Durvalumab or placebo plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in participants with advanced biliary tract cancer (TOPAZ-1): updated overall survival from a randomised phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: In the preplanned interim analysis of the TOPAZ-1 study, durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin significantly improved overall survival versus placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin in participants with advanced biliary tract cancer. We aimed to report updated overall survival and safety data from TOPAZ-1 with additional follow-up and data maturity beyond the interim analysis. METHODS: TOPAZ-1 was a phase 3, randomised, double-masked, placebo-controlled, global study done at 105 sites in 17 countries. Participants aged 18 years or older with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic biliary tract cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin or placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin using a computer-generated randomisation scheme, stratified by disease status and primary tumour location. Participants received durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo on day 1 of each cycle every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles, plus gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and cisplatin (25 mg/m2) intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles, followed by durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo monotherapy every 4 weeks until disease progression or other discontinuation criteria were met. Investigators and participants were masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. TOPAZ-1 met its primary endpoint at the preplanned interim analysis, and the study is active but no longer recruiting participants. Updated overall survival and safety data from TOPAZ-1, with additional follow-up (data cutoff Feb 25, 2022) and data maturity beyond the interim analysis, are reported here. Efficacy was assessed in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned participants). Safety was assessed in the safety analysis set (all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment). The TOPAZ-1 study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03875235. FINDINGS: From April 16, 2019, to Dec 11, 2020, 914 participants were enrolled, 685 of whom were randomly assigned (341 to the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 344 to the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group). 345 (50%) participants were male and 340 (50%) were female. Median follow-up at the updated data cutoff was 23·4 months (95% CI 20·6-25·2) in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 22·4 months (21·4-23·8) in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. At the updated data cutoff, 248 (73%) participants in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 279 (81%) participants in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group had died (median overall survival 12·9 months [95% CI 11·6-14·1] vs 11·3 months [10·1-12·5]; hazard ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·64-0·91]). Kaplan-Meier-estimated 24-month overall survival rates were 23·6% (95% CI 18·7-28·9) in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 11·5% (7·6-16·2) in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. Maximum grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 250 (74%) of 338 participants in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 257 (75%) of 342 in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. The most common maximum grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (70 [21%] vs 86 [25%]), anaemia (64 [19%] vs 64 [19%]), and neutropenia (63 [19%] vs 68 [20%]). INTERPRETATION: Durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin showed robust and sustained overall survival benefit with no new safety signals. Findings continue to support the regimen as a standard of care for people with untreated, advanced biliary tract cancer. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Tolerability of Olaparib Combined with Abiraterone in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Further Results from the Phase 3 PROpel Trial.

BACKGROUND: The PROpel study (NCT03732820) demonstrated a statistically significant progression-free survival benefit with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in the first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) setting, irrespective of homologous recombination repair mutation status. OBJECTIVE: We report additional safety analyses from PROpel to increase clinical understanding of the adverse-event (AE) profiles of olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomised (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 126 centres in 17 countries (October 2018-January 2020). Patients had mCRPC and no prior systemic mCRPC treatment. INTERVENTION: Olaparib (300 mg bid) or placebo with abiraterone (1000 mg od) plus prednisone/prednisolone (5 mg bid). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The data cut-off date was July 30, 2021. Safety was assessed by AE reporting (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03) and analysed descriptively. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The most common AEs (all grades) for olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone were anaemia (46.0% vs 16.4%), nausea (28.1% vs 12.6%), and fatigue (27.9% vs 18.9%). Grade ≥3 anaemia occurred in 15.1% versus 3.3% of patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone arm. The incidences of the most common AEs for olaparib plus abiraterone peaked early, within 2 mo, and were managed typically by dose modifications or standard medical practice. Overall, 13.8% versus 7.8% of patients discontinued treatment with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone because of an AE; 3.8% versus 0.8% of patients discontinued because of anaemia. More venous thromboembolism events were observed in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 7.3%; grade ≥3, 6.8%) than in the placebo plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 3.3%; grade ≥3, 2.0%), most commonly pulmonary embolism (6.5% vs 1.8% for olaparib plus abiraterone vs placebo plus abiraterone). CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib plus abiraterone has a manageable and predictable safety profile. PATIENT SUMMARY: The PROpel trial showed that in patients who had not received any previous treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, olaparib combined with abiraterone was more effective in delaying progression of the disease than abiraterone alone. Most side effects caused by combining olaparib with abiraterone could be managed with supportive care methods, by pausing olaparib administration for a short period of time and/or by reducing the dose of olaparib.

