Search

Purpose:The phase III PROfound study (NCT02987543) evaluated olaparib versus abiraterone or enzalutamide (control) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with tumor homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations. We present exploratory analyses on the use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing as an additional method to identify patients with mCRPC with HRR gene alterations who may be eligible for olaparib treatment.Patients and Methods:Plasma samples collected during screening in PROfound were retrospectively sequenced using the FoundationOne®Liquid CDx test for BRCA1, BRCA2 (BRCA), and ATM alterations in ctDNA. Only patients from Cohort A (BRCA/ATM alteration positive by tissue testing) were evaluated. We compared clinical outcomes, including radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) between the ctDNA subgroup and Cohort A.Results:Of the 181 (73.9%) Cohort A patients who gave consent for plasma sample ctDNA testing, 139 (76.8%) yielded a result and BRCA/ATM alterations were identified in 111 (79.9%). Of these, 73 patients received olaparib and 38 received control. Patients’ baseline demographics and characteristics, and the prevalence of HRR alterations were comparable with the Cohort A intention-to-treat (ITT) population. rPFS was longer in the olaparib group versus control [median 7.4 vs. 3.5 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.21–0.53; nominal P < 0.0001], which is consistent with Cohort A ITT population (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.25–0.47).Conclusions:When tumor tissue testing is not feasible or has failed, ctDNA testing may be a suitable alternative to identify patients with mCRPC carrying BRCA/ATM alterations who may benefit from olaparib treatment.

Purpose: The phase III PROfound study (NCT02987543) evaluated olaparib versus abiraterone or enzalutamide (control) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with tumor homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations. We present exploratory analyses on the use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing as an additional method to identify patients with mCRPC with HRR gene alterations who may be eligible for olaparib treatment. Patients and Methods: Plasma samples collected during screening in PROfound were retrospectively sequenced using the FoundationOne®Liquid CDx test for BRCA1, BRCA2 (BRCA), and ATM alterations in ctDNA. Only patients from Cohort A (BRCA/ATM alteration positive by tissue testing) were evaluated. We compared clinical outcomes, including radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) between the ctDNA subgroup and Cohort A. Results: Of the 181 (73.9%) Cohort A patients who gave consent for plasma sample ctDNA testing, 139 (76.8%) yielded a result and BRCA/ATM alterations were identified in 111 (79.9%). Of these, 73 patients received olaparib and 38 received control. Patients’ baseline demographics and characteristics, and the prevalence of HRR alterations were comparable with the Cohort A intention-to-treat (ITT) population. rPFS was longer in the olaparib group versus control [median 7.4 vs. 3.5 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.21–0.53; nominal P < 0.0001], which is consistent with Cohort A ITT population (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.25–0.47). Conclusions: When tumor tissue testing is not feasible or has failed, ctDNA testing may be a suitable alternative to identify patients with mCRPC carrying BRCA/ATM alterations who may benefit from olaparib treatment.

This trial compared the sequential therapy with the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib (So) followed by pazopanib (Pa) or vice versa in advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients.This multicenter, randomized phase 3 study assessed the sequential use of So-Pa versus Pa-So in patients with mRCC without prior systemic therapy. Pts were randomized to So 2 × 400 mg/day followed by Pa 1 × 800 mg/day in case of progression or intolerable toxicity or vice versa. Primary endpoint was total PFS (tPFS), defined as time from randomization to progression, or death during second-line therapy. Key secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), first-line PFS, disease control rate (DCR) and safety.A total of 377 pts were randomized (So-Pa, n = 189; Pa-So, n = 188). Recruitment of a total 544 pts was calculated, but actual accrual rate turned out to be lower than expected. The primary endpoint median tPFS was 8.6 mo (95% CI 7.7-10.2) for So-Pa and 12.9 mo (95% CI 10.8-15.2) for Pa-So with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.36 (upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1.68), which exceeded a predefined HR1.225 as a one-sided 95% confidence interval. Non-inferiority of So-Pa regarding tPFS was not met. Secondary endpoints displayed marked statistical differences in favor of Pa-So in first-line PFS and DCR but not for OS and 2nd-line PFS. Side effect profiles were consistent with known toxicities of the respective multikinase-inhibitor including diarrhea, fatigue, hand-foot skin reaction and hypertension.Non-inferiority of the primary endpoint tPFS could not be demonstrated for So-Pa. The results for first-line PFS and DCR favored the Pa-So sequence.NCT01613846, www.clinicaltrials.gov.