Updated FDA pooled analysis of pain medication use in trial participants with HR+, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy and a CDK 4/6 inhibitor

e24101

Background: Pain medications (PMs) are commonly used to treat pain in patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We previously reported an initial analysis of PM prescribing patterns in clinical trial participants with breast cancer receiving CDK 4/6 inhibitor (CDKI)-based treatment. We present an updated analysis here. Methods: We pooled data from 7 randomized controlled trials of CDKI + endocrine therapy (ET) in patients with HR+, HER2-negative MBC. All analyzed patients received at least 1 dose of CDKI/placebo+ET and a concomitant PM with a documented start date. Medications administered during hospitalizations were not included. We looked at PM use in all patients, patients who took PM only before or after the trial started, and those who took PM both before and during the trial. PMs were categorized as opioid (includes codeine-containing), NSAIDS, or other (i.e. bone-directed, antiepileptic, topical PMs). Results: 4200 patients enrolled across the 7 trials who received at least one dose of CDKI/placebo+ET (n = 2616 CDKI, n = 1548 placebo). Of these, 2881 took a PM at any time (n = 1774 CDKI, n = 1107 placebo). Of the 1774 patients who received CDKI+ET, 487 (27%) took at least one opioid and one NSAID at any time, 782 (44%) took at least one NSAID at any time but no opioids, 244 (14%) took at least one opioid at any time but no NSAIDs, and 261 (15%) took only PM that were not opioids or NSAIDs. Of the 1107 patients who received placebo+ET, 297 (27%) took at least one opioid and one NSAID at any time, 490 (44%) took at least one NSAID at any time but no opioids, 153 (14%) took at least one opioid at any time but no NSAIDS, and 167 (15%) took only PM that were not opioids or NSAIDs. Of the 2881 patients who took a PM at any time, 2038 patients (n = 1222 CDKI, n = 816 placebo) had documented start for their PM. Of these, 544 took PM only before the trial started (n = 334 CDKI, n = 210 placebo), 915 took a PM only during the trial (n = 551 CDKI, n = 364 placebo), and 579 took a PM both before and during the trial (n = 337 CDKI, n = 242 placebo). Overall, more patients took NSAIDs only compared to opioids only. Patient characteristics at baseline were balanced between the two arms. Conclusions: Overall, PM prescribing patterns were similar between the arms. NSAID use was higher than opiates in all groups. These findings are hypothesis generating and additional research is needed to determine the impact of PM on participants’ pain and physical function. Further research should include an understanding of the duration of PM needed in patients with MBC.

Trends in diagnosis and treatment of early breast cancer (eBC) in the United States (US) during the COVID-19 era

227

Background: Recent studies have demonstrated a decline in cancer screening and diagnosis during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study explored trends in the diagnosis and management of eBC at a sample of cancer clinics across the US early on in the pandemic. Methods: Patients were selected from the Flatiron Health Research Database (FHRD), an electronic health record-derived de-identified database comprising approximately 280 US cancer clinics (̃800 sites of care). Eligible patients had an ICD code for breast cancer, at least two clinical encounters, and a confirmed eBC (Stage I-III) diagnosis from unstructured documents. Patients were selected into two cohorts based on diagnosis date: a) COVID-19 era cohort diagnosed between February 1, 2020 through June 30, 2020 and b) pre-COVID-19 era cohort diagnosed from February 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019. Descriptive statistics were used to assess diagnosis trends in each time frame. Initial treatment received following eBC diagnosis was categorized as surgery, radiation or systemic therapy and was compared between the two cohorts. Initial treatment modalities for each cohort were further stratified by clinical stage and biomarker subtype (HER2+, HR+/HER2-, triple negative [TN] or unknown). Results: A total of 278 and 253 patients were selected for the pre-COVID-19 era and COVID-19 era cohorts, with a median age at diagnosis of 65 and 64 years, respectively. A 35% decrease in the number of eBC diagnoses was observed in April/May 2020 compared to March 2020, yet this reduction in diagnoses was not observed during the equivalent months in the pre-COVID-19 era cohort. Compared to the pre-COVID-19 era, a greater proportion of patients diagnosed with eBC during the COVID-19 era initiated systemic therapy as their first treatment modality (16.5% vs 29.6%) including patients with HER2+ (27.5% vs. 60%), HR+/HER2- (13.5% vs. 24.9%) and TN (30.8% vs. 40.0%) disease. This trend was observed in patients with stage I (11.7% vs. 24.1%) or II (55.9% vs. 73.0%) but not in patients with stage III (81.2% vs. 77.3%) eBC. Notably, among patients with HR+/HER2- eBC who received systemic therapy as their first treatment, endocrine therapy was most commonly used in keeping with recent recommendations from professional societies due to COVID-related anticipated surgical delays. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that COVID-19 was associated with a decreased incidence of eBC which could be, at least in part, attributed to previously reported delays in routine screening and pandemic healthcare utilization. Further efforts are required to understand who was affected by these delays and the impact on cancer outcomes. Follow-up data are needed to understand if the observed trends in cancer screening and treatment persist and their impact on long-term cancer outcomes.

FDA Oncology Center of Excellence landscape analysis of real-world data submissions for oncology drugs

e18787

Background: Aligning with 21st Century Cures legislation, the FDA is exploring trial design modernization and methodology to advance appropriate uses of Real World Data (RWD) to generate Real World Evidence (RWE). The Oncology Center of Excellence RWE Program was established in 2020 to advance RWE efforts specific to oncology drug development. Inclusion of RWD to support regulatory decision making has increased in oncology, and a landscape analysis was conducted to characterize the RWD included in submissions. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using internal FDA databases to identify RWD submissions from 2010 to 2020. Search terms included: real world evidence, real world data, electronic health record, cancer registry, administrative claims, external control arm, observational cohort, historical control arm, rwOS, rwRR, rwCR, and rwORR. Relevant regulatory submissions were reviewed, and pre-defined common data elements were extracted. A team of FDA reviewers assessed agreement through subset validation (20%). Descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: A total of 142 regulatory submissions included RWD from 2011 to 2020. A subset of 94 submissions met the criteria for evaluation, consisting of 78 unique studies evaluating 56 molecular entities. RWD submissions increased substantially over time, with 28 submissions in 2020. Nearly half of the RWD submissions were for solid tumor indications (68%), with lung cancer being the most predominant site. More than one third of the RWD submissions (37%) were for rare indications. The most common primary RWD study objective was effectiveness (62%) and the most commonly referenced RWD source was EHR/clinical data (54%). The most frequently used primary RWD endpoints were survival (rwOS, 35%) and response (rwORR/PR/BTR, 31%) outcomes (Table). Conclusions: Our review demonstrates a dramatic increase in RWD submissions to support FDA oncology drug development programs. Submissions included a variety of study objectives, data sources, and endpoints. While this landscape analysis provides a picture of potential regulatory objectives, the adequacy of each proposal to support regulatory decision making was not evaluated. Establishing a set of clear regulatory objectives can help advance the development of metrics for robust data characterization and outcome validation to ensure that RWD can be appropriately evaluated and provide the rigor necessary to be considered adequate RWE.[Table: see text]