A Cohort Study to Evaluate Genetic Predictors of Aromatase Inhibitor Musculoskeletal Symptoms: Results from ECOG-ACRIN E1Z11.

PURPOSE: Aromatase inhibitor (AI)-associated musculoskeletal symptoms (AIMSS) are common and frequently lead to AI discontinuation. SNPs in candidate genes have been associated with AIMSS and AI discontinuation. E1Z11 is a prospective cohort study designed to validate the association between 10 SNPs and AI discontinuation due to AIMSS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women with stage I to III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer received anastrozole 1 mg daily and completed patient-reported outcome measures to assess AIMSS (Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire) at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. We estimated that 40% of participants would develop AIMSS and 25% would discontinue AI treatment within 12 months. Enrollment of 1,000 women with a fixed number per racial stratum provided 80% power to detect an effect size of 1.5 to 4. SNPs were found in ESR1 (rs2234693, rs2347868, and rs9340835), CYP19A1 (rs1062033 and rs4646), TCL1A (rs11849538, rs2369049, rs7158782, and rs7159713), and HTR2A (rs2296972). RESULTS: Of the 970 evaluable women, 43% developed AIMSS and 12% discontinued AI therapy within 12 months. Although more Black and Asian women developed AIMSS than White women (49% vs. 39%, P = 0.017; 50% vs. 39%, P = 0.004, respectively), the AI discontinuation rates were similar across groups. None of the SNPs were significantly associated with AIMSS or AI discontinuation in the overall population or in distinct cohorts. The OR for rs2296972 (HTR2A) approached significance for developing AIMSS. CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to prospectively validate candidate SNPs previously associated with AI discontinuation due to AIMSS. Future analyses will explore additional genetic markers, patient-reported outcome predictors of AIMSS, and differences by race.

Updated efficacy and safety of entrectinib in NTRK fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: NTRK fusions result in constitutively active oncogenic TRK proteins responsible for âˆ¼ 0.2 % of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases. Approximately 40 % of patients with advanced NSCLC develop CNS metastases; therefore, treatments with intracranial (IC) efficacy are needed. In an integrated analysis of three phase I/II studies (ALKA-372-001: EudraCT 2012-000148-88; STARTRK-1: NCT02097810; STARTRK-2: NCT02568267), entrectinib, a potent, CNS-active, TRK inhibitor, demonstrated efficacy in patients with NTRK fusion-positive (fp) NSCLC (objective response rate [ORR]: 64.5 %; 2 August 2021 data cut-off). We present updated data for this cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years with locally advanced/metastatic, NTRK-fp NSCLC with ≥ 12 months of follow-up. Tumor responses were assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) per RECIST v1.1 at Week 4 and every eight weeks thereafter. Co-primary endpoints: ORR; duration of response (DoR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS); overall survival (OS); IC efficacy; safety. Enrolment cut-off: 2 July 2021; data cut-off: 2 August 2022. RESULTS: The efficacy-evaluable population included 51 patients with NTRK-fp NSCLC. Median age was 60.0 years (range 22-88); 20 patients (39.2 %) had investigator-assessed baseline CNS metastases. Median survival follow-up was 26.3 months (95 % CI 21.0-34.1). ORR was 62.7 % (95 % CI 48.1-75.9), with six complete and 26 partial responses. Median DoR and PFS were 27.3 months (95 % CI 19.9-30.9) and 28.0 months (95 % CI 15.7-30.4), respectively. Median OS was 41.5 months. In patients with BICR-assessed baseline CNS metastases, IC-ORR was 64.3 % (n = 9/14; 95 % CI 35.1-87.2), including seven complete responders, and IC-DoR was 55.7 months. In the safety-evaluable population (n = 55), most treatment-related adverse events were grade 1/2; no treatment-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSION: Entrectinib has continued to demonstrate deep and durable systemic and IC responses in patients with NTRK-fp NSCLC.

