Placebo Pts Research Articles

Long-Term Maintenance of Platelet Responses in Adult Patients with Persistent/Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenia Treated with Fostamatinib: 1-Year Efficacy and Safety Results

Long-Term Maintenance of Platelet Responses in Adult Patients with Persistent/Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenia Treated with Fostamatinib: 1-Year Efficacy and Safety Results

Occurrence and Management of Cataracts in Adult Patients (pts) with Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenia (cITP) during Long-Term Treatment with Eltrombopag (EPAG): Results from the Extend Study

Occurrence and Management of Cataracts in Adult Patients (pts) with Chronic Immune Thrombocytopenia (cITP) during Long-Term Treatment with Eltrombopag (EPAG): Results from the Extend Study

Pembrolizumab versus placebo as post-nephrectomy adjuvant therapy for patients with renal cell carcinoma: Randomized, double-blind, phase III KEYNOTE-564 study.

LBA5 Background: Relapse after surgery for high-risk clear cell RCC (ccRCC) is associated with shortened life expectancy. Effective perioperative therapy to reduce this risk remains an unmet need. Adjuvant immune therapy is an attractive potential strategy for these pts. We conducted the KEYNOTE-564 trial to evaluate pembro vs placebo as adjuvant therapy for pts with RCC. Methods: KEYNOTE-564 is a phase III multicenter trial of pembro vs placebo in pts with histologically confirmed ccRCC, with intermediate-high risk (pT2, Gr 4 or sarcomatoid, N0 M0; or pT3, any Gr, N0 M0), high risk (pT4, any Gr, N0 M0; or pT any stage, any Gr, N+ M0), or M1 NED (no evidence of disease after primary tumor + soft tissue metastases completely resected ≤1 year from nephrectomy) (Leibovich et al, 2003; Fuhrman et al, 1982). Pts had undergone surgery ≤12 wks prior to randomization; had no prior systemic therapy; had ECOG PS 0 or 1. Study treatment was given for up to 17 cycles (≈1 yr). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS) per investigator assessment in all randomized pts (ITT population). Overall survival (OS) was a key secondary endpoint. Safety/tolerability were secondary endpoints, assessed in all treated pts. Results: Between Jun 30, 2017 and Sept 20, 2019, 994 pts were randomized 1:1 to pembro (n=496) or placebo (n=498). As of data cutoff date of Dec 14, 2020, median (range) follow-up, defined as time from randomization to data cutoff, was 24.1 (14.9−41.5) mo. No pts remain on study treatment. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between arms. At first prespecified interim analysis, the primary endpoint of DFS was met (median not reached [NR] for both arms, HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53−0.87; P=0.0010 [one-sided]). The estimated DFS rate at 24 mo was 77.3% with pembro vs 68.1% with placebo. Overall, DFS benefit was consistent across subgroups. A total of 51 OS events were observed (18 in the pembro arm, 33 in the placebo arm). Median OS was NR for both arms (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30−0.96; P=0.0164 [one-sided]); the p-value did not cross the statistical hypothesis testing boundary. The estimated OS rate at 24 mo was 96.6% with pembro vs 93.5% with placebo. 470 pts (96.3%) and 452 pts (91.1%) experienced ≥1 all-cause adverse events (AEs) with pembro vs placebo, respectively. Grade 3-5 all-cause AEs occurred in 158 pts (32.4%) with pembro and 88 pts (17.7%) with placebo. No deaths related to pembro occurred. Conclusions: Pembro demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in DFS vs placebo in pts with intermediate-high, high risk or M1 NED RCC. Additional follow-up is planned for the key secondary endpoint of OS. KEYNOTE-564 is the first positive phase III study with a checkpoint inhibitor in adjuvant RCC, and these results support pembro as a potential new standard of care for pts with RCC in the adjuvant setting. Clinical trial information: NCT03142334.

791-P: Ertugliflozin in Older Patients with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D): An Analysis from VERTIS CV

