Abstract CT014: IMbassador250: A phase III trial comparing atezolizumab with enzalutamide vs enzalutamide alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)

Randomized Phase II Study Evaluating the Addition of Pembrolizumab to Radium-223 in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer

The checkpoint immunotherapeutic pembrolizumab induces responses in a small minority of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Radium-223 (R223) may increase immunogenicity of bone metastases and increase pembrolizumab (P) activity. In a randomized phase II study, we assessed the effect of R223+P compared with R223 on tumor immune infiltration, safety, and clinical outcomes in patients with mCRPC. The primary endpoint was differences in CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell infiltrate in 8-week versus baseline bone metastasis biopsies; secondary endpoints were safety, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and overall survival (OS). Of the 42 treated patients (29 R223+P, 13 R223), 18 R223+P and 8 R223 patients had evaluable paired tumor biopsies. Median fold-change of CD4+ T cells was -0.7 (range: -9.3 to 4.7) with R223+P and 0.1 (-11.1 to 3.7) with R223 (P = 0.66); for CD8+ T cells, median fold-change was -0.6 (-7.4 to 5.3) with R223+P and -1.3 (-3.1 to 4.8) with R223 (P = 0.66). Median rPFS and OS was 6.1 (95% confidence interval: 2.7-11.0) and 16.9 months [12.7-not reached (NR)], respectively, with R223+P and 5.7 (2.6-NR) and 16.0 (9.0-NR), respectively, with R223. Although R223+P was well tolerated with no unexpected toxicity, the combination did not improve efficacy. High-dimensional flow cytometry demonstrated minimal immune modulation with R223, whereas R223+P induced CTLA-4 expression on circulating CD4+ T cells. Clinical responders possessed lower circulating frequencies of Ki67+ T and myeloid cells at baseline and higher circulating frequencies of TIM-3+ T and myeloid cells by week 9. Although R223+P did not induce T-cell infiltration into the tumor microenvironment, exhaustion of induced peripheral T-cell immune responses may dampen the combination's clinical activity.

Molecular Targeted Therapies in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Recent Advances and Future Challenges

Prostate cancer is the most frequent malignant tumor in men, and, despite the great improvements in survival in patients with localized cancer, the prognosis for metastatic disease remains poor. Novel molecular targeted therapies, which block specific molecules or signaling pathways in tumor cells or in their microenvironment, have shown encouraging results in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Among these therapeutic approaches, prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeted radionuclide therapies and DNA repair inhibitors represent the most promising ones, with some therapeutic protocols already approved by the FDA, whereas therapies targeting tumor neovascularization and immune checkpoint inhibitors have not yet demonstrated clear clinical benefits. In this review, the most relevant studies and clinical trials on this topic are illustrated and discussed, together with future research directions and challenges.

Flutamide With or Without PROSTVAC in Non-metastatic Castration Resistant (M0) Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Before 2018, there was no standard of care for non-metastatic (M0) castration resistant prostate cancer nmCRPC. Androgen receptor antagonists (ARAs) were commonly used sequentially nmCRPC.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing the ARA flutamide+/-PROSTVAC, a pox viral vaccine targeting PSA that includes T-cell co-stimulatory molecules. Eligible men had negative CT and Tc99 bone scans, and rising PSA on ADT. Previous treatment with ARA was a stratification factor. Patients were also evaluated for antigen-specific immune responses using intracellular cytokine staining.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients randomized to flutamide and 31 to flutamide+vaccine. The median age was 71.8 and 69.8 years, respectively. The median time to treatment failure after a median potential follow-up of 46.7 months was, 4.5 months (range 2-70) for flutamide alone vs. 6.9 months (2.5-40; P = .38) with flutamide+vaccine. Seven patients in each arm had a >50% PSA response. Antigen-specific responses were similar in both arms (58% of patients in flutamide alone and 56% in flutamide+vaccine). The treatments were well tolerated. The most common side effect > grade 2 was injection site reaction seen in 29/31 vaccine patients which were self-limiting.

CONCLUSION

The combination of flutamide+PROSTVAC did not improve outcomes in men with nmCRPC compared with flutamide alone. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00450463).

Avelumab in Men With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer, Enriched for Patients Treated Previously With a Therapeutic Cancer Vaccine

Therapeutic cancer vaccines including sipuleucel- T , a prostatic acid phosphatase (PAP) targeted vaccine that improves survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), can produce immune responses that translate to clinical benefit. The effects of sequential checkpoint inhibitors after therapeutic vaccine on immune responses are unknown. Avelumab is an anti-programmed death ligand-1 monoclonal antibody evaluated in patients with mCRPC in the JAVELIN solid tumor phase 1 trial expansion cohort, enriched for patients with a previous therapeutic prostate cancer-targeted vaccine. mCRPC patients received intravenous avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks with imaging every 6 weeks. Peripheral blood T-cell responses to PAP and to PA2024, the peptide containing PAP utilized by the vaccine, were evaluated pre and posttreatment. Eighteen patients enrolled, and previous treatments included abiraterone or enzalutamide in 14 (78%), therapeutic cancer vaccine in 14 (78%), and chemotherapy in 4 (22%). Avelumab had a manageable safety profile. There were no sustained prostate specific antigen decreases. Of 17 patients evaluable for best overall response by RECISTv1.1, 12 had stable disease (SD) and 5 had progressive disease. Seven patients had SD for >24 weeks posttreatment. Fourteen patients had previously received therapeutic cancer vaccines. Eleven (79%) had SD as the best overall response. Of these 14 patients, 9 had previously received sipuleucel T . Analysis of antigen-specific T-cell responses pre and postavelumab treatment did not demonstrate changes in interferon-γ production or proliferation in response to PAP or PA2024. This unplanned analysis does not support the use of sequential therapeutic cancer vaccine therapy followed by programmed death ligand-1 inhibition in mCRPC.