Frailty in relapsed/ refractory multiple myeloma registration trials

e20017

Background: Multiple Myeloma (MM) is predominantly a disease of older adults with a median age of onset at 70 years. There is growing interest in using criterion other than chronological age, like frailty, to determine fitness for treatment and ultimately improve clinical outcomes in MM. Frailty is the accumulation of aging-associated diseases and disabilities, making patients more vulnerable to adverse outcomes when exposed to stressors like anti-cancer treatment. MM frailty measures have primarily been developed and tested in newly diagnosed patients. MM patients typically relapse, but there is limited knowledge regarding the prevalence of frailty in the relapsed/refractory (RRMM) setting. The aim of this research was to determine the prevalence of frailty in RRMM commercial clinical trials, at the time of trial enrollment, using the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) Frailty Index. Methods: We pooled baseline data from 6 RRMM clinical trials submitted for FDA regulatory review between 2010 and 2020. The IMWG Frailty Index was calculated for each patient based on 4 variables: age (≤75, 75–80, >80 years, score 0, 1, 2, respectively), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI; ≤1 or ≥2, score 0 or 1), and (Instrumental) Activities Daily Living (ADL >4 or ≤4, score 0 or 1; IADL >5 or ≤5, score 0 or 1). As ADLs and IADLs are not routinely collected in clinical trials, we substituted this information with corresponding EQ-5D items on self-care and usual activities. Fit, Intermediate-fit, and Frail patients received IMWG scores of 0, 1, and ≥2 respectively. Descriptive statistics for frailty were summarized by age. Results: 2766 RRMM patients were aggregated from six clinical trials. 1502 (54%) patients were Fit, 780 (28%) were Intermediate-fit, and 484 (18%) were Frail. The median age of patients across trials was 65 [range 30-91]. The median CCI was 0 [range 0-7] out of 37. IMWG frailty scores have been presented by age category in Table. Prevalence of frailty at baseline by age in RRMM registration trials. Conclusions: Most patients in RRMM registration trials were classified as Fit at baseline, using the IMWG Frailty Index. This was expected due to stringent trial enrollment criteria which exclude patients with severe comorbidities, as reflected in the low average CCI. The IMWG index heavily weights patient age. As such, there were no Fit patients in the 75 – 80 year old cohort and only Frail patients in the 80+ year old cohort. This is despite the fact that these older patients met stringent trial enrollment criteria and had CCI scores < 7. Chronologic age alone should not be used as an absolute exclusion for treatment, whether in the trial or real-world setting. Future research into frailty indices that do not heavily weight age is warranted.[Table: see text]

Use of single-arm trials to support malignant hematology and oncology drug and biologic approvals: A 20-year FDA experience

e13572

Background: Improved understanding of the underlying biology of cancer has led to a paradigm shift in cancer drug development and has paved the way for many products to receive accelerated or regular approval based on non-randomized/single arm trials (SATs). Given the high unmet medical need of cancer patients, challenges with lengthy and confounded survival endpoints, and difficulty enrolling rare biomarker-defined subsets of disease, SATs have been used to evaluate a variety of cancer therapies. Unlike time to event endpoints, the objective and clinically relevant endpoint of response rate (RR) and duration of response is interpretable in SATs, as spontaneous tumor shrinkage is not expected. Methods: A search of FDA databases identified all drugs and biologics approved for malignant hematology and oncology indications from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2020 based on SATs. Data sources included approval letters, U.S. prescribing information, and clinical review documents. The definition of response varied by setting and time period (e.g. RECIST, WHO, IWG, etc.). Results: Between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2020, FDA granted 153 new indications based on SATs, including 102 accelerated approvals (AAs) and 51 regular approvals (RAs). Overall, 69 approvals (45%) were for new molecular entities and 84 (55%) were expanded indications. Response rate was the most common endpoint used in the trial providing substantial evidence of efficacy to support approval [120/153, (78%)]. The durability of response was also considered to support evidence of clinical benefit. Of the 102 AAs, 38 (37%) have fulfilled their post-marketing requirement (PMR) to verify clinical benefit, 59 (58%) are pending verification of benefit, and 5 (5%) have been withdrawn from the market. Of note, 88% (52/59) of AAs pending verification of benefit occurred in the last 5 years alone (22 AAs in 2020, 8 in 2019, 8 in 2018, 12 in 2017, and 2 in 2016). Between 2001-2020, 58 (38%) new indications were granted for kinase inhibitors, 34 (22%) for immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), and 61 (40%) for drugs with other mechanisms of action including but not limited to antibody-drug conjugates, cytotoxic drugs, and non-CPI monoclonal antibodies. Conclusions: In the last two decades, SATs have been effectively used to study anti-cancer therapies in well-defined patient populations using durable RR as an objective and interpretable clinical endpoint. Although randomized clinical trials remain the gold standard in clinical research, SATs have allowed for rapid advancements in oncology drug development and will continue to serve an important role in bringing new therapies to patients with unmet need.

An FDA pooled analysis: Characteristics and outcomes of patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, based on prior history of prostatectomy and/or radiation therapy

