We know that combination PARP and antiandrogen is better than antiandrogen alone. I have wondered if we need antiancrogen on those patients. This shows that, YES, we do. The combination also was better than PARP inhibitor monotherapy in those patients carrying HRRm.
Deleterious germline or somatic HRRm are present in about 20% of mCRPC patients (pts). Preclinically, PARP-inhibition demonstrated synergism with AR-targeted therapy. BRCAAway is a biomarker pre-selected, multicenter, randomized, phase-2 trial which evaluated efficacy of AR-inhibitor (i) vs PARPi vs combination in first-line mCRPC pts with germline and/or somatic mutations in BRCA1/2 or ATM.
Eligibility required front-line mCRPC with no prior exposure to PARPi, ARi, or chemotherapy for mCRPC, and washout of antiandrogen, radiation, and other investigational agents. Eligible pts underwent tumor next-generation sequencing (NGS)/germline testing; pts with inactivating BRCA1/2 and/or ATM alterations were randomized 1:1:1 to Arm I abiraterone (1000 mg qd) + prednisone (5mg bid), Arm II olaparib (300 mg bid), or Arm III olaparib + abiraterone/prednisone. Primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS) as per RECIST 1.1, PCWG3, clinical assessment, or death. Secondary endpoints included measurable disease response rate (RR), PSA RR, and toxicity. Arm I and II pts could cross over at progression.
165 eligible pts were registered and underwent NGS/germline testing; 61 pts with HRRm were randomized to Arms I-III. Median age: 67 years (range 42-85); 55 White, 6 Black; prior Docetaxel 26% for mHSPC, Darolutamide/Enzalutamide 3.3% for nmCRPC; disease sites: bone n=44, viscera n=12, lymph node n=31, other n=3; median baseline PSA: 14 ng/ml (range 0.15-4,037 ng/ml). HRRm status: BRCA1 n=3, BRCA2 n=46, ATM n=11, multiple n=1 (33 germline, 28 somatic). Median (range) time from randomization to last encounter in pts still alive n=56: 16 (0.8-60), 15 (4.1-36), and 23 (2.9-56) months (m) in Arms I, II and III, respectively. 51 pts had treatment-related AEs; most common Grade 3: fatigue n=3, anemia n=2, and ALT increases n=2. OS is not mature enough with 3 deaths in Arm I and 2 in Arm II. Efficacy results for Arms I-III are presented in the table. At progression 8/19 pts crossed over from abiraterone to olaparib and 8/21 pts vice versa. Median (95% CI) PFS from crossover to: olaparib 8.3 m (5.5, 15), abiraterone 7.2 m (2.8, NR). Median (95% CI) PFS from randomization: olaparib 16 m (7.8-25) and abiraterone 16 m (11-28). RR to crossover treatment: olaparib 38% and abiraterone 25%. PSA RR to crossover treatment: olaparib 50% and abiraterone 63%.
In mCRPC pts with BRCA1/2 or ATM alterations, abiraterone/prednisone + olaparib was well tolerated and resulted in a longer PFS vs either agent alone or sequentially.
Less radiation is non-inferior, this is for low and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer patients. Would like input from our radiation oncologists as to whether or not this adoptable?
Protons vs IMRT for localized prostate cancer showed no difference in outcome or quality of life. There will be longer f/u and other endpoints studied but the take-home message is that protons are not significantly better than photons.
Will we be replaced by AI? It seems that for radiologists, an AI system was better than the human counterpart in this study looking at prostate cancer diagnostic imaging. I doubt many of us would accept a solely computer-generated report, but this study highlights how AI may help as a supportive tool in the primary diagnostic setting. Of course, prospective validation will be needed.
10-year metastasis-free survival was 71.9% in the short-course ADT group (6 months) and 78% in the long-course ADT group (24 months). So, it seems the longer the duration, the better the outcome. 93% had a Gleason score of 7 or higher.
It might be costly to get the PET scans but helps with prognosis and directing patients to palliative care since positive lesions in all predicts shorter overall survival.
FCS Hematology Oncology Review creates a platform for our physician network to observe the most recent articles and studies available in the oncology and hematology world. By sharing these articles we are building our wealth of knowledge of new observations and treatments as they come available.
