti-PD-1 inhibitors. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced malignant solid tumours refractory to previous therapies, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients with uncontrolled infectious diseases were excluded. Pegilodecakin was provided in single-use 3 mL vials and was self-administered subcutaneously by injection at home at 10 μg/kg or 20 μg/kg once per day in combination with pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg every 3 weeks or 200 mg every 3 weeks) or nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 240 mg every 2 weeks or 480 mg every 4 weeks at the approved dosing), both of which were given intravenously at the study site. Patients received pembrolizumab or nivolumab with pegilodecakin until disease progression, toxicity necessitating treatment discontinuation, patient withdrawal of consent, or study end. The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability, assessed in all patients enrolled in the study who received any amount of study medication including at least one dose of pegilodecakin, and pharmacokinetics (previously published). Secondary endpoints included objective response by immune-related response criteria in all patients who were treated and had evaluable measurements. The study is active but no longer recruiting, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02009449., Findings: Between Feb 13, 2015, and Sept 12, 2017, 111 patients were enrolled in the two cohorts. 53 received pegilodecakin plus pembrolizumab, and 58 received pegilodecakin plus nivolumab. 34 (31%) of 111 patients had non-small-cell lung cancer, 37 (33%) had melanoma, and 38 (34%) had renal cell carcinoma; one (<1%) patient had triple-negative breast cancer and one (<1%) had bladder cancer. Data cutoff was July 1, 2018. Median follow-up was 26·9 months (IQR 22·3-31·5) for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, 33·0 months (29·2-35·1) for those with melanoma, and 22·7 months (20·9-27·0) for those with renal cell carcinoma. At least one treatment-related adverse event occurred in 103 (93%) of 111 patients. Grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 73 (66%) of 111 patients (35 [66%] of 53 in the pembrolizumab group and 38 [66%] of 58 in the nivolumab group), the most common of which were anaemia (12 [23%] in the pembrolizumab group and 16 [28%] in the nivolumab group), thrombocytopenia (14 [26%] in the pembrolizumab group and 12 [21%] in the nivolumab group), fatigue (11 [21%] in the pembrolizumab group and 6 [10%] in the nivolumab group) and hypertriglyceridaemia (three [6%] in the pembrolizumab group and eight [14%] in the nivolumab group). There were no fatal adverse events determined to be related to the study treatments. Of the patients evaluable for response, objective responses were 12 (43%) of 28 (non-small-cell lung cancer), three (10%) of 31 (melanoma), and 14 (40%) of 35 (renal cell carcinoma)., Interpretation: In this patient population, pegilodecakin with anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies had a manageable toxicity profile and preliminary antitumour activity. Pegilodecakin with pembrolizumab or nivolumab could provide a new therapeutic opportunity for previously treated patients with renal cell carcinoma and non-small-cell carcinoma., Funding: ARMO BioSciences, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibody pembrolizumab is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) solid tumors, but the prevalence of MSI-H/dMMR prostate cancer and the clinical utility of immune checkpoint blockade in this disease subset are unknown., Objective: To define the prevalence of MSI-H/dMMR prostate cancer and the clinical benefit of anti-PD-1/programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy in this molecularly defined population., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this case series, 1551 tumors from 1346 patients with prostate cancer undergoing treatment at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were prospectively analyzed using a targeted sequencing assay from January 1, 2015, through January 31, 2018. Patients had a diagnosis of prostate cancer and consented to tumor molecular profiling when a tumor biopsy was planned or archival tissue was available. For each patient, clinical outcomes were reported, with follow-up until May 31, 2018., Main Outcomes and Measures: Tumor mutation burden and MSIsensor score, a quantitative measure of MSI, were calculated. Mutational signature analysis and immunohistochemistry for MMR protein expression were performed in select cases., Results: Among the 1033 patients who had adequate tumor quality for MSIsensor analysis (mean [SD] age, 65.6 [9.3] years), 32 (3.1%) had MSI-H/dMMR prostate cancer. Twenty-three of 1033 patients (2.2%) had tumors with high MSIsensor scores, and an additional 9 had indeterminate scores with evidence of dMMR. Seven of the 32 MSI-H/dMMR patients (21.9%) had a pathogenic germline mutation in a Lynch syndrome-associated gene. Six patients had more than 1 tumor analyzed, 2 of whom displayed an acquired MSI-H phenotype later in their disease course. Eleven patients with MSI-H/dMMR castration-resistant prostate cancer received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. Six of these (54.5%) had a greater than 50% decline in prostate-specific antigen levels, 4 of whom had radiographic responses. As of May 2018, 5 of the 6 responders (5 of 11 total [45.5%]) were still on therapy for as long as 89 weeks., Conclusions and Relevance: The MSI-H/dMMR molecular phenotype is uncommon yet therapeutically meaningful in prostate cancer and can be somatically acquired during disease evolution. Given the potential for durable responses to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, these findings support the use of prospective tumor sequencing to screen all patients with advanced prostate cancer for MSI-H/dMMR. Because not all patients with the MSI-H/dMMR phenotype respond, further studies should explore mechanisms of resistance.

