A Phase Ib, Open-label Study Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Ipatasertib plus Rucaparib in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report the safety and efficacy of ipatasertib (AKT inhibitor) combined with rucaparib (PARP inhibitor) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) previously treated with second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this two-part phase Ib trial (NCT03840200), patients with advanced prostate, breast, or ovarian cancer received ipatasertib (300 or 400 mg daily) plus rucaparib (400 or 600 mg twice daily) to assess safety and identify a recommended phase II dose (RP2D). A part 1 dose-escalation phase was followed by a part 2 dose-expansion phase in which only patients with mCRPC received the RP2D. The primary efficacy endpoint was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥50% reduction) in patients with mCRPC. Patients were not selected on the basis of tumor mutational status. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were enrolled (part 1 = 21; part 2 = 30). Ipatasertib 400 mg daily plus rucaparib 400 mg twice daily was the selected RP2D, received by 37 patients with mCRPC. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 46% (17/37) of patients, with one grade 4 adverse event (anemia, deemed related to rucaparib) and no deaths. Adverse events leading to treatment modification occurred in 70% (26/37). The PSA response rate was 26% (9/35), and the objective response rate per Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 was 10% (2/21). Median radiographic progression-free survival per Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria was 5.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.0-8.1], and median overall survival was 13.3 months (95% CI, 10.9-not evaluable). CONCLUSIONS: Ipatasertib plus rucaparib was manageable with dose modification but did not demonstrate synergistic or additive antitumor activity in previously treated patients with mCRPC.

A phase III, randomized, open-label study (CONTACT-02) of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus second novel hormone therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Cabozantinib inhibits multiple receptor tyrosine kinases, including the TAM kinase family, and may enhance response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. One cohort of the ongoing phase Ib COSMIC-021 study (NCT03170960) evaluating cabozantinib plus the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that has progressed in soft tissue on/after enzalutamide and/or abiraterone treatment for metastatic disease has shown promising efficacy. Here, we describe the rationale and design of a phase III trial of cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus a second novel hormone therapy (NHT) in patients who have previously received an NHT for mCRPC, metastatic castration-sensitive PC or nonmetastatic CRPC and have measurable visceral disease and/or extrapelvic adenopathy - a population with a significant unmet need for treatment options. Trial Registration Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04446117 (ClinicalTrials.gov) Registered on 24 June 2020.

Evaluation of pseudoprogression rates and tumor progression patterns in a phase III trial of bevacizumab plus radiotherapy/temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of glioblastoma disease status may be complicated by treatment-induced changes and discordance between enhancing and nonenhancing MRI. Exploratory analyses are presented (prospectively assessed pseudoprogression and therapy-related tumor pattern changes) from the AVAglio trial (bevacizumab or placebo plus radiotherapy/temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma). METHODS: MRI was done every 8 weeks (beginning 4 wk after chemoradiotherapy) using prespecified and standardized T1 and T2 protocols. Progressive disease (PD) at 10 weeks was reconfirmed at 18 weeks to distinguish pseudoprogression. Progression-free survival (PFS), excluding cases of confirmed pseudoprogression, was assessed (post-hoc/exploratory). Tumor progression patterns were determined at each disease assessment/PD (prespecified/exploratory). RESULTS: Of patients with PD in the bevacizumab and placebo arms, 143/354 (40.4%) and 155/387 (40.1%), respectively, had PD due to contrast-enhancing lesions, and 51/354 (14.4%) and 53/387 (13.7%) had PD due to nonenhancing lesions. Of all patients in the bevacizumab arm (n = 458), 2.2% had confirmed pseudoprogression versus 9.3% in the placebo arm (n = 463). Baseline characteristics did not differ between patients with/without pseudoprogression (including for MGMT status). Excluding confirmed pseudoprogression, PFS (hazard ratio: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.56-0.75; P < .0001, bevacizumab vs placebo) was comparable to the intent-to-treat population. At PD, most patients had the same tumor focus (local/multifocal, >84%) and infiltrative profile (>88%) as at baseline; no shift to a diffuse or multifocal phenotype was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Pseudoprogression complicated progression assessment in a small but relevant number of patients but had negligible impact on PFS. Bevacizumab did not appear to adversely impact tumor progression patterns.

Response assessment criteria for glioblastoma: practical adaptation and implementation in clinical trials of antiangiogenic therapy.

Since 1990, the primary criteria used for assessing response to therapy in high-grade gliomas were those developed by Macdonald and colleagues, which incorporated 2-dimensional area measurements of contrast-enhancing tumor regions, corticosteroid dosing, and clinical assessment to arrive at a designation of response, stable disease, or progression. Recent advances in imaging technology and targeted therapeutics, however, have exposed limitations of the Macdonald criteria and have highlighted the need for reevaluation of response assessment criteria. In 2010, the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group published updated criteria to address this need and to standardize response assessment for high-grade gliomas. In 2009, prior to the publication of the RANO criteria, the randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 AVAglio trial was designed and initiated to investigate the effectiveness of radiotherapy and temozolomide with or without bevacizumab in newly diagnosed glioblastoma. The AVAglio protocol enacted specific measures to adapt the Macdonald criteria to the frontline treatment setting and to antiangiogenic agent evaluation, including the incorporation of a T2/fluid-attenuated inversion recovery component, qualitative assessment of irregularly shaped contrast-enhancing lesions, and a decision tree for confirming or ruling out pseudoprogression. Moreover, the protocol outlines practical means by which these adapted response criteria can be implemented in the clinic. This article describes the evolution of radiographic response criteria for high-grade gliomas and highlights the similarities and differences between those implemented in the AVAglio study and those subsequently published by RANO.