The role for immunotherapy in combination with multitargeted therapy in prostate cancer, for patients who had previous docetaxol, or had visceral disease (liver) showed more benefit from the combination vs. second novel hormonal therapy.
Recall that patients who had exposure to docetaxol can be treated with pluvicto.
Genomic and genetic testing is encouraged for those patients as PARP targeted mutations can be found (homologous recombination-repair mutations).
Pts who have progressed on a prior NHT and have mCRPC with extrapelvic nodal or visceral metastasis have a poor prognosis with limited, broadly available treatment options beyond chemotherapy. C promotes an immune-permissive tumor environment and may enhance response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).
Pts randomized 1:1 to C+A (C [40 mg PO QD] + A [1200 mg IV Q3W]) or control (ctrl) (abiraterone [1000 mg PO QD] + prednisone [5 mg PO BID] or enzalutamide [160 mg PO QD]) were stratified by liver metastasis (yes/no), prior docetaxel for mCSPC (yes/no), and prior NHT for mCSPC/M0CRPC/mCRPC. Key eligibility criteria: mCRPC with disease progression on one prior NHT, measurable extrapelvic nodal or visceral disease, ECOG PS ≤1, ongoing androgen deprivation therapy. Docetaxel was allowed for mCSPC. Dual primary endpoints are radiographic PFS (rPFS) by blinded independent radiology committee (BIRC) per RECIST 1.1 in the first 400 randomized pts (PITT) and OS in all randomized pts (ITT). Secondary endpoint is ORR by RECIST 1.1 per BIRC.
At the data cutoff (Feb 28, 2023), 507 pts (ITT) were randomized to receive C+A (n=253) or ctrl (n=254). Baseline and clinical characteristics were balanced between C+A and ctrl arms: 25% and 26% had liver metastasis, 21% and 20% received docetaxel for mCSPC, and 72% and 74% received first NHT for mCRPC. Median follow-up was 12.0 mo for ITT and 14.3 mo for PITT populations. Median rPFS was significantly longer with C+A vs ctrl (6.3 vs 4.2 mo; HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50-0.84; P=0.0007) including in subgroups with liver metastasis (6.0 vs 2.1 mo; HR 0.47 [95% CI 0.30- 0.74]) or prior docetaxel treatment for mCSPC (8.8 vs 4.1 mo; HR 0.55 [0.32-0.96]). ORR was higher in C+A vs ctrl in pts with follow-up ≥6 mo in ITT (13.6% [23/169] vs 4.2% [7/165]). Median DOR was 9.7 mo for C+A vs not reached for ctrl, and time to response was 2.3 vs 4.6 mo. DCR was 72.8% (123/169) vs 54.5% (90/165). OS data are immature. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) occurred in 97% in C+A vs 87% in ctrl (grade 3/4 events, 48% vs 23%). Grade 5 TEAEs occurred in 9% vs 12% and no grade 5 treatment-related AEs occurred in either arm. TEAEs led to the discontinuation of all treatment components in 16% in C+A and 15% in ctrl.
C+A significantly improved rPFS vs second NHT in pts who had progressed on a prior NHT and have mCRPC with extrapelvic nodal or visceral disease, a population with high unmet medical need. These rPFS benefits were particularly notable in pts with liver metastasis and those who previously received docetaxel for mCSPC. Toxicities reported with each treatment arm were manageable. CONTACT-02 is the only phase 3 study of an ICI-based regimen to show a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in rPFS in prostate cancer with visceral metastasis. Follow-up for OS is ongoing.
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.
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.
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.