Real-World Clinical Outcomes of Bevacizumab-awwb Biosimilar versus Bevacizumab Reference Product in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab-awwb was the first biosimilar approved for cancer treatment in the USA. Limited information is available on the real-world comparative safety and effectiveness of bevacizumab biosimilars, especially for indications granted approval through extrapolation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the real-world outcomes of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) initiated on bevacizumab-awwb versus bevacizumab reference product. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an observational, longitudinal cohort study of US adult patients with mCRC from four integrated care delivery systems who were newly initiated on bevacizumab-awwb between 1 July 2019 and 30 March 2020 or bevacizumab reference product between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2018. Patients were followed until 1 year after treatment initiation, end of plan membership, or death, whichever occurred first. The primary outcome of overall survival (OS) was analyzed using a binary non-inferiority test with lower margin of 10% and adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to assess all-cause mortality if non-inferiority was met. Secondary outcomes included counts of doses received, treatment duration, all-cause hospitalizations, and incidence of serious adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 1445 patients initiated on either bevacizumab-awwb (n = 239) or bevacizumab reference product (n = 1206) were included in the analysis. The mean overall age was 60 ± 13 years, 46% of patients were female, and 51% were white. The OS rate was 72.8% and 73.1% for patients receiving bevacizumab-awwb and bevacizumab reference product, respectively (p < 0.01 for non-inferiority). The adjusted hazard ratio for mortality was 1.01 (0.77-1.33, p = 0.93). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes between the study groups. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that bevacizumab-awwb is as effective and safe as bevacizumab reference product for the real-world treatment of mCRC.

Validation of Immunotherapy Response Score as Predictive of Pan-solid Tumor Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Benefit.

Immunotherapy response score (IRS) integrates tumor mutation burden (TMB) and quantitative expression biomarkers to predict anti-PD-1/PD-L1 [PD-(L)1] monotherapy benefit. Here, we evaluated IRS in additional cohorts. Patients from an observational trial (NCT03061305) treated with anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy were included and assigned to IRS-High (-H) versus -Low (-L) groups. Associations with real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined by Cox proportional hazards (CPH) modeling. Those with available PD-L1 IHC treated with anti-PD-(L)1 with or without chemotherapy were separately assessed. Patients treated with PD-(L)1 and/or chemotherapy (five relevant tumor types) were assigned to three IRS groups [IRS-L divided into IRS-Ultra-Low (-UL) and Intermediate-Low (-IL), and similarly assessed]. In the 352 patient anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy validation cohort (31 tumor types), IRS-H versus IRS-L patients had significantly longer rwPFS and OS. IRS significantly improved CPH associations with rwPFS and OS beyond microsatellite instability (MSI)/TMB alone. In a 189 patient (10 tumor types) PD-L1 IHC comparison cohort, IRS, but not PD-L1 IHC nor TMB, was significantly associated with anti-PD-L1 rwPFS. In a 1,103-patient cohort (from five relevant tumor types), rwPFS did not significantly differ in IRS-UL patients treated with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy plus anti-PD-(L)1, nor in IRS-H patients treated with anti-PD-(L)1 versus anti-PD-(L)1 + chemotherapy. IRS associations were consistent across subgroups, including both Europeans and non-Europeans. These results confirm the utility of IRS utility for predicting pan-solid tumor PD-(L)1 monotherapy benefit beyond available biomarkers and demonstrate utility for informing on anti-PD-(L)1 and/or chemotherapy treatment. Significance: This study confirms the utility of the integrative IRS biomarker for predicting anti-PD-L1/PD-1 benefit. IRS significantly improved upon currently available biomarkers, including PD-L1 IHC, TMB, and MSI status. Additional utility for informing on chemotherapy, anti-PD-L1/PD-1, and anti-PD-L1/PD-1 plus chemotherapy treatments decisions is shown.

Development and validation of an integrative pan-solid tumor predictor of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade benefit.