Recent advances in the molecular targeted drugs for prostate cancer

CONTEXT

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second largest male tumor in the world and one of the most common malignant tumors in the urinary system. In recent years, the incidence rate of PCa in China has been increasing year by year. Meanwhile, refractory hormone resistance and adverse drug reactions of advanced PCa cause serious harm to patients.

OBJECTIVE

The present study aims to systematically review the recent advances in molecularly targeted drugs for prostate cancer and to use the retrieval and analysis of the literature library to summarize the adverse effects of different drugs so as to maximize the treatment benefits of targeted therapies.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a systematic literature search of the Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases up to March 2022 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords such as (prostate cancer) AND (molecular target drugs) AND (side effect) were used. No language restrictions were set on the search process, and all these results were processed independently by two authors. Consensus was reached through discussion once met with any disagreements. The primary endpoint was differential features between different molecular targeted drugs. Secondary endpoints were side effects of different drugs on the body and corresponding prognostic values.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to assess the study quality in terms of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, the completeness of outcome data, selective reporting and other biases. We retrieved 332 articles, of which 49 met the criteria for inclusion. Included studies show that prostatic tumor cells, tumor neovascularization and immune checkpoints are the main means for targeted therapy. Common drugs include 177 Lu-PSMA, Olaparib, Rucaparib, Bevacizumab, Pazopanib, Sorafenib, Cabozantinib, Aflibercept, Ipilimumab, Atezolizumab, Avelumab, Durvalumab. A series of publicly available data suitable for further analysis of side effects. An over-representation analysis of these datasets revealed reasonable dosage and usage is the key to controlling the side effects of targeted drugs. Important information such as the publication year, the first author, location and outcome observation of adverse effects was extracted from the original article. If the study data has some insufficient data, contacting the corresponding authors is necessary. All the studies included prospective nonrandomized and randomized research. Retrospective reviews were also screened according to the relevant to the purpose of this study. Meeting abstracts as well as letters to the editor and editorials were excluded.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Data analysis was based on Cochrane's risk of bias tools to obtain the quality assessment. The included randomized studies used RoB2 and non-randomized ones corresponded to ROBINS-I. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were used to determine relative risk (RR) and side effects between groups. The eggers' test was used to check the publication bias from variable information in the included studies. All p < 0.05 were considered to be significant, and 95% was set as the confidence interval.

CONCLUSIONS

With the approval of a variety of targeted drugs, targeted therapy will be widely used in the treatment of advanced or metastatic prostate cancer. Despite the existence of adverse reactions related to targeted drug treatment, it is still meaningful to adjust the drug dosage or treatment cycle to reduce the occurrence of adverse reactions, improving the treatment benefits of patients.

Current progress of nanomedicine for prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common new cancer case and the second most fatal malignancy in men. Surgery, endocrine therapy, radiotherapy and chemotherapy are the main clinical treatment options for PCa. However, most prostate cancers can develop into castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and due to the invasiveness of prostate cancer cells, they become resistant to different treatments and activate tumor-promoting signaling pathways, thereby inducing chemoresistance, radioresistance, ADT resistance, and immune resistance. Nanotechnology, which can combine treatment with diagnostic imaging tools, is emerging as a promising treatment modality in prostate cancer therapy. Nanoparticles can not only promote their accumulation at the pathological site through passive targeting techniques for enhanced permeability and retention (EPR), but also provide additional advantages for active targeting using different ligands. This property results in a reduced drug dose to achieve the desired effect, a longer duration of action within the tumor and fewer side effects on healthy tissues. In addition, nanotechnology can create good synergy with radiotherapy, chemotherapy, thermotherapy, photodynamic therapy and gene therapy to enhance their therapeutic effects with greater scope, and reduce the resistance of prostate cancer. In this article, we intend to review and discuss the latest technologies regarding the use of nanomaterials as therapeutic and diagnostic tools for prostate cancer.

Signaling new therapeutic opportunities: cytokines in prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Despite FDA approval of sipuleucel-T in 2010, endeavors to use immune checkpoint inhibitors in unselected prostate cancer patients have not improved clinical outcomes. These efforts include studies with anti-PD1/PD-L1 and anti-CTLA-4 alone and in combination with existing standards of care. These strategies are generally T-cell centric and disregard the broader complex and pleiotropic components of the prostate cancer tumor microenvironment such as natural killer cells, myeloid-derived suppressor cells and tumor associated macrophages.