VERTIS CV was a cardiovascular (CV) outcome trial of ertugliflozin vs. placebo in patients (pts) with T2D and atherosclerotic CV disease. Here we analyzed the cardiorenal outcomes and safety of ertugliflozin in older pts.Among 8238 pts randomized and treated with ertugliflozin 5 mg, 15 mg, or placebo, 4093 (49.7%) were <65 yrs, 4145 (50.3%) were ≥65 yrs, with 903 (11.0%) ≥75 yrs. Baseline characteristics were similar across treatment groups within each age group; mean eGFR was lower in older pts (82.2, 69.9, and 63.6 mL/min/1.73m2 for pts <65, ≥65, and ≥75 yrs, respectively). Cardiorenal outcomes for ertugliflozin vs. placebo did not differ between pts ≥65 and <65 yrs, with interaction P values >0.05 for all outcomes assessed (FIGURE). The incidences of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (including deaths), and discontinuations due to an AE were higher in older vs. younger pts, but generally similar across treatment groups in pts ≥65 and ≥75 yrs. The incidence of renal-related AEs was similar across treatment groups in younger and older pts. The incidences of genital mycotic infection and urinary tract infection were higher with ertugliflozin vs. placebo in older pts. The incidences of hypovolemia AEs with ertugliflozin vs. placebo in pts ≥65 was 5.3% vs. 4.5% and in pts ≥75 yrs was 6.9% vs. 5.8%.Cardiorenal outcomes were similar in pts ≥65 and <65 yrs. Ertugliflozin was generally well tolerated in pts ≥65 and ≥75 yrs.View largeDownload slideView largeDownload slide DisclosureR. E. Pratley: Other Relationship; Self; Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Metavention, Monster Energy Company, Inc., Novo Nordisk, Pfizer Inc., Poxel SA, Sanofi, Scohia Pharma Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. I. A. Adamsons: Employee; Self; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. D. Lawrence: Employee; Self; Pfizer Inc., Employee; Spouse/Partner; Becton, Dickinson and Company. W. J. Shih: None. C. P. Cannon: Advisory Panel; Self; Aegerion Pharmaceuticals Inc., Amarin Corporation plc, Corvidia Therapeutics, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Pfizer Inc., Sanofi, Consultant; Self; Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Amgen Inc., Applied Therapeutics, Ascendis Pharma A/S, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, HLS Therapeutics Inc., Kowa Company, Ltd., Research Support; Self; Amgen Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Kowa Company, Ltd., Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Pharma Ltd., Pfizer Inc. S. Dagogo-jack: Consultant; Self; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Sanofi US, Stock/Shareholder; Self; Aerami Therapeutics, Jana Care Inc. B. Charbonnel: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Lilly Diabetes, Merck & Co., Inc., Mundipharma International, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. D. Cherney: Other Relationship; Self; AbbVie Inc., AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC., Lilly Diabetes, Merck & Co., Inc., Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Maze Inc, Prometic, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi. F. Cosentino: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Pfizer Inc., Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Mundipharma International, Novo Nordisk. D. K. Mcguire: Consultant; Self; Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., CSL Behring, Eli Lilly and Company, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk, Pfizer Inc., Sanofi. M. N. Essex: Employee; Self; Pfizer Inc., Stock/Shareholder; Self; Pfizer Inc. P. L. S. Jones: Employee; Self; Pfizer Inc. J. Liu: Employee; Self; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.FundingMerck Sharp & Dohme Corp

Final results from ClarIDHy, a global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind study of ivosidenib (IVO) versus placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with previously treated cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and an isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutation.

4069 Background: CCA is a rare cancer for which there are limited effective therapies. IDH1 mutations occur in ̃20% of intrahepatic CCAs, resulting in production of the oncometabolite D-2-hydroxyglutarate, which promotes oncogenesis. IVO (AG-120) is a first-in-class, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH1 (mIDH1). ClarIDHy aimed to demonstrate the efficacy of IVO vs PBO in pts with unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA. The primary endpoint was met with significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiology center (IRC) with IVO vs PBO (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37, p &lt; 0.0001). Objective response rate (ORR) and stable disease for IVO were 2.4% (3 partial responses) and 50.8% (n = 63) vs 0% and 27.9% (n = 17) for PBO. IVO pts experienced significantly less decline in physical and emotional functioning domains of quality of life at cycle 2 day 1 vs PBO pts (nominal p &lt; 0.05). Methods: Pts with m IDH1 CCA were randomized 2:1 to IVO (500 mg PO QD) or matched PBO and stratified by prior systemic therapies (1 or 2). Key eligibility: unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA based on central testing; ECOG PS 0–1; measurable disease (RECIST v1.1). Crossover from PBO to IVO was permitted at radiographic progression. Primary endpoint: PFS by IRC. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS; by intent-to-treat), ORR, PFS (by investigator), safety, and quality of life. The planned crossover-adjusted OS was derived using the rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) model. Results: As of 31 May 2020, ̃780 pts were prescreened for an IDH1 mutation and 187 were randomized to IVO (n = 126) or PBO (n = 61); 13 remain on IVO. Median age 62 y; M/F 68/119; 91% intrahepatic CCA; 93% metastatic disease; 47% had 2 prior therapies. 70% of PBO pts crossed over to IVO. OS data were mature, with 79% OS events in IVO arm and 82% in PBO. Median OS (mOS) was 10.3 months for IVO and 7.5 months for PBO (HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.56–1.12; one-sided p = 0.093). The RPSFT-adjusted mOS was 5.1 months for PBO (HR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34–0.70; p &lt; 0.0001). Common all-grade treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs, ≥ 15%) in the IVO arm: nausea 41%, diarrhea 35%, fatigue 31%, cough 25%, abdominal pain 24%, decreased appetite 24%, ascites 23%, vomiting 23%, anemia 18%, and constipation 15%. Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs were reported in 50% of IVO pts vs 37% of PBO pts, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs in 7% of IVO pts vs 0% in PBO. 7% of IVO pts experienced an AE leading to treatment discontinuation vs 9% of PBO pts. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: IVO was well tolerated and resulted in a favorable OS trend vs PBO despite a high rate of crossover. These data – coupled with statistical improvement in PFS, supportive quality of life data, and favorable safety profile – demonstrate the clinical benefit of IVO in advanced m IDH1 CCA. Clinical trial information: NCT02989857.