Tumor-reactive T cell exhaustion prevents the success of immune therapies. Pegilodecakin activates intratumoral CD8 + T cells in mice and induces objective tumor responses in patients. Here we report that pegilodecakin induces hallmarks of CD8 + T cell immunity in cancer patients, including elevation of interferon-γ and GranzymeB, expansion and activation of intratumoral CD8 + T cells, and proliferation and expansion of LAG-3 + PD-1 + CD8 + T cells. On pegilodecakin, newly expanded T cell clones, undetectable at baseline, become 1%-10% of the total T cell repertoire in the blood. Elevation of interleukin-18, expansion of LAG-3 + PD-1 + T cells and novel T cell clones each correlated with objective tumor responses. Combined pegilodecakin with anti-PD-1 increased the expansion of LAG-3 + PD-1 + CD8 + T cells., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Preferential delivery of docetaxel to tumors by prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted nanoparticles is clinically effective, and the selective reduction of PSMA-positive circulating tumor cells (CTCs) after treatment has implications for patient selection and disease monitoring., Objective: To determine the safety and efficacy of BIND-014, a PSMA-directed docetaxel-containing nanoparticle, in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)., Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter open-label, phase 2 clinical trial of 42 chemotherapy-naive patients with progressing mCRPC after treatment with abiraterone acetate and/or enzalutamide was conducted from June 24, 2013, to June 10, 2016., Intervention: Treatment with BIND-014 at a dosage of 60 mg/m2 was given intravenously on day 1 of 21-day cycles in combination with prednisone until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects occurred., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was radiographic progression-free survival according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 recommendations and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Secondary end points included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥50% reduction from baseline) and changes in CTC number (from ≥5 to <5 cells per 7.5 mL of blood) (CellSearch). Changes in CTC number based on PSMA expression levels on CTCs were also evaluated (Epic Sciences)., Results: Among the 42 patients (81% white), the median age was 66 (range, 50-85) years, and median number of doses received was 6 (range, 1-21). A PSA response was observed in 12 of 40 patients (30%; 95% CI, 18%-45%), measurable disease response in 6 of 19 (32% [95% CI, 15%-54%]), and CTC conversions in 13 of 26 (50%; 95% CI, 32%-68%). Median radiographic progression-free survival was 9.9 (95% CI, 7.1-12.6) months. With use of the Epic Sciences non-EPCAM-based CTC detection platform, CTCs were detected in 16 of 18 patients (89%); 11 of 18 (61%) had CTCs with PSMA expression above the analytical threshold level (PSMA positive) at baseline (range, 0.4-72.4 CTCs/mL). After treatment, PSMA-positive CTCs were preferentially reduced. Treatment-related adverse events included grade 1 or 2 fatigue (29 of 42 patients [69%]), nausea (23 [55%]), neuropathy (14 [33%]), and neutropenic fever (1 [2%])., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that treatment with BIND-014 is active and well tolerated in patients with chemotherapy-naive mCRPC. Antitumor activity may be related to PSMA expression levels on CTCs, which suggests that patients who are likely to benefit from this treatment can be identified before treatment is initiated., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01812746.