AREAS COVERED

We performed an online literature search and undertook a review of existing pre-clinical and clinical literature for cytokine-based therapy relating to prostate cancer, specifically on interleukin (IL)-2, IL-15, IL-12, IL-23, IL-8 and transforming growth factor (TGF)-β.

EXPERT OPINION

Cytokine-based therapies present an alternative immune strategy to target the pleiotropic prostate cancer tumor microenvironment beyond T-cells. Future immunotherapy strategies in prostate cancer should address these immune cell populations which may play more important roles in the prostate cancer tumor microenvironment.

Antitumor efficacy of 90Y-NM600 targeted radionuclide therapy and PD-1 blockade is limited by regulatory T cells in murine prostate tumors

Background

Systemic radiation treatments that preferentially irradiate cancer cells over normal tissue, known as targeted radionuclide therapy (TRT), have shown significant potential for treating metastatic prostate cancer. Preclinical studies have demonstrated the ability of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to sensitize tumors to T cell checkpoint blockade. Combining TRT approaches with immunotherapy may be more feasible than combining with EBRT to treat widely metastatic disease, however the effects of TRT on the prostate tumor microenvironment alone and in combinfation with checkpoint blockade have not yet been studied.

Methods

C57BL/6 mice-bearing TRAMP-C1 tumors and FVB/NJ mice-bearing Myc-CaP tumors were treated with a single intravenous administration of either low-dose or high-dose ⁹⁰Y-NM600 TRT, and with or without anti-PD-1 therapy. Groups of mice were followed for tumor growth while others were used for tissue collection and immunophenotyping of the tumors via flow cytometry.

Results

⁹⁰Y-NM600 TRT was safe at doses that elicited a moderate antitumor response. TRT had multiple effects on the tumor microenvironment including increasing CD8 +T cell infiltration, increasing checkpoint molecule expression on CD8 +T cells, and increasing PD-L1 expression on myeloid cells. However, PD-1 blockade with TRT treatment did not improve antitumor efficacy. Tregs remained functional up to 1 week following TRT, but CD8 +T cells were not, and the suppressive function of Tregs increased when anti-PD-1 was present in in vitro studies. The combination of anti-PD-1 and TRT was only effective in vivo when Tregs were depleted.

Conclusions

Our data suggest that the combination of ⁹⁰Y-NM600 TRT and PD-1 blockade therapy is ineffective in these prostate cancer models due to the activating effect of anti-PD-1 on Tregs. This finding underscores the importance of thorough understanding of the effects of TRT and immunotherapy combinations on the tumor immune microenvironment prior to clinical investigation.

Influence of Androgen Deprivation Therapy on the PD-L1 Expression and Immune Activity in Prostate Cancer Tissue

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have become a promising new therapy for cancer treatment. However, due to prostate cancer’s high heterogeneity and immune-suppressive tumour microenvironment, clinical trials with immune checkpoint inhibitors for prostate cancer resulted in low or no response. This descriptive and retrospective study investigates the influence of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) on PD-L1 expression and CD8+ T-cell tumour infiltration and activity in primary prostate cancer tissue. Therefore, immunohistochemistry was used to assess PD-L1, CD8+ T-cell, and the immune activation marker Granzyme B (GrB) in PCa tissue before and under ADT. In line with previous studies, few prostate cancer tissues showed PD-L1 expression and CD8+ T-cell infiltration. However, PD-L1 expression levels on tumour cells or infiltrating immune cells above 5% generated an immune-suppressive tumour microenvironment harbouring hypofunctional CD8+ T-cells. Moreover, analysis of a longitudinal patient cohort before and under ADT revealed that ADT increased hypofunctional CD8+ T cells in the tumour area suggesting a tumour immune milieu optimal for targeting with immunotherapy.

Interferon-γ increases sensitivity to chemotherapy and provides immunotherapy targets in models of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Interferon-γ (IFNγ) is a cytokine with limited evidence of benefit in cancer clinical trials to date. However, it could potentially play a role in potentiating anti-tumor immunity in the immunologically "cold" metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) by inducing antigen presentation pathways and concurrently providing targets for immune checkpoint blockade therapy. Moreover, it could additionally increase sensitivity to chemotherapy based on its pleiotropic effects on cell phenotype. Here, we show that IFNγ treatment induced expression of major histocompatibility class-I (MHC-I) genes and PD-L1 in prostate cancer cells in vitro. Furthermore, IFNγ treatment led to a decrease in E-cadherin expression with a consequent increase in sensitivity to chemotherapy in vitro. In an in vivo murine tumor model of spontaneous metastatic prostate cancer, IFNγ systemic pretreatment upregulated the expression of HLA-A and decreased E-cadherin expression in the primary tumor, and more importantly in the metastatic site led to increased apoptosis and limited micrometastases in combination with paclitaxel treatment compared to diffuse metastatic disease in control and monotherapy treatment groups. These findings suggest that IFNγ may be useful in combinatorial regimens to induce sensitivity to immunotherapy and chemotherapy in hepatic metastases of mCRPC.