197

Background: Patients (pts) enrolled in trials of androgen receptor inhibitors (ARI) in the non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) setting may or may not have received definitive treatment with prostatectomy and/or radiation therapy (Surg/RT). We investigated the characteristics and outcomes of pts with nmCRPC based on prior history of Surg/RT. Methods: Data were pooled from all trials of ARI in nmCRPC submitted to the FDA as of October 2020. Pts baseline characteristics were summarized by prior history of Surg/RT. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median metastatic-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) of each treatment arm by prior history of Surg/RT status. Hazard Ratios (HR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by trial and adjusted for baseline characteristics. Results: Three trials met the inclusion criteria. Of 4117 pts enrolled, 2251 (55%) had prior surg/RT. The median age at the time of enrollment was 72 and 76 years in pts with and without prior Surg/RT, respectively. The median time from initial diagnosis of prostate cancer to enrollment on the trials of ARI was 9.1 and 5.7 years in pts with and without prior Surg/RT, respectively. PSA doubling time and number of prior hormonal therapies were similar between the two groups with and without prior Surg/RT. History of prior Surg/RT varied by geographic region: 76% (N = 611/807) in North America, 50% (N = 1110/2229) in Europe, 39% (N = 220/570) in Asia/Pacific, 52% (135/262) in South America, and 73% (171/233) in Australia/New Zealand. ECOG performance status (PS) at the time of enrollment was 0 and 1 in 80% and 20% of the pts with prior Surg/RT, respectively. In pts without prior Surg/RT, ECOG PS was 0 in 65% and 1 in 35% of pts. Gleason score was ≥8 in 36% and 47% of pts with and without prior Surg/RT, respectively. MFS and OS results in pts with and without prior Surg/RT are in the table. Conclusions: In this retrospective analysis, MFS and OS was improved in pts who received ARIs compared to placebo, regardless of prior history of Surg/RT. Any relative differences based on prior history of Surg/RT can only be considered hypothesis generating. [Table: see text]

Concomitant botanical medicine use among patients participating in commercial prostate cancer trials

OBJECTIVES

Patients with cancer frequently use botanical medications. The concomitant use of such medications by patients on commercial trials has not been well-described, despite the importance of these trials for evaluating the safety and efficacy of new agents. We sought to describe the use of botanical medications taken by patients with prostate cancer enrolled on global commercial trials.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Regulatory repository of commercial clinical trial data.

INTERVENTIONS

Anti-cancer therapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Botanical and medication use data were pooled across six international commercial randomized trials for metastatic prostate cancer with detailed information on medication and indications. Botanical products were considered to have potential for drug interaction if they led to a change in drug exposure in human trials. Potential for interaction was ascertained by PubMed review. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis.

RESULTS

Of 7318 enrolled patients, 700 (10 %) reported botanical use at any time and 653 (9%) reported use of botanical products while on trial. Nearly half of botanical product types were not classified by plant (43 %). The highest proportion of botanical use was among patients in Asian countries (32 %), followed by patients in North America (13 %). Eighty-six different types of botanical products were used; of these, nineteen had a patient-reported anti-cancer indication.

CONCLUSIONS

Botanical medicine use among patients with prostate cancer in commercial trials is moderate, although it varies by region. Practitioners should be aware of the use of botanical interventions in a clinical trial context.

Timing of assessments for PRO measures in advanced RCC clinical trials

e19101

Background: Efficient and thoughtful collection of PROs in randomized cancer trials is necessary, especially when comparing drugs with differing administration schedules. Assessment timing for PROs can dramatically influence results. We sought to better understand how different assessment schedules affect interpretation of toxicity using PRO data. Methods: We reviewed 3 randomized trials in advanced/metastatic RCC with a control arm of sunitinib administered 4 weeks on/2 weeks off. All 3 trials used FACT Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19 or -DRS) and one also used EORTC QLQ-C30. For each trial, we chose patient-reported diarrhea and bone pain due to their strong association with the therapeutic intervention and the disease, respectively. Results: For the first 12 weeks, all trials had PRO assessments at baseline but had differing schedules thereafter. PRO assessment in Trial 1 was every 3 weeks; Trial 2: week 6 and week 12; Trial 3: every 3 weeks on the investigational arm and at weeks 4, 6, 10 and 12 on the sunitinib arm. Notably, all assessments for Trial 2 were after 2-week sunitinib washout while Trials 1 and 3 had assessments before and after washout. The table shows the percentage of patients who experienced any worsening from baseline in diarrhea and bone pain in the first 2 assessments. In each trial, more patients had worsening following periods of treatment versus washout on the sunitinib arm, with no such fluctuation on the non-sunitinib arms. The pattern was more apparent for diarrhea (treatment-related) than for bone pain (disease-related). Conclusions: Patients’ recall of symptoms may vary depending on the timing of PRO assessments in relation to drug administration and may be more prominent with respect to treatment-related symptoms, as disease-related symptoms are less impacted by drug toxicity and washout. Clinical protocols should carefully consider PRO assessment timing in relation to drug administration to improve interpretation of toxicity. Higher fidelity PRO data can be obtained with weekly collection of symptoms during the first few months of cancer clinical trials. [Table: see text]

FDA pooled analysis of time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) in frontline advanced renal cell carcinoma trials

5081

Background: Time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) has been proposed as a potential pragmatic real-world data (RWD) endpoint, and was closely correlated with progression-free survival (PFS) in pooled analyses of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and breast cancer trials across therapeutic classes (Blumenthal, Ann Onc 2019; Gao, SABCS Abstract P5-14-02). Methods: We analyzed data from all randomized patients (pts) in the phase 3 trials submitted to FDA 2016-18 evaluating a combination therapy (Rx) of an immuno-oncology agent and another systemic Rx (IO-X) versus sunitinib (SUN) for treatment-naïve advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Protocols specified treatment until progression, but treatment beyond progression was allowed. TTD was defined as the time from the start of Rx to time of treatment discontinuation of both drugs in combination Rx or SUN. We measured TTD in treatment-defined subgroups (IO-X and SUN) and across all pts, and pt-level correlation (Pearson’s r) between TTD and PFS and between TTD and overall survival (OS). We also determined rates of disparity between TTD and PFS greater than 3 months. Results: Of 3758 pts (IO-X, n=1878; SUN, n=1880), 3190 pts (85%) had a TTD event, and 1899 pts (51%) had a PFS event. Median TTD was longer among pts receiving IO-X than SUN (12.3 versus 8.0 months). Regardless of drug class, more pts had early (TTD shorter than PFS by ≥ 3 months) TTD events than late TTD (13.4% versus 6.4%, overall). We found higher correlation between TTD and PFS in pts receiving SUN ( r = 0.89) than pts receiving IO-X ( r = 0.72). Overall, TTD was more closely associated with PFS ( r = 0.80) than with OS (0.61). Conclusions: Observed correlations of TTD to PFS were stronger compared to the correlation of TTD to OS. This may be expected because OS is farther removed in time from TTD than is PFS. In contrast to TTD in NSCLC, more than twice as many pts in RCC trials had early TTD than late TTD, regardless of Rx group, which may indicate earlier discontinuation with combination Rx due to additive toxicity. Limitations include the censoring of PFS and OS and the post-hoc nature of this analysis. [Table: see text]

Outcomes in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and high PD-L1 expression treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy: An FDA-pooled analysis