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and patient-reported outcomes at final analysis of the TITAN study of apalutamide (APA) versus placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

5068 Background: The phase 3 TITAN study evaluated APA vs PBO in pts with mCSPC receiving ADT. At primary analysis with 22.7 mo median follow-up, APA significantly improved overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free survival vs PBO (Chi NEJM 2019) while preserving HRQoL (Agarwal Lancet Oncol 2019). The study was unblinded; pts on PBO were allowed to cross over to APA. At final analysis with 44 mo median follow-up, APA significantly improved OS vs PBO, reducing risk of death by 35% despite crossover (Chi ASCO GU 2021). We evaluated HRQoL and treatment bother at final analysis. Methods: mCSPC pts (N = 1052) were randomized 1:1 to APA (240 mg QD; n = 525) or PBO (n = 527). All pts received ADT. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P). BPI was completed for 7d consecutively (Days -6 to 1 of each 28-d cycle [C]) through end of treatment (EOT). FACT-P was completed at baseline (BL), C2-C7, then every other C through EOT. Mean scores were reported by treatment group and over time. Time to deterioration on BPI and FACT-P scores was calculated by Kaplan-Meier methods and compared between groups by fitting proportional hazards regression models. Results: Of eligible pts per C, &gt; 62% completed BPI through C32 and &gt; 50% completed FACT-P through C31. Pts were relatively asymptomatic with good BL HRQoL: on 0-10 worst pain severity scale (BPI), median scores were 1.1 (APA) and 1.0 (PBO); on 0-156 HRQoL scale (FACT-P total; higher score = better HRQoL), median scores were 113.0 (APA) and 113.3 (PBO). Low BL BPI scores remained stable over time in both groups. On average, favorable BL FACT-P scores did not notably worsen over time in APA or PBO groups. There were no significant differences between groups in median time to deterioration in any BPI or FACT-P scores (Table). At each C at least 86% (APA) and 85% (PBO) of pts were either “not at all” or “a little bit” bothered by side effects. At BL, 76% (APA) and 72% (PBO) had favorable energy levels (reporting lack of energy “not at all” or “a little bit”). Energy levels remained stable or improved at each C for &gt; 78% (APA) and &gt; 71% (PBO) of pts. Conclusions: In the final analysis of TITAN, survival benefit with addition of APA to ADT was achieved without significant patient-reported side effect burden or reduced HRQoL compared with PBO in pts with mCSPC. Clinical trial information: NCT02489318. [Table: see text]

Health-related quality of life for pembrolizumab (pembro) plus ipilimumab (ipi) versus pembro plus placebo in patients with metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≥ 50%: KEYNOTE-598.