Immunotherapy in Advanced Prostate Cancer-Light at the End of the Tunnel?

Immunotherapeutic treatment approaches are now an integral part of the treatment of many solid tumors. However, attempts to integrate immunotherapy into the treatment of prostate cancer have been disappointing so far. This is due to a highly immunosuppressive, “cold” tumor microenvironment, which is characterized, for example, by the absence of cytotoxic T cells, an increased number of myeloid-derived suppressor cells or regulatory T cells, a decreased number of tumor antigens, or a defect in antigen presentation. The consequence is a reduced efficacy of many established immunotherapeutic treatments such as checkpoint inhibitors. However, a growing understanding of the underlying mechanisms of tumor–immune system interactions raises hopes that immunotherapeutic strategies can be optimized in the future. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the current status and future directions of immunotherapy development in prostate cancer. Background information on immune response and tumor microenvironment will help to better understand current therapeutic strategies under preclinical and clinical development.

Lack of consensus identifies important areas for future clinical research: Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 findings

BACKGROUND

Innovations in treatments, imaging and molecular characterisation have improved outcomes for people with advanced prostate cancer; however, many aspects of clinical management are devoid of high-level evidence. At the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019, many of these topics were addressed, and consensus was not always reached. The results from clinical trials will most reliably plus the gaps.

METHODS

An invited panel of 57 experts voted on 123 multiple-choice questions on clinical management at APCCC 2019. No consensus was reached on 88 (71.5%) questions defined as <75% of panellists voting for the same answer option. We reviewed clinicaltrials.gov to identify relevant ongoing phase III trials in these areas of non-consensus.

RESULTS

A number of ongoing phase III trials were identified that are relevant to these non-consensus issues. However, many non-consensus issues appear not to be addressed by current clinical trials. Of note, no phase III but only phase II trials were identified, investigating side effects of hormonal treatments and their management.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of consensus almost invariably indicates gaps in existing evidence. The high percentage of questions lacking consensus at APCCC 2019 highlights the complexity of advanced prostate cancer care and the need for robust, clinically relevant trials that can fill current gaps with high-level evidence. Our review of these areas of non-consensus and ongoing trials provides a useful summary, indicating areas in which future consensus may soon be reached. This review may facilitate academic investigators to identify and prioritise topics for future research.

Oncological Response and Predictive Biomarkers for the Checkpoint Inhibitors in Castration-Resistant Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Recently, checkpoint inhibitors have been investigated in metastatic prostate cancer, however their overall effect is unclear and needs to be further investigated. Objectives: The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the oncological response of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Methods: Based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, a systematic review of the literature was conducted through online electronic databases and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Meeting Library. Eligible publications were selected after a staged screening and selection process. RevMan 5.4 software was employed to run the quantitative analysis and forest plots. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Cochrane tool and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for the randomized and non-randomized trials, respectively. Results: From the 831 results retrieved, 8 studies including 2768 patients were included. There was no significant effect on overall survival (OS) (overall response (OR) = 0.98; Z = 0.42; p = 0.67). Meanwhile, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly better with immune checkpoint inhibitors administration (OR = 0.85; Z = 3.9; p < 0.0001). The subgroup analysis for oncological outcomes based on programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) positivity status displayed no significant effect, except on prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSA RR) (OR = 3.25; Z = 2.29; p = 0.02). Based on DNA damage repair (DDR), positive patients had a significantly better PFS and a trend towards better OS and overall response rate (ORR); the ORR was 40% in positive patients compared to 20% in the negative patients (OR = 2.46; Z = 1.3; p = 0.19), while PSA RR was 23.5% compared to 14.3% (OR = 1.88; Z = 0.88; p = 0.38). Better PFS was clearly associated with DDR positivity (OR = 0.70; Z = 2.48; p = 0.01) with a trend towards better OS in DDR positive patients (OR = 0.71; Z = 1.38; p = 0.17). Based on tumor mutation burden (TMB), ORR was 46.7% with high TMB versus 8.8% in patients with low TMB (OR = 11.88; Z = 3.0; p = 0.003). Conclusions: Checkpoint inhibitors provide modest oncological advantages in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. There are currently no good predictive indicators that indicate a greater response in some patients.

Androgen Receptor Signaling in Prostate Cancer and Therapeutic Strategies

Understanding of the molecular mechanisms of prostate cancer has led to development of therapeutic strategies targeting androgen receptor (AR). These androgen-receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSI) include androgen synthesis inhibitor-abiraterone and androgen receptor antagonists-enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide. Although these medications provide significant improvement in survival among men with prostate cancer, drug resistance develops in nearly all patients with time. This could be through androgen-dependent or androgen-independent mechanisms. Even weaker signals and non-canonical steroid ligands can activate AR in the presence of truncated AR-splice variants, AR overexpression, or activating mutations in AR. AR splice variant, AR-V7 is the most studied among these and is not targeted by available ARSIs. Non-androgen receptor dependent resistance mechanisms are mediated by activation of an alternative signaling pathway when AR is inhibited. DNA repair pathway, PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, BRAF-MAPK and Wnt signaling pathway and activation by glucocorticoid receptors can restore downstream signaling in prostate cancer by alternative proteins. Multiple clinical trials are underway exploring therapeutic strategies to overcome these resistance mechanisms.

