BACKGROUNDThe efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel, as compared with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castrationresistant prostate cancer who were previously treated with docetaxel and had progression within 12 months while receiving the alternative inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) are unclear. METHODSWe randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had previously received docetaxel and an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) to receive cabazitaxel (at a dose of 25 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously every 3 weeks, plus prednisone daily and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) or the other androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (either 1000 mg of abiraterone plus prednisone daily or 160 mg of enzalutamide daily). The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival. Secondary end points of survival, response, and safety were assessed. RESULTSA total of 255 patients underwent randomization. After a median follow-up of 9.2 months, imaging-based progression or death was reported in 95 of 129 patients (73.6%) in the cabazitaxel group, as compared with 101 of 126 patients (80.2%) in the group that received an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median imagingbased progression-free survival was 8.0 months with cabazitaxel and 3.7 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. The median overall survival was 13.6 months with cabazitaxel and 11.0 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.89; P = 0.008). The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months with cabazitaxel and 2.7 months with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.68; P<0.001), a prostate-specific antigen response occurred in 35.7% and 13.5% of the patients, respectively (P<0.001), and tumor response was noted in 36.5% and 11.5% (P = 0.004). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 56.3% of patients receiving cabazitaxel and in 52.4% of those receiving an androgensignaling-targeted inhibitor. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONSCabazitaxel significantly improved a number of clinical outcomes, as compared with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had been previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen-signaling-targeted agent (abiraterone or enzalutamide). (Funded by Sanofi; CARD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02485691.

No abstract

PURPOSE PROSTVAC, a viral vector–based immunotherapy, prolonged median overall survival (OS) by 8.5 months versus placebo in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in a phase II study. This phase III study further investigated those findings. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to PROSTVAC (Arm V; n = 432), PROSTVAC plus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (Arm VG; n = 432), or placebo (Arm P; n = 433), stratified by prostate-specific antigen (less than 50 ng/mL v 50 ng/mL or more) and lactate dehydrogenase (less than 200 v 200 U/L or more). Primary end point was OS. Secondary end points were patients alive without events (AWE)—namely, radiographic progression, pain progression, chemotherapy initiation, or death—at 6 months and safety. The study design was a superiority trial of PROSTVAC (Arm V or Arm VG) versus Arm P. Three interim analyses were planned. RESULTS At the third interim analysis, criteria for futility were met and the trial was stopped early. Neither active treatment had an effect on median OS (Arm V, 34.4 months; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.20; P = .47; Arm VG, 33.2 months; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.22; P = .59; Arm P, 34.3 months). Likewise, AWE at 6 months was similar (Arm V, 29.4%; odds ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.29; Arm VG, 28.0%; odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.20; placebo, 30.3%). Adverse events were similar for the treatment and placebo groups, with the most common being injection site reactions (62% to 72%) and fatigue (21% to 24%). Arrhythmias were the most common cardiac-related events (1.4% to 3.5%). There were no reports of either myocarditis or pericarditis. Serious treatment-related events occurred in less than 1% of all patients. CONCLUSION Whereas PROSTVAC was safe and well tolerated, it had no effect on OS or AWE in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Combination therapy is currently being explored in clinical trials.

Purpose Cabazitaxel 25 mg/m (C25) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus mitoxantrone ( P < .001) in postdocetaxel patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the phase III TROPIC study. The phase III PROSELICA study ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01308580) assessed the noninferiority of cabazitaxel 20 mg/m (C20) versus C25 in postdocetaxel patients with mCRPC. Methods Patients were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, measurability of disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and region, and randomly assigned to receive C20 or C25. To claim noninferiority of C20 (maintenance of ≥ 50% of the OS benefit of C25 v mitoxantrone in TROPIC) with 95% confidence level, the upper boundary of the CI of the hazard ratio (HR) for C20 versus C25 could not exceed 1.214 under a one-sided 98.89% CI after interim analyses. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), tumor and pain responses and progression, health-related quality of life, and safety. Results Overall, 1,200 patients were randomly assigned (C20, n = 598; C25, n = 602). Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Median OS was 13.4 months for C20 and 14.5 months for C25 (HR, 1.024). The upper boundary of the HR CI was 1.184 (less than the 1.214 noninferiority margin). Significant differences were observed in favor of C25 for PSA response (C20, 29.5%; C25, 42.9%; nominal P < .001) and time to PSA progression (median: C20, 5.7 months; C25, 6.8 months; HR for C20 v C25, 1.195; 95% CI, 1.025 to 1.393). Health-related quality of life did not differ between cohorts. Rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were 39.7% for C20 and 54.5% for C25. Conclusion The efficacy of cabazitaxel in postdocetaxel patients with mCRPC was confirmed. The noninferiority end point was met; C20 maintained ≥ 50% of the OS benefit of C25 versus mitoxantrone in TROPIC. Secondary efficacy end points favored C25. Fewer adverse events were observed with C20.