Purpose Interleukin-10 (IL-10) stimulates the expansion and cytotoxicity of tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T cells and inhibits inflammatory CD4+ T cells. Pegylation prolongs the serum concentration of IL-10 without changing the immunologic profile. This phase I study sought to determine the safety and antitumor activity of AM0010. Patients and Methods Patients with selected advanced solid tumors were treated with AM0010 in a dose-escalation study, which was followed by a renal cell cancer (RCC) dose-expansion cohort. AM0010 was self-administered subcutaneously at doses of 1 to 40 μg/kg once per day. Primary end points were safety and tolerability; clinical activity and immune activation were secondary end points. Results In the dose-escalation and -expansion cohorts, 33 and 18 patients, respectively, were treated with daily subcutaneous injection of AM0010. AM0010 was tolerated in a heavily pretreated patient population. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) included anemia, fatigue, thrombocytopenia, fever, and injection site reactions. Grade 3 to 4 nonhematopoietic treatment-related AEs, including rash (n = 2) and transaminitis (n = 1), were observed in five of 33 patients. Grade 3 to 4 anemia or thrombocytopenia was observed in five patients. Most treatment-related AEs were transient or reversible. AM0010 led to systemic immune activation with elevated immune-stimulatory cytokines and reduced transforming growth factor beta in the serum. Partial responses were observed in one patient with uveal melanoma and four of 15 evaluable patients with RCC treated at 20 μg/kg (overall response rate, 27%). Prolonged stable disease of at least 4 months was observed in four patients, including one with colorectal cancer with disease stabilization for 20 months. Conclusion AM0010 has an acceptable toxicity profile with early evidence of antitumor activity, particularly in RCC. These data support the further evaluation of AM0010 both alone and in combination with other immune therapies and chemotherapies.

Prostate cancer (PCa) and breast cancer (BCa) share similarities as hormone-sensitive cancers with a wide heterogeneity of both phenotype and biology. The androgen receptor (AR) is a hormone receptor involved in both benign and malignant processes. Targeting androgen synthesis and the AR pathway has been and remains central to PCa therapy. Recently, there has been increased interest in the role of the AR in BCa development and growth, with results indicating AR co-expression with estrogen, progesterone, and human epidermal growth factor receptors, across all intrinsic subtypes of BCa. Targeting the AR axis is an evolving field with novel therapies in development which may ultimately be applicable to both tumor types. In this review, we offer an overview of available agents which target the AR axis in both PCa and BCa and provide insights into the novel drugs in development for targeting this signaling pathway., (© 2015 Society for Endocrinology.)

Background: Pain negatively affects quality of life for cancer patients. Preliminary data in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) suggested a benefit of the oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor cabozantinib to pain palliation., Objective: Prospective evaluation of cabozantinib's benefits on pain and narcotic use in mCRPC., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a nonrandomized expansion (NRE) cohort (n=144) of a phase 2 randomized discontinuation trial in docetaxel-refractory mCRPC patients. Pain and interference of symptoms with sleep and general activity were electronically self-reported daily for 7-d intervals at baseline and regularly scheduled throughout the study. Mean per-patient scores were calculated for each interval. Narcotic use was recorded daily during the same intervals., Intervention: Open-label cabozantinib (100mg or 40mg)., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The following stringent response definition was used: clinically meaningful pain reduction (≥30% improvement in mean scores from baseline) confirmed at a later interval without concomitant increases in narcotics. Only patients with moderate or severe baseline pain were analyzed., Results and Limitations: Sixty-five patients with moderate or severe baseline pain were evaluable. Of these, 27 (42%) experienced pain palliation according to the stringent response definition. Thirty-seven patients (57%) had clinically meaningful pain relief at two consecutive intervals, reported ≥6 wk apart in the majority. Forty-four patients (68%) had palliation at one or more intervals; 36 (55%) decreased narcotics use during one or more intervals. Clinically meaningful pain reduction was associated with significant (p ≤ 0.001) improvements in sleep quality and general activity. A limitation of this study was its open-label design., Conclusions: Cabozantinib demonstrated clinically meaningful pain palliation, reduced or eliminated patients' narcotic use, and improved patient functioning, thus meriting prospective validation in phase 3 studies., Patient Summary: We evaluated the potential of cabozantinib to improve symptoms in patients with metastatic prostate cancer that no longer responds to standard therapies. We saw a promising reduction in pain and reduced need for narcotic painkillers. Larger, well-controlled trials are necessary to confirm these findings., (Copyright © 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Approximately 15% of patients with prostate cancer are diagnosed with high-risk disease. However, the current definitions of high-risk prostate cancer include a heterogeneous group of patients with a range of prognoses. Some have the potential to progress to a lethal phenotype that can be fatal, while others can be cured with treatment of the primary tumour alone. The optimal management of this patient subgroup is evolving. A refined classification scheme is needed to enable the early and accurate identification of high-risk disease so that more-effective treatment paradigms can be developed. We discuss several principles established from clinical trials, and highlight other questions that remain unanswered. This Review critically evaluates the existing literature focused on defining the high-risk population, the management of patients with high-risk prostate cancer, and future directions to optimize care.