9038 Background: In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-598 study (NCT03302234), OS (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.85–1.37; P = 0.74) and PFS (1.06; 95% CI, 0.86–1.30; P = 0.72) were not improved for pembro + ipi vs pembro + placebo in patients (pts) with previously untreated metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥50% and without EGFR/ALK genomic alterations. Incidence of treatment-related grade 3–5 AEs, fatal AEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation was higher with pembro + ipi vs pembro + placebo. We present prespecified patient-reported outcome (PRO) analyses from KEYNOTE-598. Methods: Pts (n = 568) with previously untreated stage IV NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥50% were randomized 1:1 to pembro 200 mg Q3W for up to 35 cycles + ipi 1 mg/kg or placebo Q6W for up to 18 cycles. The EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-LC13, EQ-5D-5L, and NSCLC-SAQ were administered at cycles 1‒7, then every 3 cycles through cycle 19, and every 4 cycles until PD or a maximum of 35 cycles. Change from baseline in global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL) score from the QLQ-C30 and the time to true deterioration (TTD) in the composite endpoint of cough (LC13), chest pain (LC13), or dyspnea (C30) were secondary objectives in KEYNOTE-598. Change from baseline in GHS/QoL was analyzed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis model with missing at random assumption. Difference in TTD was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model and stratified log-rank test. PROs were analyzed in all pts who completed ≥1 PRO assessment and received ≥1 dose of study treatment. P values are two-sided and nominal. Results: As of data cutoff (Sept 1, 2020), PRO analyses included 280 pts in the pembro + ipi group and 280 pts in the pembro + placebo group. QLQ-C30 completion rates were 95.7% in the pembro + ipi group vs 96.1% in the pembro + placebo group at baseline and 63.6% vs 70.0% at week 18. QLQ-LC13 completion rates were 95.4% vs 96.4% at baseline and 63.6% vs 69.6% at week 18. Mean QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL scores at baseline were 62.8 in the pembro + ipi group and 64.2 in the pembro + placebo group and were similar between the groups across the follow-up period. Least squares (LS) mean (95% CI) change from baseline to week 18 in GHS/QoL scores was improved in both groups (pembro + ipi: 3.7 [0.9‒6.5]; pembro + placebo: 4.1 [1.4‒6.9]), with no significant difference between groups (LS mean difference −0.4 [−4.0 to 3.1], P = 0.82). Median TTD in composite of cough, chest pain, or dyspnea was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 13.0 mo–NR) in the pembro + ipi group vs 20.0 (95% CI, 12.7–NR) mo in the pembro + placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.74‒1.30]; P = 0.91). Conclusions: There was no difference in health-related QoL or TTD in lung cancer symptoms between pembro + ipi and pembro + placebo in pts with previously untreated metastatic NSCLC with PD-L1 TPS ≥50%. Clinical trial information: NCT03302234.

Molecular predictors of response to selinexor in advanced unresectable de-differentiated liposarcoma (DDLS).

11509 Background: Patients (pts) with recurrent inoperative DDLS have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Selinexor is an oral, selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compound approved for previously treated pts with myeloma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. SEAL was a Phase 2-3 randomized, double-blind, study of selinexor versus placebo in pts with progressive DDLS and 2-5 prior systemic therapies. SEAL showed significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS, HR = 0.70, p = 0.0228) with well managed toxicity. A biomarker predictive of clinical activity could be used to optimize selection of pts with DDLS for selinexor. Methods: Pts were randomized 2:1 for Phase 3: 188 received twice weekly selinexor (60mg) and 97 received placebo. Three exploratory biomarker analyses (RNA sequencing of biopsies) from selinexor-treated pts were performed: discovery set of sensitive (n = 8) or resistant (n = 9) tumors; a validation set of pts with favorable (n = 19) or poor (n = 14) tumor control based on PFS, and paired lesions from a pt who harbored both a responsive and resistant lesion. Tumor biopsies from 24 pts on placebo with short ( &lt; 5 months, n = 18) and long ( &gt; 6 months, n = 6) PFS were RNA sequenced. Gene expressions were compared using a negative binomial distribution with DeSeq2. Pathway analyses were performed using Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) with MSigDB Cancer Gene Neighborhoods. Results: RNA sequencing analysis comparing 17 sensitive and resistant tumors identified 114 differentially expressed genes (adjusted p-values &lt; 0.05). Expression of CALB1, which encodes the calcium-binding protein calbindin, was significantly lower in sensitive tumors (adjusted P [Padj] = 7.5x10-20), and expression of GRM1, which encodes a metabotropic glutamate receptor that activates phospholipase C, was higher in selinexor sensitive tumors (Padj= 0.003). These findings were confirmed in an independent validation set (Padj = 0.01 – 0.02). In the pt with paired sensitive and resistant lesions, CALB1 expression was 52-fold lower in the sensitive tumor. In a comparison of placebo-treated pts, neither CALB1 or GRM1 was differentially expressed between pts with short or long PFS, indicating they are markers of response to selinexor treatment, rather than general markers of disease aggressiveness. Gene set enrichment analyses revealed that selinexor sensitive tumors in the discovery and validation sets showed upregulation of cancer genes related to SNRK and the netrin 1 receptor tumor suppressor DCC. The resistant tumors showed upregulated EIF3S2 translation initiator-related genes. Conclusions: Selinexor sensitive DDLS tumors showed low expression of CALB1 and high GRM1. If validated, pts with DDLS whose tumors match this expression profile are especially likely to benefit from selinexor. Clinical trial information: NCT02606461.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo (PL)-controlled, phase III trial of pimitespib (TAS-116), an oral inhibitor of heat shock protein 90 (HSP90), in patients (pts) with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) refractory to imatinib (IM), sunitinib (SU) and regorafenib (REG).