Apalutamide plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone versus placebo plus abiraterone and prednisone in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (ACIS): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multinational, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

The majority of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) will have disease progression of a uniformly fatal disease. mCRPC is driven by both activated androgen receptors and elevated intratumoural androgens; however, the current standard of care is therapy that targets a single androgen signalling mechanism. We aimed to investigate the combination treatment using apalutamide plus abiraterone acetate, each of which suppresses the androgen signalling axis in a different way, versus standard care in mCRPC.

METHODS

ACIS was a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 study done at 167 hospitals in 17 countries in the USA, Canada, Mexico, Europe, the Asia-Pacific region, Africa, and South America. We included chemotherapy-naive men (aged ≥18 years) with mCRPC who had not been previously treated with androgen biosynthesis signalling inhibitors and were receiving ongoing androgen deprivation therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and a Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form question 3 (ie, worst pain in the past 24 h) score of 3 or lower. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a centralised interactive web response system with a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size 4) to oral apalutamide 240 mg once daily plus oral abiraterone acetate 1000 mg once daily and oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily (apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone group) or placebo plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (abiraterone-prednisone group), in 28-day treatment cycles. Randomisation was stratified by presence or absence of visceral metastases, ECOG performance status, and geographical region. Patients, the investigators, study team, and the sponsor were masked to group assignments. An independent data-monitoring committee continually monitored data to ensure ongoing patient safety, and reviewed efficacy data. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was reported for all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is completed and no longer recruiting and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02257736.

FINDINGS

982 men were enrolled and randomly assigned from Dec 10, 2014 to Aug 30, 2016 (492 to apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone; 490 to abiraterone-prednisone). At the primary analysis (median follow-up 25·7 months [IQR 23·0-28·9]), median radiographic progression-free survival was 22·6 months (95% CI 19·4-27·4) in the apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone group versus 16·6 months (13·9-19·3) in the abiraterone-prednisone group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·69, 95% CI 0·58-0·83; p<0·0001). At the updated analysis (final analysis for overall survival; median follow-up 54·8 months [IQR 51·5-58·4]), median radiographic progression-free survival was 24·0 months (95% CI 19·7-27·5) versus 16·6 months (13·9-19·3; HR 0·70, 95% CI 0·60-0·83; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse event was hypertension (82 [17%] of 490 patients receiving apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone and 49 [10%] of 489 receiving abiraterone-prednisone). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 195 (40%) patients receiving apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone and 181 (37%) patients receiving abiraterone-prednisone. Drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events with fatal outcomes occurred in three (1%) patients in the apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone group (2 pulmonary embolism, 1 cardiac failure) and five (1%) patients in the abiraterone-prednisone group (1 cardiac failure and 1 cardiac arrest, 1 mesenteric arterial occlusion, 1 seizure, and 1 sudden death).

INTERPRETATION

Despite the use of an active and established therapy as the comparator, apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone improved radiographic progression-free survival. Additional studies to identify subgroups of patients who might benefit the most from combination therapy are needed to further refine the treatment of mCRPC.

FUNDING

Janssen Research & Development.

Genetic Aberrations of DNA Repair Pathways in Prostate Cancer: Translation to the Clinic

Prostate cancer (PC) is the second most common cancer in men worldwide. Due to the large-scale sequencing efforts, there is currently a better understanding of the genomic landscape of PC. The identification of defects in DNA repair genes has led to clinical studies that provide a strong rationale for developing poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and DNA-damaging agents in this molecularly defined subset of patients. The identification of molecularly defined subgroups of patients has also other clinical implications; for example, we now know that carriers of breast cancer 2 (BRCA2) pathogenic sequence variants (PSVs) have increased levels of serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) at diagnosis, increased proportion of high Gleason tumors, elevated rates of nodal and distant metastases, and high recurrence rate; BRCA2 PSVs confer lower overall survival (OS). Distinct tumor PSV, methylation, and expression patterns have been identified in BRCA2 compared with non-BRCA2 mutant prostate tumors. Several DNA damage response and repair (DDR)-targeting agents are currently being evaluated either as single agents or in combination in patients with PC. In this review article, we highlight the biology and clinical implications of deleterious inherited or acquired DNA repair pathway aberrations in PC and offer an overview of new agents being developed for the treatment of PC.

How to turn up the heat on the cold immune microenvironment of metastatic prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Advanced prostate cancer remains one of the most common and deadly cancers, despite advances in treatment options. Immunotherapy has provided little benefit to a majority of patients, largely due to the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment that gives rise to inherently "cold tumors". In this review, we discuss the immunopathology of the prostate tumor microenvironment, strategies for treating prostate cancer with immunotherapies, and a perspective on potential approaches to enhancing the efficacy of immunotherapies.

METHODS

Databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane, were searched for articles relevant to the immunology of prostate cancer. We discuss the impact of different types of treatments on the immune system, and potential mechanisms through which prostate cancer evades the immune system.