9606

Background: Higher PD-L1 score ≥ 50% predicts for greater benefit to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy in first line (1L) treatment of aNSCLC. It has recently been reported that PD-L1 score ≥ 90% predicts for even greater benefit to 1L ICI monotherapy (Aguilar et al., 2019). We examined pooled clinical trial databases to examine the relationship between high PD-L1 expression across multiple ICI monotherapies in 1L and second line (2L) treatment of aNSCLC. Methods: Data was pooled from trials (five 1L and five 2L) of ICI for the treatment of patients with aNSCLC. We defined PD-L1 score as the proportion of tumor cell stained by the assay (total of four assays identified) and included patients in the analysis with PD-L1 score ≥ 50%. Tumor-infiltrating immune cell staining was not considered. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) by line of therapy for patients with PD-L1 score ≥ 90% and patients with PD-L1 score 50-89% was analyzed. Results: A total of 1320 patients treated with ICI monotherapy were identified, 873 in 1L and 447 in 2L. Median follow-up was 9.6 months in 2L patients and 13.3 months in 1L patients. Patients receiving 2L ICI therapy with PD-L1 score ≥ 90% (N = 208) had longer PFS and OS compared to patients with PD-L1 score 50-89% (N = 239), with mPFS 7.1 vs. 4.2 months (HR = 0.66 [95% CI: 0.52-0.83]) and mOS NR vs. 15.8 months (HR = 0.66 [95% CI: 0.49-0.89]). 1L ICI therapy analysis revealed similar trends, as patients with PD-L1 score ≥ 90% (N = 405) had longer PFS and OS compared to patients with a PD-L1 score 50-89% (N = 468), with mPFS 8.3 vs. 5.4 months (HR = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.66-0.92]) and mOS 22.9 vs. 16.4 months (HR = 0.74 [95% CI: 0.61-0.90]). Conclusions: This analysis showed the potential of an enhanced clinical benefit in patients with aNSCLC and PD-L1 score ≥90% across ICI monotherapies in both the 1L and 2L treatment setting. These data will be further analyzed in real world populations.

FDA’s Oncology Center for Excellence Pilots Project Orbis: A framework for concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners

e14125

Background: Cancer therapeutics often receive FDA approval months to years before regulatory submission to other countries. [i] Registrational trials in oncology are increasingly international, with many patients enrolled outside of the United States. Harmonizing access to new global standards of treatment may facilitate optimal design and conduct of global clinical trials. Methods: In May 2019, the Oncology Center for Excellence launched Project Orbis in collaboration with the Australian Therapeutic Good Administration (TGA) and Health Canada. The aim of this initiative is to provide a framework for concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners to facilitate global access. Results: The first Project Orbis was a collaborative review of a supplemental application for lenvatinib and pembrolizumab for patients with advanced endometrial cancer. This review also deployed other OCE regulatory review tools including the Real-Time Oncology Review (RTOR) pilot program, which can streamline the submission of data prior to the completion and submission of the entire application, and its accompanying Assessment Aid, to facilitate discussions among regulatory agencies. Lenvatinib and pembrolizumab was approved on September 17, 2019, in conjunction with the TGA and Health Canada, three months prior to the FDA goal date. FDA, TGA, and Health Canada issued a second action under Project Orbis on November 21, 2019, with the approval of acalabrutinib for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma. Several other products are under international review as part of this pilot program and a summary of timelines and outcomes will be described. Conclusions: Project Orbis is an innovative OCE initiative that leverages the Center’s longstanding communication and collaboration with international regulators. This pilot program facilitates concurrent submission and review of oncology products among global regulatory health agencies. Continued efforts under Project Orbis will build on the initial success to incorporate additional global partners including Swissmedic and Singapore’s Health Science Authority. [i] The Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (CIRS). R&D Briefing 70 New drug approvals in six major authorities 2009-2018: Focus on Facilitated Regulatory Pathways and Orphan Status

Metastasis free survival in older men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with androgen receptor inhibitors: An FDA-pooled analysis

12038

Background: The FDA has approved three androgen receptor (AR) inhibitors for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) based on improvements in metastasis-free survival (MFS). MFS is an earlier endpoint, defined as the time from randomization to either imaging-detectable distant disease or death. This pooled analysis examines MFS, time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy (TTCyto), and safety outcomes in men over 80 treated with AR inhibitors. Methods: Data was pooled from three randomized controlled studies (n=4117) of AR inhibitors for nmCRPC. The treatment effect of AR inhibitors on MFS and TTCyto across age groups was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Hazard Ratios for MFS and TTCyto were adjusted for baseline ECOG, total Gleason score, PSA doubling time, and prior bone-targeting therapy. Results: For patients age 80 years or older (n=675) who were treated with AR inhibitors, the hazard ratio was 0.38 (95% CI 0.29, 0.49) with an estimated median MFS of 40 months (95% CI 36, 41) versus 22 months (95% CI 18, 29) for those treated with placebo (n=348). For patients <80 (n=2019) treated with AR inhibitors, the HR was 0.31 (95% CI 0.27, 0.36) with an estimated median MFS of 41 months (95% CI 36, NR) versus 16 months (95% CI 15, 18) for those treated with placebo (n=1075). Patients over 80 also derived similar improvements in time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy (HR 0.43 95% CI 0.23, 0.82), compared to their younger counterparts (HR 0.41 95% CI 0.33, 0.50). See Table for selected safety outcomes. Conclusions: In an exploratory subgroup analysis, older men (≥80) with nmCRPC derived similar benefit in MFS and time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy with AR inhibitors compared with younger patients. Men age 80 and above experienced higher rates of Grade 3-4 adverse events, serious adverse events, falls, and fractures. This trend towards increased toxicity was observed regardless of treatment arm. Analysis of patient reported outcomes is ongoing. [Table: see text]