Purpose: Diffuse gliomas are the most common primary tumor of the brain and include different subtypes with diverse prognosis. The genomic characterization of diffuse gliomas facilitates their molecular diagnosis. The anatomical localization of diffuse gliomas complicates access to tumor specimens for diagnosis, in some cases incurring high-risk surgical procedures and stereotactic biopsies. Recently, cell-free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has been identified in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with brain malignancies. Experimental Design: We performed an analysis of IDH1, IDH2, TP53, TERT, ATRX, H3F3A, and HIST1H3B gene mutations in two tumor cohorts from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) including 648 diffuse gliomas. We also performed targeted exome sequencing and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) analysis of these seven genes in 20 clinical tumor specimens and CSF from glioma patients and performed a histopathologic characterization of the tumors. Results: Analysis of the mutational status of the IDH1, IDH2, TP53, TERT, ATRX, H3F3A, and HIST1H3B genes allowed the classification of 79% of the 648 diffuse gliomas analyzed, into IDH-wild-type glioblastoma, IDH-mutant glioblastoma/diffuse astrocytoma and oligodendroglioma, each subtype exhibiting diverse median overall survival (1.1, 6.7, and 11.2 years, respectively). We developed a sequencing platform to simultaneously and rapidly genotype these seven genes in CSF ctDNA allowing the subclassification of diffuse gliomas. Conclusions: The genomic analysis of IDH1, IDH2, TP53, ATRX, TERT, H3F3A, and HIST1H3B gene mutations in CSF ctDNA facilitates the diagnosis of diffuse gliomas in a timely manner to support the surgical and clinical management of these patients. Clin Cancer Res; 24(12); 2812–9. ©2018 AACR.

Purpose: Most hyperprogression disease (HPD) definitions are based on tumor growth rate (TGR). However, there is still no consensus on how to evaluate this phenomenon. Experimental Design: We investigated two independent cohorts of patients with advanced solid tumors treated in phase I trials with (i) programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 antibodies in monotherapy or combination and (ii) targeted agents (TA) in unapproved indications. A Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1-based definition of hyperprogression was developed. The primary endpoint was the assessment of the rate of HPD in patients treated with ICIs or TAs using both criteria (RECIST and TGR) and the impact on overall survival (OS) in patients who achieved PD as best response. Results: Among 270 evaluable patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, 29 PD-1/PD-L1-treated patients (10.7%) had HPD by RECIST definition. This group had a significantly lower OS (median of 5.23 months; 95% CI, 3.97-6.45) when compared with the non-HPD progressor group (median, 7.33 months; 95% CI, 4.53-10.12; HR ¼ 1.73, 95% CI, 1.05-2.85; P ¼ 0.04). In a subset of 221 evaluable patients, 14 (6.3%) were categorized as HPD using TGR criteria, differences in median OS (mOS) between this group (mOS 4.2 months; 95% IC, 2.07-6.33) and non-HPD progressors (n ¼ 44) by TGR criteria (mOS 6.27 months; 95% CI, 3.88-8.67) were not statistically significant (HR 1.4, 95% IC, 0.70-2.77; P ¼ 0.346). Among 239 evaluable patients treated with TAs, 26 (10.9%) were classified as having HPD by RECIST and 14 using TGR criteria in a subset of patients. No differences in OS were observed between HPD and non-HPD progressors treated with TAs. Conclusions: HPD measured by TGR or by RECIST was observed in both cohorts of patients; however, in our series, there was an impact on survival only in the immune-checkpoint inhibitor cohort when evaluated by RECIST. We propose a new way to capture HPD using RECIST criteria that is intuitive and easy to use in daily clinical practice.

No abstract

LBA1^ Background: Enzalutamide, an orally administered androgen receptor inhibitor, improved overall survival (OS) in men with mCRPC who had received prior docetaxel therapy (Scher et al, NEJM 367:13, 2012). This study examined whether enzalutamide could prolong OS and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic chemotherapy-naive men with mCRPC. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 study (NCT01212991), chemotherapy-naive patients with mCRPC were stratified by site and randomized 1:1 to enzalutamide 160 mg/day or placebo. OS and rPFS were co-primary endpoints and analyzed for the intent-to-treat population. Planned sample size was 1,680 with 765 deaths to achieve 80% power to detect a target OS hazard ratio (HR) of 0.815 with a type I error rate of 0.049 and a single interim analysis at 516 (67%) deaths. The co-primary endpoint of rPFS had sufficient power to detect a target HR of 0.57 and a type I error rate of 0.001 with a minimum of 410 events. Results: A total of 1,717 men were randomized (1,715 treated) between September 2010 and September 2012. The interim analysis at 539 deaths showed a statistically significant benefit of enzalutamide over placebo with a 30% reduction in risk of death (OS: HR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.59-0.83; P< 0.0001) and an 81% reduction in risk of radiographic progression or death (rPFS: HR 0.19; 95% CI: 0.15-0.23; P< 0.0001). At the time of the analysis, 28% of enzalutamide patients and 35% of placebo patients had died. Estimated median OS was 32.4 months (mo) (95% CI, 31.5–upper limit not yet reached [NYR]) in the enzalutamide arm vs 30.2 mo (95% CI, 28–upper limit NYR) in the placebo arm. Median rPFS was NYR (95% CI: 13.8–upper limit NYR) in the enzalutamide arm vs 3.9 mo (95% CI: 3.7-5.4) in the placebo arm. Seizure events were reported in two patients. The Independent Data Monitoring Committee considered the benefit-risk ratio to favor enzalutamide and recommended stopping the study and crossing placebo patients to enzalutamide. Secondary endpoints and safety analysis will be presented. Conclusions: Treatment with enzalutamide significantly improves OS and rPFS in men with chemotherapy-naive mCRPC. Clinical trial information: NCT01212991.