Background: Pain palliation resulting from antitumor therapy provides direct evidence of treatment benefit when combined with evidence of antitumor activity. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) previously issued guidance regarding the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to support labeling claims. The purpose of this article is to identify common challenges and key design strategies when measuring pain palliation in antitumor therapy clinical trials that are consistent with PRO Guidance principles., Methods: Antitumor clinical protocols submitted to the FDA between 1995 and 2012 that included pain palliation as a primary or secondary endpoint were reviewed. Challenges in critical trial design components were identified. Design strategies consistent with PRO Guidance principles are proposed., Results: The challenges identified were measurement of pain intensity and analgesic use, enrollment eligibility criteria, data collection methods, responder definitions, missing data, and blinding. Strategies included the use of well-defined, reliable, PRO assessments of pain intensity and analgesics; ensuring that enrollment criteria define patients with clinically significant pain attributable to cancer on an optimal analgesic regimen; defining responders using both pain and analgesic use criteria; incorporating an analysis of tumor response to support evidence of pain response; and minimizing missing data and inadvertent unblinding., Conclusions: Improvement in cancer-related pain resulting from antitumor therapy is an important treatment benefit that can support drug approval and labeling claims when adequately measured if study results demonstrate statistically and clinically significant findings. Sponsors are encouraged to discuss pain palliation assessment methods with the FDA early in and throughout product development., (© 2013 American Cancer Society.)

Background: β-emitting bone-seeking radiopharmaceuticals have historically been administered for pain palliation whereas docetaxel prolongs life in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). In combination, these agents simultaneously target the bone stroma and cancer cell to optimize antitumor effects. The toxicity and efficacy when each agent is combined at full, recommended doses, in a repetitive fashion is not well established., Methods: Patients with progressive mCRPC and ≥ 3 bone lesions received (153) Sm-EDTMP (samarium-153 ethylene diamine tetramethylene phosphonate) at a dose of 1.0 mCi/kg every 9 weeks and docetaxel at a dose of 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. In the absence of unacceptable toxicity, patients were allowed to continue additional cycles, defined by 9 weeks of treatment, until intolerance or biochemical/radiographic disease progression., Results: Of the 30 patients treated, approximately 50% were considered to be taxane-naive, 36.7% were taxane-refractory, and 13.3% had previously been exposed to taxanes but were not considered refractory. Patients received on average 2.5 cycles of treatment (6.5 doses of docetaxel and 2.5 doses of (153) Sm-EDTMP). Twelve patients (40%) demonstrated a decline in their prostate-specific antigen level of ≥ 50%. The median progression-free survival (biochemical or radiographic) was 7.0 months and the overall survival was 14.3 months. Nine patients (30%) did not recover platelet counts >100 K/mm(3) after a median of 3 cycles to allow for additional treatment, with 4 patients experiencing prolonged thrombocytopenia. The most common reasons for trial discontinuation were progressive disease and hematologic toxicity., Conclusions: The results of the current study indicate that (153) Sm-EDTMP can be safely combined with docetaxel at full doses on an ongoing basis in patients with mCRPC. Although thrombocytopenia limited therapy for some patients, preliminary efficacy supports the strategy of combining a radiopharmaceutical with chemotherapy, which is an appealing strategy given the anticipated availability of α emitters that can prolong survival., (Copyright © 2013 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: Contemporary tumor-directed therapies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are approved to prolong life, but their effects on symptoms such as pain are less well understood as a result of the lack of analytically valid assessments of pain prevalence and severity, clinically meaningful definitions of therapeutic benefit, and methodologic standards of trial conduct. This study establishes pain characteristics in the mCRPC population using a PRO measure., Materials and Methods: Patients with prostate cancer participated in an anonymous survey at five US comprehensive cancer centers in the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium that incorporated the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), analgesic use, and interference with daily activities. Prevalence and severity of cancer-related pain and analgesic use were tabulated according to castration-resistant status and exposure to docetaxel chemotherapy., Results: Four hundred sixty-one patients with prostate cancer participated, of whom 147 had mCRPC involving bone (61% [89 of 147] docetaxel exposed, 39% [58 of 147] docetaxel naive). Pain of any level was more common among docetaxel-exposed versus docetaxel-naive patients with mCRPC (70% [62 of 89] v 38% [22 of 58], respectively; P<.001). BPI score≥4 was reported by 38% (34 of 89) of docetaxel-pretreated and 24% (14 of 58) of docetaxel-naive patients with mCRPC; 40% of these patients with pain intensity≥4 reported no current narcotic analgesic., Conclusion: Pain prevalence and severity were higher in patients with prior docetaxel exposure. Analgesics were underutilized. These results provide a method for estimating accruals along the disease continuum, and for enabling design of trials appropriately powered to assess pain.