Patient-reported diarrhea impact on physical functioning and quality of life in clinical trial data submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

e19105

Background: Patient-reported outcomes can provide symptom and function data that complement standard oncology endpoints. Frequently, trials will conclude there was no clinically meaningful detriment to health-related quality of life (HRQL) or function, even when notable toxicity is observed. It is possible that mean change from baseline analyses obscures meaningful change in subgroups experiencing symptomatic toxicity. In this study, we explore how patients’ response to a diarrhea item related to physical function (PF) and HRQL in trials submitted to US FDA. Methods: We analyzed 3 randomized, double-blind breast cancer trials (early to late line metastatic) where diarrhea was a more common AE-symptom in the treatment arm, but there was not a large detriment in the mean change from baseline for HRQL and PF. Trials included the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), which captures patient-reported HRQL, symptoms, and functioning. Higher scores (range 0-100) indicate better functioning and HRQL. Symptoms were measured with a 4-point scale; not at all to very much. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze diarrhea, PF, and HRQL over time. Results: Patients reporting very much diarrhea at month 3 had worse PF and HRQL compared to patients reporting no diarrhea . The range of difference between patients who reported very much diarrhea and those with none was 8-18 points for PF across trials. For HRQL scores, the range was 13–17 points worse. This trend was also seen in the control arm and at other times. Conclusions: In this set of breast cancer trials with differences in diarrhea by arm, reporting “no meaningful difference in PF or HRQL between the arms” is insufficient and potentially misleading. A more informative interpretation is that an exploratory analysis of HRQL and PF did not show in the investigational arm; there was a greater proportion of patients reporting diarrhea on the treatment arm; and patients reporting more frequent diarrhea reported lower HRQL and PF compared to patients with no diarrhea, regardless of arm. [Table: see text]

Financial toxicity in patients with multiple myeloma participating in clinical trials: A U.S. Food and Drug Administration pooled analysis

e19370

Background: Financial toxicity (FT) is a major concern for patients receiving standard cancer treatment, and FT can lead to worse cancer outcomes. However, little is known about the FT of patients enrolled in clinical trials (CT). While investigational treatment may be provided by sponsors free of charge, patients are subject to increased clinic visits (ie, missed workdays, travel costs) and still bear the cost of usual care. This analysis evaluates patient-reported FT in multiple myeloma (MM) trials submitted to US FDA and explores the relationship between baseline FT and overall response rate (ORR). Methods: We pooled data from 9 MM registration CTs submitted to the FDA that included the EORTC Quality of Life questionnaire (QLQ-C30). The QLQ-C30 includes an item asking patients “Has your physical condition or medical treatment caused you financial difficulties?”. We looked at proportion of patients at baseline reporting any FT and their ORR. We also report prevalence, incidence and change from baseline FT at 3 and 6 months. Results: 5,667 patients answered the FT item. Mean age of patients was 65 years, 55% were male, 85% were white and 6% were enrolled in the US. Approximately a third of patients reported experiencing any FT at baseline, 3 and 6 months. When compared to their baseline, 69% of patients had unchanged FT and 14% had worse FT at both 3 and 6 months. The incidence of new cases of FT at 3 months was 17% and at 6 months 7%. The ORR in patients who reported any FT at baseline was 69% compared to 72% in patients with no baseline FT, and was similar regardless of the degree of FT. Conclusions: Few studies have investigated FT in a large sample of CT participants. In this pooled analysis of patients enrolled in MM CTs, approximately a third of patients reported FT associated with their physical condition or medical treatment at baseline and throughout the trial. A small percentage of patients experienced worsening FT during the trial and a small percentage went from no FT to reporting any FT. The impact of baseline FT on ORR was small. Limitations of this preliminary analysis include missing patient level or group level insurance status, socio-economic status and other important determinants of health.

FDA analysis of ECOG performance status and safety outcomes

12024

Background: Patients with poor performance status are often excluded from clinical trials. The FDA has published several guidances on modernizing oncology clinical trial eligibility criteria to more accurately reflect the patient population. Many patients receiving novel oncology therapeutics are heavily pretreated, and often have comorbidities, organ dysfunction, and frailty syndromes. Little is known about the safety of novel therapeutics in patients with poor performance status. Methods: Data from six randomized trials (n=4465) leading to registration for several solid tumor and malignant hematologic cancers, including multiple therapeutic mechanisms of action, such as EGFR TKI’s, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), and chemotherapy, were pooled. Cumulative incidence of Grade 3-5 adverse events and serious adverse events at Days 30, 90, and 180 were evaluated based on ECOG 0-2. Rates of treatment discontinuation by ECOG was also examined. Results: Cumulative incidence of toxicity events at days 30, 90, and 180 are shown in Table. Patient dropout rates due to death were 3.9%, 6.7%, and 10.9%; dropout rates due to disease progression were 66.5%, 66.6% and 56.9%; and dropout rates due to reasons other than progression or death were 29.7%, 26.7% and 32.1% for ECOG PS 0, 1 and 2, respectively. Conclusions: This FDA exploratory analysis of safety outcomes in registration trials based on ECOG suggests increasing rates of adverse events and rates of treatment discontinuation due to death with worsening performance status. Discontinuation rates due to disease progression and other reasons did not appear to be worse for ECOG 2 compared to 0-1. These findings were consistent across therapies (targeted therapy, ICI, chemotherapy). All trials in the analysis led to FDA approval, thus inclusion of patients with ECOG 2 did not adversely affect the trial outcome for this set of FDA approved agents. ECOG performance status eligibility criteria should be evaluated and modified on a frequent basis during drug development. Additional analysis of trials which enroll patients with ECOG 2 is needed. [Table: see text]

FDA analysis: Impact of BMI on efficacy outcomes in multiple myeloma trials

8543

Background: Obesity has been implicated as a risk factor for the development of certain types of cancers, including multiple myeloma. Previous studies in other tumor types suggest that overweight subjects may have better outcomes, however, in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), it is unknown whether body weight affects outcomes to therapy. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 13 RRMM clinical trials submitted to the FDA between 2012-2018. Patients were divided into four groups, underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (BMI 18.5- < 25 kg/m2), overweight (BMI 25.0- < 30 kg/m2) and obese (BMI > 30.0 kg/m2). A multivariate analysis for progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), stratified by study and adjusted for age, cytogenetic risk group (Standard, High, Unknown), immunoglobin subtype (IgG Y/N), ECOG status (0-1, > 1, UNK), sex (M/F) was used to estimate the HR. Results: A total of 5898 patients were included in this analysis. The median age was 65 years (range 30-91 years). A total of 87(1.5%) patients were underweight, 1853 (31%) were normal weight, 2212 (38%) were overweight, 1332 (23%) were obese, and 414 (7%) had missing BMI. The results of the multivariate analysis of PFS and OS are shown in the Table. Conclusions: Exploratory analysis of patients with RRMM found that patients who were overweight and obese had a trend towards slightly improved PFS and OS when compared to normal weight patients. Similar trends were observed in the analyses of overall response rate and BMI (not presented in the abstract). These results are consistent with previous studies in other malignancies. Limitations include the lack of adjustment for multiple testing, the small sample of patients in the underweight category, and heterogeneity in the treatment regimens and PFS assessments in the clinical trials included in the analysis. Future studies are needed to evaluate safety and impact of treatment regimens on efficacy outcome measures based on body weight. [Table: see text]

