Idelalisib and Rituximab in Relapsed Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Idelalisib (ZYDELIG®, GS-1101) is a first-in-class, targeted, highly selective, oral inhibitor of PI3Kδ that reduces proliferation, enhances apoptosis, and inhibits homing and retention of malignant B cells in lymphoid tissues (Lannutti et al, 2011). We studied idelalisib in 2 registrational trials, one in relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and one in refractory, indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL). In the Phase 3 CLL trial (Furman 2014), patients with relapsed disease and multiple co-morbidities precluding the use of chemotherapy were randomized to receive blinded idelalisib 150 mg BID plus rituximab intravenously (at a dose of 375 mg per square meter, followed by 500 mg per square meter every 2 weeks for 4 doses and then every 4 weeks for 3 doses) for a total of 8 infusions or an oral placebo plus rituximab. A total of 220 patients were randomized, with a median age of 71 yrs (78% ≥65 yrs), median time since diagnosis of 8.5 yrs, and median number of 3 prior therapies (range: 1-12). Of these, 44% of pts had del17p/TP53 mutation. The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the placebo group and was not reached in the idelalisib group (hazard ratio for progression or death in the idelalisib group, 0.15; P<0.001). Patients receiving idelalisib versus those receiving placebo had improved rates of overall response (81% vs. 13%; odds ratio, 29.92; P<0.001) and overall survival at 12 months (92% vs. 80%; hazard ratio for death, 0.28; P = 0.02). IDELA+R retained robust efficacy across all high-risk subpopulations and achieved 76.5% ORR and PFS HR 0.13 in the highest risk patients who were positive for both 17p deletion and TP53 mutation. The Phase 2 iNHL study (Gopal 2014) enrolled 125 heavily pretreated patients with disease refractory to rituximab and alkylating agents to receive single agent idelalisib 150 mg BID. The median age of the patients was 64 yrs (range, 33 to 87); patients had received a median of four prior therapies (range, 2 to 12). The predominate iNHL subtype was follicular lymphoma (72 patients), followed by small lymphocytic lymphoma (28), marginal-zone lymphoma (15), and Waldenström's macroglobulinemia (10). The overall response rate was 57%. Responses were rapid (median time to a response was 1.9 months) and the median duration of response was 12.5 months. Median progression-free survival was 11 months. Key safety findings across the idelalisib program include an early transient hepatotoxicity characterized by elevations in serum transaminases (≥ Grade 3) occurring in 14% of treated subjects, late onset (≥ Grade 3) severe diarrhea/colitis, also occurring in 14% of subjects, and pneumonitis of any grade, occurring in 3% of subjects. Additional trials of idelalisib in combination with other chemoimmunotherapy are ongoing in both CLL and iNHL, including studies in patients with previously untreated disease. Future development plans include establishing the role of PI3Kδ inhibition in solid tumors and testing the activity of idelalisib against a range of hematologic malignancies. Citation Format: Roger Dansey. Clinical validation of PI3Kδ as a therapeutic target in B-cell malignancy. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Targeting the PI3K-mTOR Network in Cancer; Sep 14-17, 2014; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2015;14(7 Suppl):Abstract nr IA18.

