ObjectiveThis double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study was designed to compare efficacy and safety of abiraterone acetate + prednisone (abiraterone) to prednisone alone in chemotherapy-naïve, asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients from China, Malaysia, Thailand and Russia.MethodsAdult chemotherapy-naïve patients with confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) grade 0–1, ongoing androgen deprivation (serum testosterone <50 ng/dL) with prostate specific antigen (PSA) or radiographic progression were randomized to receive abiraterone acetate (1000 mg, QD) + prednisone (5 mg, BID) or placebo + prednisone (5 mg, BID), until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or consent withdrawal. Primary endpoint was improvements in time to PSA progression (TTPP).ResultsTotally, 313 patients were randomized (abiraterone: n = 157; prednisone: n = 156); and baseline characteristics were balanced. At clinical cut-off (median follow-up time: 3.9 months), 80% patients received treatment (abiraterone: n = 138, prednisone: n = 112). Median time to PSA progression was not reached with abiraterone versus 3.8 months for prednisone, attaining 58% reduction in PSA progression risk (HR = 0.418; p < 0.0001). Abiraterone-treated patients had higher confirmed PSA response rate (50% vs. 21%; relative odds = 2.4; p < 0.0001) and were 5 times more likely to achieve radiographic response than prednisone-treated patients (22.9% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.0369). Median survival was not reached. Most common (≥10% abiraterone vs. prednisone-treated) adverse events: bone pain (7% vs. 14%), pain in extremity (6% vs. 12%), arthralgia (10% vs. 8%), back pain (7% vs. 11%), and hypertension (15% vs. 14%).ConclusionInterim analysis confirmed favorable benefit-to-risk ratio of abiraterone in chemotherapy-naïve men with mCRPC, consistent with global study, thus supporting use of abiraterone in this patient population.
4501 Background: Tivozanib, a potent, selective, long half-life tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting all three VEGF receptors, showed activity and tolerability in a Phase II trial (JCO 2011;29[18S]:4550). Methods: Patients (pts) with clear cell advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), prior nephrectomy, RECIST-defined measurable disease, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1 were randomized 1:1 to tivozanib (T) 1.5 mg once daily for 3 weeks (wks) followed by 1 wk rest, or sorafenib (S) 400 mg twice daily continuously in a 4-wk cycle. Pts were treatment naïve or received no more than 1 prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease; pts receiving prior VEGF- or mTOR-targeted therapy were excluded. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per blinded, independent radiological review. 500 pts were to be enrolled to observe 310 events, yielding 90% power to detect medians of 9.7 and 6.7 months (m) with 5% type I error (2-sided). Results: A total of 517 pts were randomized to T (n=260) or S (n=257). Demographics were well balanced between the 2 groups, except ECOG 0 (T: 45% vs S: 54%, p=0.035). Median PFS was 11.9 m for T vs 9.1 m for S (HR=0.797, 95% CI 0.639–0.993; p=0.042). In the treatment-naïve stratum (70% of pts enrolled in each arm), the median PFS was 12.7 m for T vs 9.1 m for S (HR 0.756, 95% CI 0.580–0.985; p=0.037). In all pts, objective response rate (ORR) for T was 33% vs 23% for S (p=0.014). The most common adverse event (AE; all grades/≥grade 3) for T was hypertension (T: 46%/26% vs S: 36%/18%) and for S was hand-foot syndrome (T: 13%/2% vs S: 54%/17%). Other important AEs included diarrhea (T: 22%/2% vs S: 32%/6%), fatigue (T: 18%/5% vs S: 16%/4%), and neutropenia (T: 10%/2% vs S: 9%/2%). Patient-reported outcome data are being analyzed. Overall survival data are not mature. Conclusions: Tivozanib demonstrated significant improvement in PFS and ORR compared with sorafenib as initial targeted treatment for advanced RCC. The safety profile of tivozanib is favorable, and includes a low incidence of fatigue, diarrhea, myelosuppression, and hand-foot syndrome.