Access to new therapies: FDA accelerated approvals and the corresponding Canadian regulatory and funding decisions

e19066

Background: Accelerated approval (AA) by the FDA enables earlier access to promising new therapies while evidence generation is ongoing. Health Canada (HC) has a similar process with a Notice of Compliance conditional (NOCc) before full approval (NOC). Canada implemented health technology assessment (HTA) for determination of funding through the pan Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) in 2011. This study evaluated timelines and decisions from AA approval to HC NOC/c to HTA approval and formulary listing. Methods: FDA AA malignant hematology and oncology approvals from Jan 1 2000-Dec 31 2019 were reviewed. HC decisions were reviewed to determine submission/approval status and dates of NOC/c. pCODR decisions were reviewed to determine submission/approval status and dates of decision. First date of provincial formulary listing was collected. Results: In the 20 year time frame, there were 97 AA by the FDA. Current FDA status: 48 full approval, 44 pending verification and 5 withdrawn. Of the 92 AA that remain approved, HC status: 44 received NOC, 24 NOCc, 24 were not submitted for review, 2 currently under review. Of the 5 AA that were withdrawn; 3 were submitted to HC and received NOC/c and all were subsequently withdrawn. From 2011, 31 of 45 HC approved indications were reviewed at pCODR: 17 received a positive recommendation conditional on cost-effectiveness, 9 not recommended, 3 withdrawn by company, 2 pending final decision. Of the 10 not recommended/withdrawn, 6 were subsequently re-submitted and approved. Time from AA to NOC/c was 9.4 m, time from NOC/c to pCODR decision 15.0 m and time from pCODR decision to first formulary listing 18.4 m. Conclusions: Despite significant timeline differences between AA and HC NOC/c all indications that received AA submitted to Canada were granted regulatory approval. Since 2011, 74% of HC approved therapies submitted to pCODR were recommended and added to formularies. Collaboration between FDA and HC, independent regulatory agencies, through innovative programs such as FDA Project Orbis, may improve time from AA to NOC/c. Stringent criteria for HTA recommendation results in lower approval rates however, provision of additional data at re-submission may enable subsequent approval and adoption of treatment.

Patient-reported pain and pain medication impact in patients with HR+ Her2-neg advanced breast cancer: A U.S. FDA pooled analysis

e13027

Background: Despite the ubiquitous prescribing of pain medications (PMs) in cancer clinical trials, the impact of such prescribing patterns and reporting on the experience of pain is not often investigated. We examined patient-reported pain before initiation of PM reporting and at the next available pain assessment. Our aim was to understand change in patient-reported pain. Methods: We pooled data from 7 phase 3 randomized, controlled, registration trials of CDKI with endocrine therapy in patients with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative MBC. We restricted our analyses to patients who started therapy with no PM reported and looked at patients who had NSAID or opioid medication documented. We calculated change between 2 assessments in patient-reported pain before and after PM using the pain occurrence item (Q9) on the EORTC Quality of Life questionnaire (QLQ-C30). Results: Of the 4200 patients who received at least 1 dose of CDKI/placebo, 1488 started with no documented PM, with 48% reporting none at all when asked about pain at baseline. Subsequently, 185 patients had documented NSAID and 43 an opioid and had a pain PRO assessment before and after. NSAIDs documentation occurred on average 11 weeks into trial and opioids 5. Before documentation of NSAIDs, 45% of patients reported no pain compared to 23% of patients with an opioid. Patients who had documented NSAIDs, 29% experienced an improvement in their self-reported pain, whereas 32% of patients with documented opioids improved. On average the time between the 2 pain assessments was around 58 days for both PMs. Conclusions: In this analysis in patients who had a pain assessment before and after documentation of a PM, there is a small group whose pain improved. It is important to note that patients’ response to the pain item was not provided to the clinical care team, which may explain why there may have been suboptimal pain control. Further study is needed to examine how pain management can be achieved in patients with advanced breast cancer. Future analysis should be performed with patients whose PRO pain results are communicated with the clinical care team in real-time. [Table: see text]

Consistency of patient versus investigator reporting of symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in international trials

38

Background: FDA approved 3 androgen receptor inhibitors for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) based on global randomized trials with control arms of placebo + ADT. Despite similar enrolled populations, grade 1 or higher investigator-reported, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE)-graded fatigue ranged 11-25% in the placebo arms. We sought to characterize variability in investigator-reported, CTCAE-graded fatigue across geographic regions and compare this with the variability in patient-reported fatigue. Methods: Data from patients receiving ≥ 1 placebo dose were reviewed from control arms of 3 nmCRPC double-blind, placebo-controlled trials submitted to FDA. We determined worst grade clinician-reported (ClinRO) CTCAE fatigue, and most severe fatigue reported by patient-reported outcome (PRO) for each patient at any time during treatment or within 30 days of last dose in each trial by geographic region: North America/Western Europe (NAWE) versus rest of the world (ROW). We compared variability in fatigue rates to those of a more objective AE, CTCAE-defined anemia. Results: NAWE enrollment comprised 46-75% of placebo cohorts. Median age was comparable across trials and regions. ClinRO CTCAE fatigue was higher in NAWE (15-33%) compared to ROW (8-14%) in each of the 3 placebo cohorts (see Table). Rates of PRO fatigue varied by region (50-73% in NAWE compared to 42-59% in ROW), and the regional differential was present at baseline. Anemia rates were similar in NAWE and ROW in each trial ( < 5%) per CTCAE. Conclusions: CTCAE reporting of fatigue, a subjective symptom, was inconsistent across sites. Anemia, an objective AE, was more consistently reported. ROW investigators less frequently reported fatigue compared to NAWE investigators. Reasons for this are unclear, but could include cultural and language factors. PRO fatigue was relatively consistent across trials and regions. These results should be interpreted with caution, as we acknowledge the limitations of cross-trial comparison.[Table: see text]

Analysis of time-to-treatment discontinuation of targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and chemotherapy in clinical trials of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic end points, such as time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD), defined as the date of starting a medication to the date of treatment discontinuation or death has been proposed as a potential efficacy end point for real-world evidence (RWE) trials, where imaging evaluation is less structured and standardized.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We studied 18 randomized clinical trials of patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), initiated after 2007 and submitted to U.S. Food and Drug Administration. TTD was calculated as date of randomization to date of discontinuation or death and compared to progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) across all patients, as well as in treatment-defined subgroups [EGFR mutation-positive treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), EGFR wild-type treated with TKI, ALK-positive treated with TKI, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), chemotherapy doublet with maintenance, chemotherapy monotherapy].