BackgroundThis open-label, randomized, phase 3 study compared melphalan at a dose of 200 mg per square meter of body-surface area plus autologous stem-cell transplantation with melphalan–prednisone–lenalidomide (MPR) and compared lenalidomide maintenance therapy with no maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.MethodsWe randomly assigned 273 patients 65 years of age or younger to high-dose melphalan plus stem-cell transplantation or MPR consolidation therapy after induction, and 251 patients to lenalidomide maintenance therapy or no maintenance therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival.ResultsThe median follow-up period was 51.2 months. Both progression-free and overall survival were significantly longer with high-dose melphalan plus stem-cell transplantation than with MPR (median progression-free survival, 43.0 months vs. 22.4 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.61; P<0.001; and 4-year overall survival, 81.6% vs. 65.3%; hazard ratio for death, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.93; P=0.02). Median progression-free survival was significantly longer with lenalidomide maintenance than with no maintenance (41.9 months vs. 21.6 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.65; P<0.001), but 3-year overall survival was not significantly prolonged (88.0% vs. 79.2%; hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.15; P=0.14). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was significantly more frequent with high-dose melphalan than with MPR (94.3% vs. 51.5%), as were gastrointestinal adverse events (18.4% vs. 0%) and infections (16.3% vs. 0.8%); neutropenia and dermatologic toxic effects were more frequent with lenalidomide maintenance than with no maintenance (23.3% vs. 0% and 4.3% vs. 0%, respectively).ConclusionsConsolidation therapy with high-dose melphalan plus stem-cell transplantation, as compared with MPR, significantly prolonged progression-free and overall survival among patients with multiple myeloma who were 65 years of age or younger. Lenalidomide maintenance, as compared with no maintenance, significantly prolonged progression-free survival. (Funded by Celgene; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00551928.)

BackgroundData regarding the efficacy of treatment with ibrutinib–rituximab, as compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab, in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have been limited.MethodsIn a phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) patients 70 years of age or younger with previously untreated CLL to receive either ibrutinib and rituximab for six cycles (after a single cycle of ibrutinib alone), followed by ibrutinib until disease progression, or six cycles of chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab. The primary end point was progression-free survival, and overall survival was a secondary end point. We report the results of a planned interim analysis.ResultsA total of 529 patients underwent randomization (354 patients to the ibrutinib–rituximab group, and 175 to the chemoimmunotherapy group). At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, the results of the analysis of progression-free survival favored ibrutinib–rituximab over chemoimmunotherapy (89.4% vs. 72.9% at 3 years; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22 to 0.56; P<0.001), and the results met the protocol-defined efficacy threshold for the interim analysis. The results of the analysis of overall survival also favored ibrutinib–rituximab over chemoimmunotherapy (98.8% vs. 91.5% at 3 years; hazard ratio for death, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.54; P<0.001). In a subgroup analysis involving patients without immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region (IGHV) mutation, ibrutinib–rituximab resulted in better progression-free survival than chemoimmunotherapy (90.7% vs. 62.5% at 3 years; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.50). The 3-year progression-free survival among patients with IGHV mutation was 87.7% in the ibrutinib–rituximab group and 88.0% in the chemoimmunotherapy group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.14 to 1.36). The incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher (regardless of attribution) was similar in the two groups (in 282 of 352 patients [80.1%] who received ibrutinib–rituximab and in 126 of 158 [79.7%] who received chemoimmunotherapy), whereas infectious complications of grade 3 or higher were less common with ibrutinib–rituximab than with chemoimmunotherapy (in 37 patients [10.5%] vs. 32 [20.3%], P<0.001).ConclusionsThe ibrutinib–rituximab regimen resulted in progression-free survival and overall survival that were superior to those with a standard chemoimmunotherapy regimen among patients 70 years of age or younger with previously untreated CLL. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Pharmacyclics; E1912 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02048813.)

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Idelalisib and Rituximab for Previously Treated Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

The multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib has shown activity against pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in preclinical models and phase 1 and 2 trials. We conducted a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of sunitinib in patients with advanced, well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. All patients had Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors-defined disease progression documented within 12 months before baseline. A total of 171 patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive best supportive care with either sunitinib at a dose of 37.5 mg per day or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival; secondary end points included the objective response rate, overall survival, and safety. The study was discontinued early, after the independent data and safety monitoring committee observed more serious adverse events and deaths in the placebo group as well as a difference in progression-free survival favoring sunitinib. Median progression-free survival was 11.4 months in the sunitinib group as compared with 5.5 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.66; P<0.001). A Cox proportional-hazards analysis of progression-free survival according to baseline characteristics favored sunitinib in all subgroups studied. The objective response rate was 9.3% in the sunitinib group versus 0% in the placebo group. At the data cutoff point, 9 deaths were reported in the sunitinib group (10%) versus 21 deaths in the placebo group (25%) (hazard ratio for death, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.89; P=0.02). The most frequent adverse events in the sunitinib group were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, asthenia, and fatigue. Continuous daily administration of sunitinib at a dose of 37.5 mg improved progression-free survival, overall survival, and the objective response rate as compared with placebo among patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00428597.).