BACKGROUND: Anti-PD-1 and PD-L1 (collectively PD-[L]1) therapies are approved for many advanced solid tumors. Biomarkers beyond PD-L1 immunohistochemistry, microsatellite instability, and tumor mutation burden (TMB) may improve benefit prediction. METHODS: Using treatment data and genomic and transcriptomic tumor tissue profiling from an observational trial (NCT03061305), we developed Immunotherapy Response Score (IRS), a pan-tumor predictive model of PD-(L)1 benefit. IRS real-world progression free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) prediction was validated in an independent cohort of trial patients. RESULTS: Here, by Cox modeling, we develop IRS-which combines TMB with CD274, PDCD1, ADAM12 and TOP2A quantitative expression-to predict pembrolizumab rwPFS (648 patients; 26 tumor types; IRS-High or -Low groups). In the 248 patient validation cohort (248 patients; 24 tumor types; non-pembrolizumab PD-[L]1 monotherapy treatment), median rwPFS and OS are significantly longer in IRS-High vs. IRS-Low patients (rwPFS adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.52, p = 0.003; OS aHR 0.49, p = 0.005); TMB alone does not significantly predict PD-(L)1 rwPFS nor OS. In 146 patients treated with systemic therapy prior to pembrolizumab monotherapy, pembrolizumab rwPFS is only significantly longer than immediately preceding therapy rwPFS in IRS-High patients (interaction test p = 0.001). In propensity matched lung cancer patients treated with first-line pembrolizumab monotherapy or pembrolizumab+chemotherapy, monotherapy rwPFS is significantly shorter in IRS-Low patients, but is not significantly different in IRS-High patients. Across 24,463 molecularly-evaluable trial patients, 7.6% of patients outside of monotherapy PD-(L)1 approved tumor types are IRS-High/TMB-Low. CONCLUSIONS: The validated, predictive, pan-tumor IRS model can expand PD-(L)1 monotherapy benefit outside currently approved indications.

Therapies activating the immune system (checkpoint inhibitors) have revolutionized the treatment of patients with advanced cancer, however new molecular tests may better identify patients who could benefit. Using treatment data and clinical molecular test results, we report the development and validation of Immunotherapy Response Score (IRS) to predict checkpoint inhibitor benefit. Across patients with more than 20 advanced cancer types, IRS better predicted checkpoint inhibitor benefit than currently available tests. Data from >20,000 patients showed that IRS identifies ~8% of patients with advanced cancer who may dramatically benefit from checkpoint inhibitors but would not receive them today based on currently available tests. Our approach may help clinicians to decide which patients should receive checkpoint inhibitors to treat their disease.

Atezolizumab with enzalutamide versus enzalutamide alone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial.

Early clinical data indicate that some patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer may benefit from program death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibition, especially with enzalutamide. The IMbassador250 trial (no. NCT03016312) enrolled 759 men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer whose disease progressed on abiraterone. The addition of atezolizumab to enzalutamide in an open-label randomized trial did not meet the primary endpoint of improved overall survival in unselected patients (stratified hazard ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval (0.91, 1.37), P = 0.28), despite an acceptable safety profile. In archival tumor samples, prostate tumors showed comparatively low expression of key immune biomarkers. DNA damage-response alterations, phosphatase and tensin homolog status and PD-L1 expression levels were similar between hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant prostate cancers. In planned biomarker analysis, longer progression-free survival was seen with atezolizumab in patients with high PD-L1 IC2/3, CD8 expression and established immune gene signatures. Exploratory analysis linked progression-free survival in the atezolizumab arm with immune genes such as CXCL9 and TAP1, together with other potentially relevant biomarkers including phosphatase and tensin homolog alterations. Together these data indicate that the expected biology associated with response to immune checkpoint inhibitors is present in prostate cancer, albeit in fewer patients. Careful patient selection may be required for immune checkpoint inhibitors to identify subgroups of patients who may benefit from this treatment approach.