RESULTS

The tumor microenvironment associated with prostate cancer is highly immunosuppressive due to (1) the function of regulatory T cells, tumor-associated macrophages, and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), (2) the cytokine milieu secreted by tumor stromal cells and fibroblasts, and (3) the production of adenosine via prostatic acid phosphatase. Both adenosine and tumor growth factor beta (TGF-beta) serve as potent immunosuppressive molecules that could also represent potential therapeutic targets. While there have been many immunotherapy trials in prostate cancer, the majority of these trials have targeted a single immunosuppressive mechanism resulting in limited clinical efficacy. Future approaches will require the integration of improved patient selection as well as use of combination therapies to address multiple mechanisms of resistance.

CONCLUSION

Prostate cancer inherently gives rise to multiple immunosuppressive mechanisms that have been difficult to overcome with any one immunotherapeutic approach. Enhancing the clinical activity of immunotherapies will require strategic combinations of multiple therapies to address the emerging mechanisms of tumor immune resistance.

Phase Ib study of patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer treated with different sequencing regimens of atezolizumab and sipuleucel-T

Background

Combining an immune checkpoint inhibitor with a tumor vaccine may modulate the immune system to leverage complementary mechanisms of action that lead to sustained T-cell activation and a potent prolonged immunotherapeutic response in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

Methods

Subjects with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either atezolizumab followed by sipuleucel-T (Arm 1) or sipuleucel-T followed by atezolizumab (Arm 2). The primary endpoint was safety, while secondary endpoints included preliminary clinical activity such as objective tumor response and systemic immune responses that could identify key molecular and immunological changes associated with sequential administration of atezolizumab and sipuleucel-T.

Results

A total of 37 subjects were enrolled. The median age was 75.0 years, median prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 21.9 ng/mL, and subjects had a median number of three prior treatments. Most subjects (83.8%) had at least one treatment-related adverse event. There were no grade 4 or 5 toxicities attributed to either study drug. Immune-related adverse events and infusion reactions occurred in 13.5% of subjects, and all of which were grade 1 or 2. Of 23 subjects with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors measurable disease, only one subject in Arm 2 had a partial response (PR) and four subjects overall had stable disease (SD) at 6 months reflecting an objective response rate of 4.3% and a disease control rate of 21.7%. T-cell receptor diversity was higher in subjects with a response, including SD. Immune response to three novel putative antigens (SIK3, KDM1A/LSD1, and PIK3R6) appeared to increase with treatment.

Conclusions

Overall, regardless of the order in which they were administered, the combination of atezolizumab with sipuleucel-T appears to be safe and well tolerated with a comparable safety profile to each agent administered as monotherapy. Correlative immune studies may suggest the combination to be beneficial; however, further studies are needed.

Trial registration number

NCT03024216.

A Phase Ib Study of Atezolizumab with Radium-223 Dichloride in Men with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have limited treatment options after progressing on hormonal therapy and chemotherapy. Here, we evaluate the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) + radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) in men with mCRPC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This phase Ib study evaluated atezolizumab + radium-223 in men with mCRPC and bone and lymph node and/or visceral metastases that progressed after androgen pathway inhibitor treatment. Following safety assessment of concurrent dosing, 45 men were randomized 1:1:1 to concurrent or one of two staggered dosing schedules with either agent introduced one cycle before the other. This was followed by a safety-efficacy expansion cohort (randomized 1:1:1). The primary endpoints were safety and objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), PSA responses, and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

As of October 4, 2019, 44 of 45 men were evaluable. All 44 had ≥1 all-cause adverse event (AE); 23 (52.3%) had a grade 3/4 AE. Fifteen (34.1%) grade 3/4 and 3 (6.8%) grade 5 AEs were related to atezolizumab; none were related to radium-223. Confirmed ORR was 6.8% [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4-18.7], median rPFS was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8-4.6), median PSA progression was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8-3.3), and median OS was 16.3 months (95% CI, 10.9-22.3).

CONCLUSIONS

This phase Ib study demonstrated that atezolizumab + radium-223, regardless of administration schedule, had greater toxicity than either drug alone, with no clear evidence of additional clinical benefit for patients with mCRPC and bone and lymph node and/or visceral metastases.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Prostate Cancer

Simple Summary

Metastatic prostate cancer is an incurable disease with limited treatment options. Immunotherapy has demonstrated significant success in multiple cancer types but efforts to harness its benefit in prostate cancer have so far largely been unsuccessful. In this review, we analyze the preclinical rationale for the use of immunotherapy and underlying barriers preventing responses to it. We summarize clinical studies evaluating checkpoint inhibitors in prostate cancer. In the end, we review ongoing trials exploring combination immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with other agents with the intent to modulate the immune system to improve treatment outcomes.