BackgroundIn patients with chronic lymphoid leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), a short duration of response to therapy or adverse cytogenetic abnormalities are associated with a poor outcome. We evaluated the efficacy of ibrutinib, a covalent inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase, in patients at risk for a poor outcome.MethodsIn this multicenter, open-label, phase 3 study, we randomly assigned 391 patients with relapsed or refractory CLL or SLL to receive daily ibrutinib or the anti-CD20 antibody ofatumumab. The primary end point was the duration of progression-free survival, with the duration of overall survival and the overall response rate as secondary end points.ResultsAt a median follow-up of 9.4 months, ibrutinib significantly improved progression-free survival; the median duration was not reached in the ibrutinib group (with a rate of progression-free survival of 88% at 6 months), as compared with a median of 8.1 months in the ofatumumab group (hazard ratio for progression or death in the ibrutinib group, 0.22; P<0.001). Ibrutinib also significantly improved overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 0.43; P=0.005). At 12 months, the overall survival rate was 90% in the ibrutinib group and 81% in the ofatumumab group. The overall response rate was significantly higher in the ibrutinib group than in the ofatumumab group (42.6% vs. 4.1%, P<0.001). An additional 20% of ibrutinib-treated patients had a partial response with lymphocytosis. Similar effects were observed regardless of whether patients had a chromosome 17p13.1 deletion or resistance to purine analogues. The most frequent nonhematologic adverse events were diarrhea, fatigue, pyrexia, and nausea in the ibrutinib group and fatigue, infusion-related reactions, and cough in the ofatumumab group.ConclusionsIbrutinib, as compared with ofatumumab, significantly improved progression-free survival, overall survival, and response rate among patients with previously treated CLL or SLL. (Funded by Pharmacyclics and Janssen; RESONATE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01578707.)

BackgroundPatients with advanced urothelial carcinoma have poor overall survival after platinum-containing chemotherapy and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor treatment.MethodsWe conducted a global, open-label, phase 3 trial of enfortumab vedotin for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had previously received platinum-containing chemotherapy and had had disease progression during or after treatment with a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive enfortumab vedotin (at a dose of 1.25 mg per kilogram of body weight on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle) or investigator-chosen chemotherapy (standard docetaxel, paclitaxel, or vinflunine), administered on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. The primary end point was overall survival.ResultsA total of 608 patients underwent randomization; 301 were assigned to receive enfortumab vedotin and 307 to receive chemotherapy. As of July 15, 2020, a total of 301 deaths had occurred (134 in the enfortumab vedotin group and 167 in the chemotherapy group). At the prespecified interim analysis, the median follow-up was 11.1 months. Overall survival was longer in the enfortumab vedotin group than in the chemotherapy group (median overall survival, 12.88 vs. 8.97 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.89; P=0.001). Progression-free survival was also longer in the enfortumab vedotin group than in the chemotherapy group (median progression-free survival, 5.55 vs. 3.71 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.75; P<0.001). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was similar in the two groups (93.9% in the enfortumab vedotin group and 91.8% in the chemotherapy group); the incidence of events of grade 3 or higher was also similar in the two groups (51.4% and 49.8%, respectively).ConclusionsEnfortumab vedotin significantly prolonged survival as compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had previously received platinum-based treatment and a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor. (Funded by Astellas Pharma US and Seagen; EV-301 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03474107.)