Effective patient care and efficient drug development require accurate tools to assess treatment effects. For metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), response biomarkers have historically been poorly reproducible, inaccurate, inconsistently applied, or only loosely associated with tangible clinical benefits such as survival. However, the field of response assessments for prostate cancer is maturing, in compliance with a rigorous process defined by analytic validation, clinical validation, and clinical qualification. For example, bone imaging with technetium-99m scintigraphy has historically been poorly used in prostate cancer clinical trials and routine patient care, and frequently has led to poor decision-making. However, contemporary clinical trial consensus criteria (Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 [PCWG2]) have standardized the definition of progression on bone scintigraphy and the clinical trials endpoint of radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). A validated bone scan interpretation form captures the relevant data elements. rPFS and the forms have been undergoing prospective testing in multiple phase III studies. The first of these trials demonstrated a high degree of reproducibility and correlation with overall survival, and rPFS was used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval of abiraterone in chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Circulating tumor cells (CTC) are another class of assays with significant promise as response-indicator biomarkers. CTC enumeration has undergone analytic validation and has been FDA-cleared for monitoring patients with prostate cancer in conjunction with other clinical methods. It is not yet a surrogate for survival. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are direct indicators of patient benefit. The assays to measure PROs must undergo each of the steps of biomarker development, and are increasingly being standardized and used as clinical trial endpoints. In this review, we critically assess each of these classes of novel biomarkers--imaging, CTC, and PROs--in regard to the quality of data supporting their use to monitor clinical outcomes in advanced prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Metastatic prostate cancer has a unique predilection for bone that can lead to significant clinical sequelae, such as fracture and cord compression. This tropism for bone yields not only clinical challenges, but also opportunities to understand the tumor biology in bone and to develop relevant therapeutic strategies. The process by which tumor cells migrate to bone, remain dormant, and then colonize and expand is based on complex interactions between prostate cancer tumor cells and the host microenvironment. This review will provide an overview of these interactions as well as therapies targeting osseous metastases in castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Opinion Statement: Skeletal metastases threaten quality of life, functionality, and longevity in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Therapeutic strategies for bone metastases in prostate cancer can palliate pain, delay/prevent skeletal complications, and prolong survival. Pharmacologic agents representing several drug classes have demonstrated the ability to achieve these treatment goals in men with mCRPC. Skeletal-related events such as fracture and the need for radiation can be delayed using drugs that target the osteoclast/osteoblast pathway. Cancer-related bone pain can be palliated using beta-emitting bone-seeking radiopharmaceuticals such as samarium-153 EDTMP and strontium-89. Also, prospective randomized studies have demonstrated that cytotoxic chemotherapy can palliate bone pain. For the first time, bone-directed therapy has been shown to prolong survival using the novel alpha-emitting radiopharmaceutical radium-223. Given these multifold clinical benefits, treatments targeting bone metabolism, tumor-bone stromal interactions, and bone metastases themselves are now central elements of routine clinical care. Decisions about which agents, alone or in combination, will best serve the patient's and clinician's clinical goals is contingent on the treatment history to date, present disease manifestations, and symptomatology. Clinical trials exploring novel agents such as those targeting c-Met and Src are under way, using endpoints that directly address how patients feel, function, and survive.