Abiraterone and Olaparib for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical studies and results of a phase 2 trial of abiraterone and olaparib suggest a combined antitumor effect when the poly(adenosine diphosphate[ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib is combined with next-generation hormonal agent abiraterone to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, phase 3 trial of abiraterone and olaparib versus abiraterone and placebo in patients with mCRPC in the first-line setting. Patients were enrolled regardless of homologous recombination repair gene mutation (HRRm) status. HRRm status was determined following enrollment by tumor tissue and circulating tumor DNA tests. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive abiraterone (1000 mg once daily) plus prednisone or prednisolone with either olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival (ibPFS) by investigator assessment. Overall survival was among the secondary end points. RESULTS: At this planned primary analysis at the first data cutoff, median ibPFS was significantly longer in the abiraterone and olaparib arm than in the abiraterone and placebo arm (24.8 vs. 16.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54 to 0.81; P<0.001) and was consistent with blinded independent central review (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.74). At this data cutoff, overall survival data were immature (28.6% maturity; hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.12; P=0.29). The safety profile of olaparib and abiraterone was consistent with the known safety profiles of the individual drugs. The most common adverse events in the abiraterone and olaparib arm were anemia, fatigue/asthenia, and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: At primary analysis at this first data cutoff, abiraterone combined with olaparib significantly prolonged ibPFS compared with abiraterone and placebo as first-line treatment for patients with mCRPC enrolled irrespective of HRRm status. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme, LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03732820.)

Ipatasertib plus abiraterone and prednisolone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (IPATential150): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The PI3K/AKT and androgen-receptor pathways are dysregulated in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers (mCRPCs); tumours with functional PTEN-loss status have hyperactivated AKT signalling. Dual pathway inhibition with AKT inhibitor ipatasertib plus abiraterone might have greater benefit than abiraterone alone. We aimed to compare ipatasertib plus abiraterone with placebo plus abiraterone in patients with previously untreated mCRPC with or without tumour PTEN loss. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial at 200 sites across 26 countries or regions. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic mCRPC who had progressive disease and Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1; permuted block method) to receive ipatasertib (400 mg once daily orally) plus abiraterone (1000 mg once daily orally) and prednisolone (5 mg twice a day orally) or placebo plus abiraterone and prednisolone (with the same dosing schedule). Patients received study treatment until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, withdrawal from the study, or study completion. Stratification factors were previous taxane-based therapy for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, type of progression, presence of visceral metastasis, and tumour PTEN-loss status by immunohistochemistry. Patients, investigators, and the study sponsor were masked to the treatment allocation. The coprimary endpoints were investigator-assessed radiographical progression-free survival in the PTEN-loss-by-immunohistochemistry population and in the intention-to-treat population. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03072238. FINDINGS: Between June 30, 2017, and Jan 17, 2019, 1611 patients were screened for eligibility and 1101 (68%) were enrolled; 554 (50%) were assigned to the placebo-abiraterone group and 547 (50%) to the ipatasertib-abiraterone group. At data cutoff (March 16, 2020), median follow-up duration was 19 months (range 0-33). In the 521 (47%) patients who had tumours with PTEN loss by immunohistochemistry (261 in the placebo-abiraterone group and 260 in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group), median radiographical progression-free survival was 16·5 months (95% CI 13·9-17·0) in the placebo-abiraterone group and 18·5 months (16·3-22·1) in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·77 [95% CI 0·61-0·98]; p=0·034; significant at α=0·04). In the intention-to-treat population, median progression-free survival was 16·6 months (95% CI 15·6-19·1) in the placebo-abiraterone group and 19·2 months (16·5-22·3) in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·71-0·99]; p=0·043; not significant at α=0·01). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 213 (39%) of 546 patients in the placebo-abiraterone group and in 386 (70%) of 551 patients in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group; adverse events leading to discontinuation of placebo or ipatasertib occurred in 28 (5%) in the placebo-abiraterone group and 116 (21%) in the ipatasertib-abiraterone group. Deaths due to adverse events deemed related to treatment occurred in two patients (<1%; acute myocardial infarction [n=1] and lower respiratory tract infection [n=1]) in the placebo-abiraterone group and in two patients (<1%; hyperglycaemia [n=1] and chemical pneumonitis [n=1]) in the ipastasertb-abiraterone group. INTERPRETATION: Ipatasertib plus abiraterone significantly improved radiographical progression-free survival compared with placebo plus abiraterone among patients with mCRPC with PTEN-loss tumours, but there was no significant difference between the groups in the intention-to-treat population. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of each agent. These data suggest that combined AKT and androgen-receptor signalling pathway inhibition with ipatasertib and abiraterone is a potential treatment for men with PTEN-loss mCRPC, a population with a poor prognosis. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

Entrectinib in patients with advanced or metastatic NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours: integrated analysis of three phase 1-2 trials.