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in patients from Asia with previously treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In a double-blind, phase III trial, 453 patients with advanced HCC and progression during or after treatment with or intolerance to sorafenib or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo once every 3 weeks for ≤ 35 cycles plus best supportive care. The primary end point was overall survival (one-sided significance threshold, P = .0193 [final analysis]). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR; one-sided significance threshold, P = .0134 and .0091, respectively [second interim analysis]; RECIST version 1.1, by blinded independent central review). Median overall survival was longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (14.6 v 13.0 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99; P = .0180). Median PFS was also longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (2.6 v 2.3 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.92; P = .0032). ORR was greater in the pembrolizumab group (12.7% [95% CI, 9.1 to 17.0]) than in the placebo group (1.3% [95% CI, 0.2 to 4.6]; P < .0001). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 66.9% of patients (grade 3, 12.0%; grade 4, 1.3%; grade 5, 1.0%) in the pembrolizumab group and 49.7% of patients (grade 3, 5.9%; grade 4, 0%; grade 5, 0%) in the placebo group. In patients from Asia with previously treated advanced HCC, pembrolizumab significantly prolonged overall survival and PFS, and ORR was greater versus placebo.

VIII. Treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, where are we heading?

On March 20, 2008, bendamustine HCl (Treanda, Cephalon, Inc.) was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). This approval was based on a randomized, multicenter trial comparing the test drug ( n = 162) to chlorambucil ( n = 157) as a

BackgroundTrastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) is an antibody–drug conjugate incorporating the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–targeted antitumor properties of trastuzumab with the cytotoxic activity of the microtubule-inhibitory agent DM1. The antibody and the cytotoxic agent are conjugated by means of a stable linker.MethodsWe randomly assigned patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, who had previously been treated with trastuzumab and a taxane, to T-DM1 or lapatinib plus capecitabine. The primary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by independent review), overall survival, and safety. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (investigator-assessed), the objective response rate, and the time to symptom progression. Two interim analyses of overall survival were conducted.ResultsAmong 991 randomly assigned patients, median progression-free survival as assessed by independent review was 9.6 months with T-DM1 versus 6.4 months with lapatinib plus capecitabine (hazard ratio for progression or death from any cause, 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 0.77; P<0.001), and median overall survival at the second interim analysis crossed the stopping boundary for efficacy (30.9 months vs. 25.1 months; hazard ratio for death from any cause, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.85; P<0.001). The objective response rate was higher with T-DM1 (43.6%, vs. 30.8% with lapatinib plus capecitabine; P<0.001); results for all additional secondary end points favored T-DM1. Rates of adverse events of grade 3 or above were higher with lapatinib plus capecitabine than with T-DM1 (57% vs. 41%). The incidences of thrombocytopenia and increased serum aminotransferase levels were higher with T-DM1, whereas the incidences of diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia were higher with lapatinib plus capecitabine.ConclusionsT-DM1 significantly prolonged progression-free and overall survival with less toxicity than lapatinib plus capecitabine in patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and a taxane. (Funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche/Genentech; EMILIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00829166.)

BackgroundCombined BRAF and MEK inhibition, as compared with BRAF inhibition alone, delays the emergence of resistance and reduces toxic effects in patients who have melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations.MethodsIn this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 423 previously untreated patients who had unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation to receive a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg orally twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg orally once daily) or dabrafenib and placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, response rate, response duration, and safety. A preplanned interim overall survival analysis was conducted.ResultsThe median progression-free survival was 9.3 months in the dabrafenib–trametinib group and 8.8 months in the dabrafenib-only group (hazard ratio for progression or death in the dabrafenib–trametinib group, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.99; P=0.03). The overall response rate was 67% in the dabrafenib–trametinib group and 51% in the dabrafenib-only group (P=0.002). At 6 months, the interim overall survival rate was 93% with dabrafenib–trametinib and 85% with dabrafenib alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.94; P=0.02). However, a specified efficacy-stopping boundary (two-sided P=0.00028) was not crossed. Rates of adverse events were similar in the two groups, although more dose modifications occurred in the dabrafenib–trametinib group. The rate of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma was lower in the dabrafenib–trametinib group than in the dabrafenib-only group (2% vs. 9%), whereas pyrexia occurred in more patients (51% vs. 28%) and was more often severe (grade 3, 6% vs. 2%) in the dabrafenib–trametinib group.ConclusionsA combination of dabrafenib and trametinib, as compared with dabrafenib alone, improved the rate of progression-free survival in previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; Clinical Trials.gov number, NCT01584648.)

