Randomized Phase III Study of Enzalutamide Compared With Enzalutamide Plus Abiraterone for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (Alliance A031201 Trial).

PURPOSE: Enzalutamide and abiraterone both target androgen receptor signaling but via different mechanisms. The mechanism of action of one drug may counteract the resistance pathways of the other. We sought to determine whether the addition of abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) to enzalutamide prolongs overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the first-line setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with untreated mCRPC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive first-line enzalutamide with or without AAP. The primary end point was OS. Toxicity, prostate-specific antigen declines, pharmacokinetics, and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) were also examined. Data were analyzed using an intent-to-treat approach. The Kaplan-Meier estimate and the stratified log-rank statistic were used to compare OS between treatments. RESULTS: In total, 1,311 patients were randomly assigned: 657 to enzalutamide and 654 to enzalutamide plus AAP. OS was not statistically different between the two arms (median, 32.7 [95% CI, 30.5 to 35.4] months for enzalutamide v 34.2 [95% CI, 31.4 to 37.3] months for enzalutamide and AAP; hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; one-sided P = .03; boundary nominal significance level = .02). rPFS was longer in the combination arm (median rPFS, 21.3 [95% CI, 19.4 to 22.9] months for enzalutamide v 24.3 [95% CI, 22.3 to 26.7] months for enzalutamide and AAP; HR, 0.86; two-sided P = .02). However, pharmacokinetic clearance of abiraterone was 2.2- to 2.9-fold higher when administered with enzalutamide, compared with clearance values for abiraterone alone. CONCLUSION: The addition of AAP to enzalutamide for first-line treatment of mCRPC was not associated with a statistically significant benefit in OS. Drug-drug interactions between the two agents resulting in increased abiraterone clearance may partly account for this result, although these interactions did not prevent the combination regimen from having more nonhematologic toxicity.

Lobar or Sublobar Resection for Peripheral Stage IA Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The increased detection of small-sized peripheral non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has renewed interest in sublobar resection in lieu of lobectomy. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, noninferiority, phase 3 trial in which patients with NSCLC clinically staged as T1aN0 (tumor size, ≤2 cm) were randomly assigned to undergo sublobar resection or lobar resection after intraoperative confirmation of node-negative disease. The primary end point was disease-free survival, defined as the time between randomization and disease recurrence or death from any cause. Secondary end points were overall survival, locoregional and systemic recurrence, and pulmonary functions. RESULTS: From June 2007 through March 2017, a total of 697 patients were assigned to undergo sublobar resection (340 patients) or lobar resection (357 patients). After a median follow-up of 7 years, sublobar resection was noninferior to lobar resection for disease-free survival (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 1.01; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.24). In addition, overall survival after sublobar resection was similar to that after lobar resection (hazard ratio for death, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.26). The 5-year disease-free survival was 63.6% (95% CI, 57.9 to 68.8) after sublobar resection and 64.1% (95% CI, 58.5 to 69.0) after lobar resection. The 5-year overall survival was 80.3% (95% CI, 75.5 to 84.3) after sublobar resection and 78.9% (95% CI, 74.1 to 82.9) after lobar resection. No substantial difference was seen between the two groups in the incidence of locoregional or distant recurrence. At 6 months postoperatively, a between-group difference of 2 percentage points was measured in the median percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second, favoring the sublobar-resection group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with peripheral NSCLC with a tumor size of 2 cm or less and pathologically confirmed node-negative disease in the hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes, sublobar resection was not inferior to lobectomy with respect to disease-free survival. Overall survival was similar with the two procedures. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; CALGB 140503 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00499330.).