The pervasiveness of low bone mass (LBM) in beta-thalassemia (Thal) patients (pts) is escalating as the average life expectancy of these pts increases. Adolescence is a period of substantial bone accrual, which is crucial for future bone strength. Studies of LBM are prevalent among adults with Thal. However, limited information exists about bone accrual and LBM in adolescents with the disease. Thirty-one pts with beta-Thal (26 Thal major [TM], 5 Thal intermedia [TI]), aged 9-20 years (mean: 15.3 years), 14 males and 17 females, underwent measurement of spinal bone mineral density (BMD) by DEXA (Lunar, Prodigy). Height, weight, body mass index, and Tanner stage were assessed at the time of the BMD measurement. A total of 16.1% of the patients had normal bone mass (Z > or = -1), 22.6% had reduced bone mass (Z = -1 to -2), and 61.3% had low bone mass (Z < or = -2). BMD Z correlated with height and weight Z scores. Some 53.9% of subjects had normal gonadal function and 46.1% had induced puberty with gonadal steroids. BMD Z significantly worsened with age (P < .0001). However, there was no difference in the LBM prevalence between subjects with normal versus those with induced puberty: BMD Z was -2 or less in 71.4% of subjects with normal puberty versus 66.7% in those with induced puberty. Our results indicate a high prevalence of LBM among adolescents with Thal regardless of adequate transfusion and chelation regimens. Bone accrual was found to be suboptimal in adolescents with normal or induced puberty. Thus, calcium and vitamin D supplementation with antiresorptive therapies should be evaluated in the adolescent Thal pt with close monitoring of growth and sexual development.

Objective: Low bone mass occurs frequently in the aging thalassemic population. However, limited information exists on bone mass in children with thalassemia major (TM) during their first decade of life., Study Design: Spinal bone mineral density (BMD) was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) in 18 children (age 5.8 +/- 1.5 yr; M:F 8:10) with TM on hypertransfusion and iron chelation therapy. Serial BMD measurements were available for 11 of the 18 children., Results: Weight and height z scores were 0.81 +/- 4.2 and -0.47 +/- 1.7 respectively. At the first BMD, four (22.2%) patients presented with BMD z scores less than -2.5, seven (38.8%) had BMD z scores between -1 and -2.5, while the remaining seven (38.8%) had normal BMDs (z score above -1). The mean decline of BMD z score was -0.38/year (p = ns). BMD z scores correlated with height z scores (p = 0.039), but not with liver enzymes, serum ferritin levels, or thalassemia genotypes., Conclusions: Low bone mass is present in most children with TM despite hypertransfusion and optimal chelation, adequate growth and lack of endocrine complications.

Background: There is growing awareness of the association between physical and sexual abuse and subsequent development of psychopathology, but little is known, however, about their relationship to the longitudinal course of bipolar disorder., Methods: We evaluated 631 outpatients with bipolar I or II disorder for general demographics, a history of physical or sexual abuse as a child or adolescent, course of illness variables, and prior suicide attempts, as well as SCID-derived Axis I and patient endorsed Axis II comorbidity., Results: Those who endorsed a history of child or adolescent physical or sexual abuse, compared with those who did not, had a history of an earlier onset of bipolar illness, an increased number of Axis I, II, and III comorbid disorders, including drug and alcohol abuse, faster cycling frequencies, a higher rate of suicide attempts, and more psychosocial stressors occurring before the first and most recent affective episode. The retrospectively reported associations of early abuse with a more severe course of illness were validated prospectively., Conclusions: Greater appreciation of the association of early traumatic experiences and an adverse course of bipolar illness should lead to preventive and early intervention approaches that may lessen the associated risk of a poor outcome.