115 Background: In ARCHES (NCT02677896), ENZA + ADT improved radiographic progression-free survival, OS, and other key secondary endpoints vs placebo (PBO) + ADT for pts with mHSPC (also known as metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer). Final OS results confirmed a long-term survival benefit with ENZA + ADT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53, 0.81; p<0.0001). We present post hoc analyses of OS by disease volume and progression to M1 HSPC after initial diagnosis with localized disease (M0) or presentation of de novo mHSPC at initial diagnosis (M1). Methods: Pts with mHSPC (N=1150) were randomized 1:1 to ENZA (160 mg/day) + ADT (n=574) or PBO + ADT (n=576), stratified by disease volume and prior docetaxel use. After unblinding, 180 (31.3%) PBO + ADT-treated pts crossed over to open-label ENZA + ADT. High disease volume was defined per CHAARTED criteria. Medical profiles of pts assessed as MX/unknown metastasis at initial diagnosis (n=213) were further reviewed centrally and adjudicated as having either M0 or M1 disease. Median OS and HRs were estimated by Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards, respectively. Results: Median treatment duration was 40.2 months (mo) for ENZA + ADT and 13.8 mo for PBO + ADT. Inclusive of crossover, 401 (69.6%) PBO + ADT pts had subsequent life-prolonging therapy. OS benefits with ENZA + ADT were seen in all disease volume and M0/M1 populations at a similar magnitude to the overall population (Table). Median OS was not reached in most populations except PBO + ADT pts with high disease volume (45.9 mo; 95% CI 40.1, not estimable [NE]) or high disease volume and M1 disease (43.4 mo; 95% CI 36.4, 49.7) and ENZA + ADT pts with high disease volume and M0 disease (54.2 mo; 95% CI 54.2, NE). Conclusions: Our post hoc analysis demonstrates consistent long-term survival benefit with ENZA + ADT vs PBO + ADT across pts with mHSPC with high and low disease volumes and M0 or M1 disease at initial diagnosis, despite substantial treatment crossover and subsequent therapy use in PBO + ADT pts.[Table: see text]
13 Background: Darolutamide (DARO) is a structurally distinct and highly potent androgen receptor inhibitor that demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) and metastasis-free survival vs placebo (PBO) and a low incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in patients (pts) with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We investigated whether DARO in combination with standard androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) + docetaxel would increase OS in pts with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) in the ARASENS study (NCT02799602). Methods: This international, double-blind, phase 3 study enrolled pts with mHSPC and ECOG PS 0/1 who were randomized 1:1 to DARO 600 mg twice daily or matching PBO in addition to ADT + docetaxel. Randomization was stratified by extent of disease according to TNM (M1a vs M1b vs M1c) and alkaline phosphatase levels ( < vs ≥ upper limit of normal). The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary efficacy endpoints included time to CRPC, time to pain progression, time to first symptomatic skeletal event (SSE), and time to initiation of subsequent systemic antineoplastic therapies. Safety was also assessed. Results: From Nov 2016 to June 2018, 1306 pts were randomized, 651 to DARO and 655 to PBO, in combination with ADT + docetaxel. Median age was 67 y in both arms. At the primary data cutoff (Oct 25, 2021), DARO significantly decreased the risk of death by 32.5% vs PBO (HR 0.675, 95% CI 0.568–0.801; P < 0.0001). The significant improvement in OS was observed even though substantially more pts received subsequent life-prolonging systemic antineoplastic therapy in the PBO arm (75.6%) vs the DARO arm (56.8%). The significant OS benefit was consistent across prespecified subgroups. In addition, DARO significantly delayed time to CRPC versus PBO (HR 0.357, 95% CI 0.302–0.421; P < 0.0001). Time to pain progression was also significantly longer with DARO vs PBO (HR, 0.792, 95% CI 0.660–0.950; P= 0.0058), as were time to first SSE and time to initiation of subsequent systemic antineoplastic therapy. TEAEs were similar between treatment arms, and the incidences of the most common TEAEs (≥10%) were highest during the overlapping docetaxel treatment period for both arms, with grade 3/4 TEAEs of 66.1% for DARO and 63.5%for PBO, mainly due to neutropenia (33.7% vs 34.2%, respectively). TEAEs led to treatment discontinuation in 13.5% of pts in the DARO arm and 10.6% of pts in the PBO arm. Conclusions: In pts with mHSPC, early treatment combining DARO with ADT + docetaxel significantly increased OS and improved key secondary endpoints vs ADT + docetaxel alone. The incidence of TEAEs was similar in the two treatment arms. Clinical trial information: NCT02799602.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.