Alliance A082002 -a randomized phase II/III trial of modern immunotherapy-based systemic therapy with or without SBRT for PD-L1-negative, advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has changed dramatically due to immunotherapy. However, patients without Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1) protein expression often benefit less from immunotherapy. This trial is designed to test if stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to a single tumor site can significantly enhance the outcome of patients with advanced stage PD-L1(-) NSCLC when added to systemic therapy including immunotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Alliance A082002 is based on subgroup analysis from the randomized phase II PEMBRO-RT trial., PEMBRO-RT compared pembrolizumab alone or with SBRT and revealed improved progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS, respectively) in PD-L1(-) patients when adding SBRT (8 Gy x 3 fractions). In A082002, patients without PD-L1 expression will be randomized to SBRT (8 Gy x3) plus systemic therapy vs. systemic therapy alone. The primary endpoint of the phase II portion of the trial is PFS and will require 100 patients. The primary endpoint of the phase III portion of the trial is OS and will require an additional 284 patients. This trial will clarify whether adding SBRT to systemic therapy can improve PFS and OS in a larger multi-institutional cohort. Several systemic treatment options are allowed including either immunotherapy alone or chemo-immunotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: This phase II/III Alliance trial A082002 will test whether the addition of SBRT to a single tumor site will enhance the anti-tumor activity of systemic immunotherapy or chemo-immunotherapy in patients with stage IV PD-L1(-) NSCLC. It is now open in the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN).

Cancer and Leukemia Group B 90203 (Alliance): Radical Prostatectomy With or Without Neoadjuvant Chemohormonal Therapy in Localized, High-Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Radical prostatectomy (RP) alone is often inadequate in curing men with clinically localized, high-risk prostate cancer (PC). We hypothesized that chemohormonal therapy (CHT) with androgen-deprivation therapy plus docetaxel before RP would improve biochemical progression-free survival (BPFS) over RP alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with clinically localized, high-risk PC were assigned to RP alone or neoadjuvant CHT with androgen deprivation plus docetaxel (75 mg/m2 body surface area every 3 weeks for 6 cycles) and RP. The primary end point was 3-year BPFS. Biochemical failure was defined as a serum prostate-specific antigen level > 0.2 ng/mL that increased on 2 consecutive occasions that were at least 3 months apart. Secondary end points included 5-year BPFS, overall BPFS, local recurrence, metastasis-free survival (MFS), PC-specific mortality, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In total, 788 men were randomly assigned. Median follow-up time was 6.1 years. The overall rates of grade 3 and 4 adverse events during chemotherapy were 26% and 19%, respectively. No difference was seen in 3-year BPFS between neoadjuvant CHT plus RP and RP alone (0.89 v 0.84, respectively; 95% CI for the difference, -0.01 to 0.11; P = .11). Neoadjuvant CHT was associated with improved overall BPFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.99), improved MFS (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.95), and improved OS (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.94) compared with RP alone. CONCLUSION: The primary study end point, 3-year BPFS, was not met. Although some improvement was seen in secondary end points, any potential benefit must be weighed against toxicity. Our data do not support the routine use of neoadjuvant CHT and RP in patients with clinically localized, high-risk PC at this time.

A phase II study of sorafenib in malignant mesothelioma: results of Cancer and Leukemia Group B 30307.

HYPOTHESIS: Malignant mesotheliomas (MMs) express vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and cKIT. Sorafenib is a potent inhibitor of the ras/raf/MEK pathway and also targets VEGFR and cKIT. We evaluated the activity of sorafenib in patients with unresectable mesothelioma. METHODS: MM patients who had received 0 to 1 prior chemotherapy regimens were treated with sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily continuously. The primary end point was objective response. ERK1/2 phosphorylation in archival tissues was correlated with response and survival. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients were enrolled, 50 were evaluable and included in the analysis. Three patients had a partial response (6% [95% confidence interval = 1.3-16.6%]), and 27 (54% [95% confidence interval = 39.3-68.2%]) had stable disease. Median progression-free survival and median overall survival (OS) were 3.6 and 9.7 months, respectively. Median survival was superior in epithelioid histology versus other types (10.7 versus 3.7 months, p = 0.0179). The difference in median OS between pretreated and chemonaive patients was not statistically significant (13.2 versus 5 months, p = 0.3117). Low/negative baseline tumor phospho-ERK1/2 levels were associated with improved OS (13.9 versus 5.2 months, p = 0.0066). CONCLUSION: Sorafenib has limited activity in advanced MM patients, similar to that seen with other VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Additional studies of sorafenib in MM are not warranted.