Abstract

Metastatic prostate cancer is a lethal disease with limited treatment options. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have dramatically changed the treatment landscape of multiple cancer types but have met with limited success in prostate cancer. In this review, we discuss the preclinical studies providing the rationale for the use of immunotherapy in prostate cancer and underlying biological barriers inhibiting their activity. We discuss the predictors of response to immunotherapy in prostate cancer. We summarize studies evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitors either as a single agent or in combination with other checkpoint inhibitors or with other agents such as inhibitors of androgen axis, poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP), radium-223, radiotherapy, cryotherapy, tumor vaccines, chemotherapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor. We thereafter review future directions including the combination of immune checkpoint blockade with inhibitors of adenosine axis, bispecific T cell engagers, PSMA directed therapies, adoptive T-cell therapy, and multiple other miscellaneous agents.

Safety and Clinical Activity of Atezolizumab in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Phase I Study

PURPOSE

Atezolizumab [anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1)] is well tolerated and efficacious in multiple cancers, but has not been previously evaluated in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This study examined the safety, efficacy, and biomarkers of atezolizumab monotherapy for mCRPC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This phase Ia, open-label, dose-escalation and dose-expansion study (PCD4989g) enrolled patients with mCRPC who had progressed on sipuleucel-T or enzalutamide. Atezolizumab was given intravenously every 3 weeks until confirmed disease progression or loss of clinical benefit. Prespecified endpoints included safety, efficacy, biomarker analyses, and radiographic assessments.

RESULTS

All 35 evaluable patients [median age, 68 years (range, 45-83 years)] received atezolizumab after ≥1 prior line of therapy; 62.9% of patients had received ≥3 prior lines. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 21 patients (60.0%), with no deaths. One patient had a confirmed partial response (PR) per RECIST 1.1, and 1 patient had a PR per immune-related response criteria. The confirmed 50% PSA response rate was 8.6% (3 patients). Median overall survival (OS) was 14.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.9-not evaluable], with a 1-year OS rate of 52.3% (95% CI: 34-70); 2-year OS was 35.9% (95% CI: 13-59). Median follow-up was 13.0 months (range, 1.2-28.1 months). Biomarker analyses showed that atezolizumab activated immune responses; however, a composite biomarker failed to reveal consistent correlations with efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Atezolizumab was generally well tolerated in patients with mCRPC, with a safety profile consistent with other tumor types. In heavily pretreated patients, atezolizumab monotherapy demonstrated evidence of disease control; however, its limited efficacy suggests a combination approach may be needed.

Pasotuxizumab, a BiTE® immune therapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer: Phase I, dose-escalation study findings

Aim: We report results of a first-in-human study of pasotuxizumab, a PSMA bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE®) immune therapy mediating T-cell killing of tumor cells in patients with advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer. Patients & methods: We assessed once-daily subcutaneous (SC) pasotuxizumab. All SC patients developed antidrug antibodies; therefore, continuous intravenous (cIV) infusion was assessed. Results: A total of 47 patients received pasotuxizumab (SC: n = 31, 0.5-172 μg/d; cIV: n = 16, 5-80 μg/d). The SC maximum tolerated dose was 172.0 μg/d. A sponsor change stopped the cIV cohort early; maximum tolerated dose was not determined. PSA responders occurred (>50% PSA decline: SC, n = 9; cIV, n = 3), including two long-term responders. Conclusion: Data support pasotuxizumab safety in advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer and represent evidence of BiTE monotherapy efficacy in solid tumors. Clinical trial registration: NCT01723475 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Landscape of Immunotherapy in Genitourinary Malignancies

The past decade has witnessed a revolution in the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of multiple tumor types, including genitourinary cancers. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have notably improved the treatment outcomes of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and metastatic urothelial carcinoma. In prostate cancer, the role of immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors is not yet established except for microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) tumors. Other immunotherapeutic approaches that have been explored in these malignancies include cytokines, vaccines, and cellular therapy. Ongoing studies are exploring the use of immunotherapy combinations as well as combination with chemotherapy and targeted therapy in these types of tumors. The use of immunotherapy beyond the metastatic setting is an active area of research. Moreover, there is great interest in biomarker development to predict response to immunotherapy and risk of toxicity. This book chapter is a comprehensive review of immunotherapeutic approaches, both approved and investigational, for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, and prostate cancer.

Evolving Role of Immunotherapy in Metastatic Castration Refractory Prostate Cancer

Immunotherapies have shown remarkable success in the treatment of multiple cancer types; however, despite encouraging preclinical activity, registration trials of immunotherapy in prostate cancer have largely been unsuccessful. Sipuleucel-T remains the only approved immunotherapy for the treatment of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer based on modest improvement in overall survival. This immune evasion in the case of prostate cancer has been attributed to tumor-intrinsic factors, an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, and host factors, which ultimately make it an inert 'cold' tumor. Recently, multiple approaches have been investigated to turn prostate cancer into a 'hot' tumor. Antibodies directed against programmed cell death protein 1 have a tumor agnostic approval for a small minority of patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic prostate cancer. Herein, we present an overview of the current immunotherapy landscape in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with a focus on immune checkpoint inhibitors. We describe the results of clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; either as single agents or in combination with other checkpoint inhibitors, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, novel hormonal therapies, chemotherapies, and radioligands. Finally, we review upcoming immunotherapies, including novel monoclonal antibodies, chimeric-antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, Bi-Specific T cell Engagers (BiTEs), therapies targeting the adenosine pathway, and other miscellaneous agents.