RESULTS

Overall across 8947 patients, TTD was more closely associated with PFS (r = 0.87, 95% CI 0.86-0.87) than with OS (0.68, 95% CI 0.67-0.69). Early TTD (PFS-TTD ≥ 3 months) occurred in 7.7% of patients overall, and was more common with chemo monotherapy (15.0%) while late TTD (TTD-PFS ≥ 3 months) occurred in 6.0% of patients overall, and was more common in EGFR-positive and ALK-positive patients (12.4% and 22.9%). In oncogene-targeted subgroups (EGFR positive and ALK positive), median TTDs (13.4 and 14.1 months) exceeded median PFS (11.4 and 11.3 months).

CONCLUSIONS

At the patient level, TTD is associated with PFS across therapeutic classes. Median TTD exceeds median PFS for biomarker-selected patients receiving oncogene-targeted therapies. TTD should be prospectively studied further as an end point for pragmatic randomized RWE trials only for continuously administered therapies.

Age-related differences in patient-reported outcomes in patients with advanced lung cancer receiving anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy

BACKGROUND

Older adults with lung cancer often have comorbidities that may increase risk of symptomatic adverse events (AEs) and physical function decline. The objective of this study was to examine age-related differences in patient-reported symptoms and functional domains in patients with advanced lung cancer receiving immunotherapy drugs.

METHODS

Three randomized controlled trials of anti-programmed death receptor-1/programmed death-ligand 1 therapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer that included patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were identified. Baseline PRO data were pooled for treatment arms from 2 trials that included the same PRO tools. Age-related differences in baseline mean scores for each of the health-related quality of life functional and symptom scales were assessed for patients ≥70 years and <70 years. Mean change from Baseline at 3 months was also calculated and plotted for each age group. The adequacy of PRO assessments was assessed by comparing clinician-reported AE data in the 3 trials to the item content of the PRO tools included.

RESULTS

Across the 3 trials, 75 of patients were under 70 and 26% patients were 70 and older. Comparing baseline scores in the 2 trials with the same PRO tool, older adults reported small differences including lower physical functioning, less pain, insomnia and financial difficulties, and higher social functioning than younger patients at baseline. No large differences in the distributions of mean change from baseline in function or symptom were identified. Several common clinician-reported symptomatic AEs were not assessed by the PRO strategy employed in the 3 trials. Three clinician-reported symptomatic AEs (rash, fever, and pruritus) that were commonly reported in the safety data (9%-19%) were not assessed using the PRO tools employed.

CONCLUSION

While several small differences were seen, there did not appear to be large differences at baseline or in the distributions of change from baseline in PRO functional domains between younger and older patients with lung cancer undergoing anti-programmed death receptor -1/programmed death-ligand 1 therapy. Relevant symptomatic side effects were not assessed by PRO measures in these trials, and this is a limitation of current PRO assessment strategies.

Patient-reported outcomes in PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor registration trials: FDA analysis of data submitted and future directions

134

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) can capture the patient’s experience with disease and treatment. Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapies have unique symptomatic side effects; PRO data can help to better understand the patient experience on therapy. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) components most impacted by therapy include disease symptoms, symptomatic toxicity and physical function. Methods: We reviewed FDA registration trials for 5 immunotherapy agents (anti-PD-1/PD-L1) to evaluate trial design and PRO assessment. We assessed whether the PRO strategy assessed physical function and symptomatic immune-related adverse events (irAEs) by reviewing whether trials used a well-defined physical function domain and 8 symptoms related to irAEs reported in product labels (fatigue, diarrhea, cough, shortness of breath, musculoskeletal pain, rash, pruritis and fever). Results: Data from 25 trials across 7 disease types and 1 tumor agnostic indication were evaluated. Of these, 13 were randomized and 22 were open label. Eighteen of 25 contained PRO assessments and all 18 used > 1 instrument. The most common instruments were the EQ-5D (N = 17), followed by EORTC QLQ-C30 (N = 15). Disease-specific PRO tools were included in 8 trials (5 lung, 1 head and neck, 1 melanoma and 1 renal cell), consisting of modules or scales from EORTC (N = 5), FACIT (N = 2) or the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (N = 1). Sixty percent of the trials (15/25) used an instrument that contained a well-defined physical function (PF) domain. No trial used a PRO strategy assessing all 8 selected symptoms related to irAEs. Conclusions: Collection of PRO data in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 trials submitted to FDA was variable, and did not consistently assess treatment related symptoms and physical function. Use of a HRQL tool with well-defined functional scales supplemented by item banks or libraries to incorporate symptoms associated with irAEs may improve understanding of the patient experience while receiving anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment. These data, along with other important clinical data such as hospitalizations, ER visits and supportive care medications can inform the benefit risk assessment for regulatory purposes.

Characteristics of breakthrough therapy designation requests (BTDRs) submitted to the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products (OHOP), FDA

e18236

Background: Breakthrough therapy designation is an FDA program intended to expedite the development of drugs and biologics that provide preliminary clinical evidence of a substantial improvement over existing therapies. The factors needed to demonstrate this improvement in oncologic therapies have not been well-described. Methods: We reviewed the characteristics of BTDRs submitted to OHOP from program initiation to the present. Results: From November 2013 through July 2016, there were 134 BTDRs for 96 drugs submitted to OHOP, not including 14 BTDRs intended for benign hematologic or supportive care indications. The most common drug mechanisms of action (MoA) were tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (37; 28%), immunotherapy (24; 18%), and targeted antibodies (21; 16%). Of the 134 BTDRs, 56 (42%) were granted. BTDRs were granted most frequently for TKIs (22; 59%) and immunotherapy (14; 58%) and were rarely granted for cytotoxic (1; 10%) or endocrine (0) therapies. BTDRs based on randomized trials were more frequently granted than those based on single-arm trials (49% vs 39%), as were BTDRs based on OS versus ORR or PFS (57% vs 41%). In BTDRs based on single-arm trials, the median number of patients was higher in those granted versus denied or withdrawn (41 vs 26 patients). Among BTDRs granted based on ORR in solid tumors, the ORR ranged from 24% to 94%, reflecting variation in available therapies, MoA, toxicity, and durability of response. Conclusions: The likelihood of a successful BTDR increases with randomized trial design and larger sample size. Additional considerations include MoA, duration of ORR, and choice of endpoint. [Table: see text]

Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in cancer trials submitted to the FDA from 2012-2015

e14024

Background: PRO measures are commonly assessed in cancer trials. We reviewed the PRO strategy, tools and trial designs for new drug applications (NDA) and biologics license applications (BLA) submitted to FDA over a 4 year period. Methods: A review of protocols and clinical study reports for original NDA and BLA applications submitted to the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products between 2012 and 2015 to support initial approval for adult malignant hematology and oncology conditions was done. We reviewed applications for inclusion of PRO data, trial design, type of PRO measure employed and statistical analysis methods. Results: Forty three trials were submitted to support 40 original NDA or BLA approvals targeting adult malignancies between 2012 and 2015. Of these 43 trials, 17/43 (40%) were accelerated approval, 26/43 (60%) were randomized, 17/43 (40%) were single arm and 27/43 (63%) were open label trials. Sponsors documented the incorporation of PRO assessments in 28/43 (65%) trials. For trials that included PRO assessments, 22/28 (79%) were randomized controlled trials, 6/28 (21%) were single arm and 17/28 (61%) were open label studies. The most common PRO instruments used were the EORTC-QLQ-C30 (15/28; 54%), EQ-5D (13/28; 46%) and various FACIT measures (8/28; 29%). Although 20/28 (71%) trials had PRO measures listed as a secondary endpoint, only 1 trial included PRO endpoints in the statistical testing hierarchy. Conclusions: PRO measures are often employed in randomized controlled cancer trials; however accelerated approval is common in oncology and trial designs are increasingly open label and single arm. Patient-focused drug development efforts will need to identify clinical trial objectives and analysis methods for PRO measures to describe symptoms and function that are suitable for these contexts. Descriptive PRO data on the tolerability of an anti-cancer agent may be one objective that is relevant across trial contexts. To support a claim of superiority, PRO endpoints should be adjusted for multiplicity by inclusion in the statistical hierarchy.

Dual antiangiogenic therapy using lenalidomide and bevacizumab with docetaxel and prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)

4569

Background: Previously, we had shown the potent anti−tumor activity of dual anti-angiogenic therapy by combining bevacizumab (B) and thalidomide (T) with docetaxel (D) and prednisone (P) in mCRPC (Ning JCO 2010). We hypothesized that combining lenalidomide (L), an analogue of T, with B, D, and P would have a more favorable efficacy/toxicity profile. Methods: All patients (pts) had chemotherapy−naïve mCRPC. Among the first 52 pts, 3 received L 15 mg daily, 3 had 20 mg daily, and the rest had 25 mg daily for 14 days of every 21−day cycle (C). The protocol was recently amended to enroll 11 more pts at L 15 mg; 2 pts have now been enrolled in this expansion cohort. All pts received D 75 mg/m2 and B 15 mg/kg on day 1 with P 10 mg and enoxaparin daily throughout each C. Pegfilgrastim was given on day 2. PSA each C with imaging after C2 and after every 3C. Dental exams with mandible CT scan at baseline, after C5, and every 6C. Results: 54 of 62 pts have been enrolled. Median age 65.5 (51−82), Gleason score 8 (5−10), on−study PSA 85.2 ng/ml (0.15−3520), and pre−study PSA doubling time 1.49 months (0.52−6.73). Median number of Cs was 16 (3−38). PFS was 22 months and probability of survival at 12 months was 90%. Forty-six (85.2%) and 42 (77.8%) pts had PSA declines of ≥50% and ≥75%, respectively. Of 30 pts with measurable disease there were 1 CR and 25 PR (86.7% overall RR). 17/54 pts were off study for radiographic disease progression and 8/54 for other reasons. Grade ≥2 toxicities included neutropenia (34/54), anemia (23/54), thrombocytopenia (7/54), hypertension (12/54), perianal fistula (3/54), rectal fissure (1/54), myocardial infarction (1/54), and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) (12/54, 22.0%). At the time of diagnosis of ONJ, 7/12pts were on bisphosphonates (BP), 2/12 had used BP previously, and 3/12 never used BP. The incidence of ONJ was comparable to 18.3% reported by Ning et al. A recent study of carboplatin plus weekly docetaxel reported an incidence of 29.3%. Conclusions: Dual anti-angiogenic therapy with, B and L, plus D and P was associated with high PSA (85.2%) and tumor (86.7%) responses in mCRPC, with manageable toxicities. The incidence of ONJ is comparable to other studies.

Phase II trial of bevacizumab and lenalidomide with docetaxel and prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)

207

Background: Angiogenesis may be vital to mCRPC. Previously, we had shown the potent anti−tumor activity of dual antiangiogenic therapy by combining thalidomide (T) and bevacizumab (B) with docetaxel (D) and prednisone (P) in mCRPC (Ning JCO 2010). We hypothesized that combining lenalidomide (L), an analogue of T, with B, D, and P would have a more favorable efficacy/toxicity profile.

Methods: All patients (pts) had chemotherapy−naïve mCRPC. 3 pts received R 15 mg daily, 3 pts had 20 mg daily, and the rest had 25 mg daily for 14 days of every 21−day cycle (C). All pts received D 75 mg/m2 and B 15 mg/kg on day 1 with P 10 mg and enoxaparin daily throughout each C. Pegfilgrastim was given on day 2. PSA was assayed each C with imaging after C2 and then after every 3C.

Results: 47 of the planned 51 pts have been enrolled. Median age was 66 (51−82), Gleason score 8 (5−10), on−study PSA 91.6 ng/ml (0.15−3520), pre−study PSA doubling time 1.43 months (0.52−6.73), number of Cs 14 (1−31), and PFS was 19.3 months as of this analysis. Among 45 pts who have completed ≥2 cycles, 39 (86.7%) and 30 (66.7%) had PSA declines of ≥50% and ≥75%, respectively. Of 29 pts with measurable disease there were 2 CR, 21 PR, and 6 SD (79.3% overall RR). 10/47 pts were taken off study for radiographic disease progression and 5/47 for other reasons. Grade ≥3 toxicities included neutropenia (24/47), anemia (9/47), thrombocytopenia (5/47), weight loss (1/47), hypertension (3/47), and febrile neutropenia (4/47). Other toxicities included perianal fistula (3/47), rectal fissure (1/47), myocardial infarction (1/47), and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) (16/47, 34.0%). At the time of diagnosis of ONJ, 9/16 pts were on bisphosphonates and 3/16 had used bisphosphonates previously. Although the incidence of ONJ was higher than the 18.3% reported by Ning, a recent study of carboplatin plus weekly docetaxel reported an incidence of 29.3%.

Conclusions: Dual antiangiogenic therapy with, B and L, plus D and P was associated with high PSA (86.7%) and tumor (79.3%) responses with manageable toxicities. Further studies are underway to explore the high incidence of ONJ.