BackgroundAmong breast cancers without human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) amplification, overexpression, or both, a large proportion express low levels of HER2 that may be targetable. Currently available HER2-directed therapies have been ineffective in patients with these “HER2-low” cancers.MethodsWe conducted a phase 3 trial involving patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer who had received one or two previous lines of chemotherapy. (Low expression of HER2 was defined as a score of 1+ on immunohistochemical [IHC] analysis or as an IHC score of 2+ and negative results on in situ hybridization.) Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan or the physician’s choice of chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival in the hormone receptor–positive cohort. The key secondary end points were progression-free survival among all patients and overall survival in the hormone receptor–positive cohort and among all patients.ResultsOf 557 patients who underwent randomization, 494 (88.7%) had hormone receptor–positive disease and 63 (11.3%) had hormone receptor–negative disease. In the hormone receptor–positive cohort, the median progression-free survival was 10.1 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.4 months in the physician’s choice group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; P<0.001), and overall survival was 23.9 months and 17.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; P=0.003). Among all patients, the median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.1 months in the physician’s choice group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.50; P<0.001), and overall survival was 23.4 months and 16.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; P=0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 52.6% of the patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan and 67.4% of those who received the physician’s choice of chemotherapy. Adjudicated, drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 12.1% of the patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan; 0.8% had grade 5 events.ConclusionsIn this trial involving patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer, trastuzumab deruxtecan resulted in significantly longer progression-free and overall survival than the physician’s choice of chemotherapy. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca; DESTINY-Breast04 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03734029.)

BackgroundThe monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody rituximab, combined with chemotherapeutic agents, has been shown to prolong overall survival in physically fit patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) but not in those with coexisting conditions. We investigated the benefit of the type 2, glycoengineered antibody obinutuzumab (also known as GA101) as compared with that of rituximab, each combined with chlorambucil, in patients with previously untreated CLL and coexisting conditions.MethodsWe randomly assigned 781 patients with previously untreated CLL and a score higher than 6 on the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) (range, 0 to 56, with higher scores indicating worse health status) or an estimated creatinine clearance of 30 to 69 ml per minute to receive chlorambucil, obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil, or rituximab plus chlorambucil. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival.ResultsThe patients had a median age of 73 years, creatinine clearance of 62 ml per minute, and CIRS score of 8 at baseline. Treatment with obinutuzumab–chlorambucil or rituximab–chlorambucil, as compared with chlorambucil monotherapy, increased response rates and prolonged progression-free survival (median progression-free survival, 26.7 months with obinutuzumab–chlorambucil vs. 11.1 months with chlorambucil alone; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13 to 0.24; P<0.001; and 16.3 months with rituximab–chlorambucil vs. 11.1 months with chlorambucil alone; hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.57; P<0.001). Treatment with obinutuzumab–chlorambucil, as compared with chlorambucil alone, prolonged overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.74; P=0.002). Treatment with obinutuzumab–chlorambucil, as compared with rituximab–chlorambucil, resulted in prolongation of progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.49; P<0.001) and higher rates of complete response (20.7% vs. 7.0%) and molecular response. Infusion-related reactions and neutropenia were more common with obinutuzumab–chlorambucil than with rituximab–chlorambucil, but the risk of infection was not increased.ConclusionsCombining an anti-CD20 antibody with chemotherapy improved outcomes in patients with CLL and coexisting conditions. In this patient population, obinutuzumab was superior to rituximab when each was combined with chlorambucil. (Funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01010061.)

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