Management of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer following potent androgen receptor inhibition: a review of novel investigational therapies

BACKGROUND

Androgen-targeted therapy and chemotherapy are currently the mainstay of treatment in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). When progression occurs despite these therapeutic strategies, additional FDA-approved treatment options are lacking. However, there is a vast amount of emerging data surrounding novel investigational therapies in this space.

METHODS

We reviewed and summarized the body of literature surrounding the current treatment options for mCRPC. Medline and Pubmed as well as abstracts from international congresses were utilized to gather relevant literature surrounding investigational treatment of mCRPC. We highlight the results of recent trials investigating the use of novel strategies to treat mCRPC.

RESULTS

Androgen-targeted therapy and chemotherapy will remain foundational in the treatment of mCRPC. However, heavily pretreated patients who have developed resistance may benefit from novel therapeutic strategies. The use of poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) has now gained FDA approval for patients with homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene mutations. Novel androgen receptor (AR) degraders and the use of radioligand therapy (RLT) with Lu-PSMA-617 (Lu-PSMA) are under investigation. Immune-directed therapies, including programmed death (PD-1) inhibition, bi-specific T-cell engager (BiTE) technology, and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, have shown promise in early phase trials. Further understanding of resistance mechanisms has led to additional therapeutic targets, including targeting the PI3K-Akt-mTOR pathway and enhancer of zester homolog 2 (EZH2).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our review of the literature, exciting new therapeutic strategies exist for the treatment of mCRPC. In particular, PARPi, AR degraders, PSMA-targeted therapies, immune-directed therapies, and agents targeting resistance mechanisms as monotherapy or in combination could improve patient outcomes. Additional data from randomized trials are necessary to understand the efficacy and tolerability of these treatment strategies.

Immunotherapy in prostate cancer: new horizon of hurdles and hopes

Purpose

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common malignancy in men and the cause for the second most common cancer-related death in the western world. Despite ongoing development of novel approaches such as second generation androgen receptor targeted therapies, metastatic disease is still fatal. In PCa, immunotherapy (IT) has not reached a therapeutic breakthrough as compared to several other solid tumors yet. We aimed at highlighting the underlying cellular mechanisms crucial for IT in PCa and giving an update of the most essential past and ongoing clinical trials in the field.

Methods

We searched for relevant publications on molecular and cellular mechanisms involved in the PCa tumor microenvironment and response to IT as well as completed and ongoing IT studies and screened appropriate abstracts of international congresses.

Results

Tumor progression and patient outcomes depend on complex cellular and molecular interactions of the tumor with the host immune system, driven rather dormant in case of PCa. Sipuleucel-T and pembrolizumab are the only registered immune-oncology drugs to treat this malignancy. A plethora of studies assess combination of immunotherapy with other agents or treatment modalities like radiation therapy which might increase its antineoplastic activity. No robust and clinically relevant prognostic or predictive biomarkers have been established yet.

Conclusion

Despite immunosuppressive functional status of PCa microenvironment, current evidence, based on cellular and molecular conditions, encourages further research in this field.

Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Preliminary Analysis of Patients in the CheckMate 650 Trial

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is immunologically "cold" and predominantly resistant to immune checkpoint therapy due to few tumor-infiltrating T cells. Ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) or anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy failed to show a significant benefit. Although the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway is minimally expressed in prostate tumors, we previously demonstrated that PD-1/PD-L1 expression increases as a compensatory inhibitory pathway in parallel with an ipilimumab-induced increase in tumor-infiltrating T cells. Here, we report the largest trial to date in mCRPC with anti-CTLA-4 plus anti-PD-1 (nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg; CheckMate 650, NCT02985957). With median follow-ups of 11.9 and 13.5 months in cohorts 1 (pre-chemotherapy; n = 45) and 2 (post-chemotherapy; n = 45), objective response rate was 25% and 10%, and median overall survival was 19.0 and 15.2 months, respectively. Four patients, two in each cohort, had complete responses. Exploratory studies identify potential biomarkers of response. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events have occurred in ∼42%-53% of patients, with four treatment-related deaths. Therefore, dose/schedule modifications have been implemented.

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors and metastatic prostate cancer therapy: Learning by making mistakes

Despite advances in metastatic prostate cancer therapy, expected survival for patients in the castration-resistant phase of disease is poor. Immune-checkpoints inhibitors significantly prolonged life expectancy in some solid tumors and have been evaluated also in advanced stage prostate cancer. The majority of data available derive from preliminary phase I and II trials evaluating CTLA-4 and PD-1 as monotherapy or in combination with each other, vaccines, radiotherapy or targeted/hormonal therapy, achieving only limited benefits in terms of biochemical and radiologic responses. There are many reasons that may explain why prostate cancer responds poorly to modern immunotherapies, such as its characteristic low tumor mutational burden or immune-suppressive tumor microenvironment. The present review summarizes the results obtained treating advanced prostate cancer patients with immune-checkpoints inhibitors and analyzes potential mechanisms of both resistance and sensitivity, in order to hypothesize possible avenues of special interest for future research.