BACKGROUND: Entrectinib is a potent inhibitor of tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) A, B, and C, which has been shown to have anti-tumour activity against NTRK gene fusion-positive solid tumours, including CNS activity due to its ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier. We present an integrated efficacy and safety analysis of patients with metastatic or locally advanced solid tumours harbouring oncogenic NTRK1, NTRK2, and NTRK3 gene fusions treated in three ongoing, early-phase trials. METHODS: An integrated database comprised the pivotal datasets of three, ongoing phase 1 or 2 clinical trials (ALKA-372-001, STARTRK-1, and STARTRK-2), which enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with metastatic or locally advanced NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours who received entrectinib orally at a dose of at least 600 mg once per day in a capsule. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 and could have received previous anti-cancer therapy (except previous TRK inhibitors). The primary endpoints, the proportion of patients with an objective response and median duration of response, were evaluated by blinded independent central review in the efficacy-evaluable population (ie, patients with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours who were TRK inhibitor-naive and had received at least one dose of entrectinib). Overall safety evaluable population included patients from STARTRK-1, STARTRK-2, ALKA-372-001, and STARTRK-NG (NCT02650401; treating young adult and paediatric patients [aged ≤21 years]), who received at least one dose of entrectinib, regardless of tumour type or gene rearrangement. NTRK fusion-positive safety evaluable population comprised all patients who have received at least one dose of entrectinib regardless of dose or follow-up. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02097810 (STARTRK-1) and NCT02568267 (STARTRK-2), and EudraCT, 2012-000148-88 (ALKA-372-001). FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled in ALKA-372-001 from Oct 26, 2012, to March 27, 2018; in STARTRK-1 from Aug 7, 2014, to May 10, 2018; and in STARTRK-2 from Nov 19, 2015 (enrolment is ongoing). At the data cutoff date for this analysis (May 31, 2018) the efficacy-evaluable population comprised 54 adults with advanced or metastatic NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours comprising ten different tumour types and 19 different histologies. Median follow-up was 12.9 months (IQR 8·77-18·76). 31 (57%; 95% CI 43·2-70·8) of 54 patients had an objective response, of which four (7%) were complete responses and 27 (50%) partial reponses. Median duration of response was 10 months (95% CI 7·1 to not estimable). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events in both safety populations were increased weight (seven [10%] of 68 patients in the NTRK fusion-positive safety population and in 18 [5%] of 355 patients in the overall safety-evaluable population) and anaemia (8 [12%] and 16 [5%]). The most common serious treatment-related adverse events were nervous system disorders (three [4%] of 68 patients and ten [3%] of 355 patients). No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Entrectinib induced durable and clinically meaningful responses in patients with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours, and was well tolerated with a manageable safety profile. These results show that entrectinib is a safe and active treatment option for patients with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours. These data highlight the need to routinely test for NTRK fusions to broaden the therapeutic options available for patients with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours. FUNDING: Ignyta/F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Triweekly carboplatin as a potential de-intensification agent in concurrent chemoradiation for early-stage HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: We compared high-dose cisplatin (HDC) vs. triweekly carboplatin (TC)-based chemoradiation in patients with HPV-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted from 2006 to 2015 of 421 patients with locally advanced p16-positive OPSCC receiving definitive radiotherapy concurrent with 3 cycles of HDC (100 mg/m2, n = 230) or TC (AUC = 5, n = 191). Three-year locoregional recurrence (LRR), distant metastasis (DM), overall recurrence rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and cause-specific survival (CSS) are reported. HDC and TC were compared accounting for age, sex, comorbidity index score, smoking history, T stage, and N stage. RESULTS: For all-comers, no difference was observed between HDC and TC for any outcome except for ORR which was lower in patients receiving HDC (12% vs. 17%, p = 0.03). On stage-based analysis, no difference was observed between agents for any outcome for stage I or II disease. However, patients with stage III disease receiving HDC had lower rates of LRR (9% vs. 21%, p = 0.03), DM (7% vs. 28%, p = 0.006), and ORR (14% vs. 40%, p = 0.002), and superior OS (89% vs. 78%, p = 0.04) and CSS (95% vs. 80%, p = 0.02). Patients receiving HDC experienced higher rates of grade 3 leukopenia (25% vs. 11%, p < 0.001), weight loss ≥20% from baseline (21% vs. 8%, p < 0.001), and gastrostomy-tube placements (66% vs. 27%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: TC demonstrated comparable outcomes to HDC for stage I or II HPV-associated OPSCC but was inferior to HDC for stage III disease. TC was associated with less toxicity and may be a potential de-intensification agent for early-stage disease.

Induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent chemoradiation versus concurrent chemoradiation alone in the definitive management of p16-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma with low-neck or N3 disease.

OBJECTIVE: The addition of induction chemotherapy (ICT) to concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) has been investigated as a method of improving outcomes among patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Previous studies have consisted of heterogeneous populations with both p16-positive and p16-negative disease and varying extent of nodal disease burden. We evaluated the role of ICT in p16-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) at high-risk of distant failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of 88 consecutive patients with p16-positive OPSCC with low-neck and/or N3 lymphadenopathy. Among these patients, 44 received ICT followed by CCRT, and 44 received CCRT alone with concurrent agents including Cisplatin, Carboplatin, and Cetuximab. Disease control and survival outcomes were reported after adjusting for age, T stage, N stage, and smoking status. RESULTS: Median follow-up for surviving patients was 47 (range: 13-115) months. Patients who received CCRT alone were older than those who received ICT (61 years vs. 56 years; p = 0.02); the groups were otherwise similarly balanced. 3-year distant metastasis: 38% vs. 18% (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.32 [0.13-0.82]; p = 0.02). 3-year progression-free survival: 49% vs. 74% (adjusted HR = 0.46 [0.22-0.93]; p = 0.03). 3-year overall survival: 67% vs. 83% (adjusted HR = 0.48 [0.21-1.12]; p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Among patients with p16-positive OPSCC with low-neck and/or N3 lymphadenopathy, ICT followed by CCRT may reduce the risk for distant failure over CCRT alone and lead to improved progression-free survival. Future trials should concentrate on patients at the highest risk of distant metastasis in order to appropriately assess the benefit of ICT.

Concurrent Radiotherapy and Triweekly Carboplatin for the Definitive Treatment of Locally Advanced Laryngeal Carcinoma.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: In 2003, our institution adopted triweekly carboplatin (tCb) area under the curve (AUC) 5 as an alternative to high-dose cisplatin (100 mg/m) for select patients receiving definitive concurrent chemoradiation for locally advanced laryngeal carcinoma (LALC). Here, we present our experience and outcomes with this definitive concurrent chemoradiation regimen. METHODS: From January 2003 through December 2013, 53 patients with stage III (60%) or IVA (40%) LALC were treated with tCb AUC 5 and concurrent radiotherapy to 70 Gy without neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Reasons for using carboplatin instead of cisplatin in these patients were: age 70 and older (21%), poor renal function (6%), presence of 1 or more major comorbid condition(s) (36%), and per discretion of the treating medical oncologist (38%). Primary disease site was glottis in 22 (42%) patients and supraglottis in 31 (58%) patients. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 63 months for surviving patients. Out of the 53 patients, 43 (81%) received all 3 cycles of carboplatin and all patients received their intended dose of radiotherapy. Although 17 (32%) patients required a feeding tube during treatment, only 2 (4%) required it long term. There were no acute treatment-related grade 4 or 5 hematologic toxicities. On last follow-up, 14 (26%) patients had died of intercurrent disease. For the subgroup of "RTOG 9111 eligible" patients in our cohort (n=46), 5-year estimates of overall survival, disease-free survival, laryngectomy-free survival, larynx preservation, and locoregional control were: 49%, 42%, 39%, 80%, and 63%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with LALC who are suboptimal candidates for high-dose cisplatin, our experience suggests that tCb AUC 5 with concurrent radiotherapy provides acceptable outcomes with tolerable toxicity.