11524 Background: Pimitespib (PIM) is a novel class of orally active selective HSP90 inhibitors. KIT and PDGFRA are clients of HSP90 for their functional stability; therefore, HSP90 is a rational therapeutic target on GIST in pts with acquired resistance, such as secondary mutation in KIT, to approved tyrosine kinase inhibitors. A phase II trial showed clinical activity of PIM in pts with advanced GIST refractory to standard treatments whose medical need remains unmet. This phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of PIM for this unmet clinical need. Methods: Eligible pts had histologically confirmed advanced GIST refractory to IM, SU, and REG, ≥1 measurable lesion, and ECOG performance status 0 or 1. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive either PIM 160 mg once daily on a 5-days-on/ 2-days-off schedule or PL. Pts eligible for unblinding at the time of progressive disease were allowed to crossover to open-label PIM. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded central radiological review based on modified RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), PFS in the pts crossed over to PIM (secondary PFS), and safety. Crossover-adjusted OS was derived using the rank preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) model. Exploratory endpoints included pharmacogenomics (PGx). Results: From Oct 2018 to Apr 2020, 86 pts were randomized to receive either PIM (n = 58) or PL (n = 28). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. Median PFS was 2.8 months (mo) (95% CI: 1.6–2.9) for PIM vs. 1.4 mo (95% CI: 0.9–1.8) for PL. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.30–0.87) ( p = 0.006, stratified log-rank test). Median OS was 13.8 mo (95% CI: 9.2–not reached) for PIM vs. 9.6 mo (95% CI: 5.5–not reached) for PL (HR for OS 0.63; p = 0.081), with 60.7 % of PL pts crossed over to PIM; secondary PFS was 2.7 mo (95% CI: 0.7–4.1). The RPSFT-adjusted median OS of PL was 7.6 mo (adjusted HR for OS 0.42; p = 0.007). Furthermore, the results of PGx analysis suggested that PIM was also effective in pts with secondary KIT mutation detected from blood samples. The most common ( &gt; 5%) grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) in PIM/PL were diarrhea (13.8%/0%), anemia (6.9%/10.7%), decreased appetite (6.9%/0%), and tumor hemorrhage (5.2%/0%). AEs leading to PIM/PL study discontinuation were observed in 4/2 pts (6.9%/7.1%), respectively. Conclusions: This randomized trial demonstrated that PIM significantly improved PFS with OS prolongation in pts with advanced GIST refractory to IM, SU, and REG, as a HSP90 inhibitor for the first time. PIM was tolerated and AEs were manageable. With a mechanism of action different from that of standard therapies, PIM has the potential to be a new standard treatment in GIST. Clinical trial information: JapicCTI-184094.

OP0230 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF GUSELKUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS WHO DEMONSTRATED INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO TUMOR NECROSIS FACTOR INHIBITION: WEEK 24 RESULTS OF A PHASE 3B, RANDOMIZED, CONTROLLED STUDY

Background:Guselkumab (GUS), a selective monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-23p19 subunit, has demonstrated efficacy in 2 pivotal Ph3 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) studies (DISCOVER-1,1 DISCOVER-22).Objectives:Evaluate GUS efficacy and safety in PsA patients (pts) with inadequate response (IR) to tumor-necrosis-factor inhibition (TNFi) through Week24 (W24) of the Ph3b COSMOS study.Methods:In this randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled trial, 285 pts with active PsA (≥3 swollen &amp; ≥3 tender joints) who demonstrated lack of benefit or intolerance to 1-2 TNFi were randomized 2:1 to subcutaneous GUS 100mg (n=189) or PBO (n=96) at W0, W4, then every 8 weeks (Q8W) through W44 (with PBO crossover to GUS at W24). At W16, pts who met early escape (EE) criteria (&lt;5% improvement in both tender &amp; swollen joint counts) also could switch from PBO to GUS. The primary efficacy endpoint was ACR20 response at W24 among randomized, treated pts. Pts missing ACR20 data at W24 or who met treatment failure criteria (including meeting EE criteria at W16) were considered nonresponders (NRs). Subgroup analyses were performed to assess consistency of primary treatment effect based on demographics, disease characteristics, and medication use at baseline. Prespecified sensitivity analyses included ‘Per-Protocol’ (PP) (excluded pts with major protocol deviations) and ‘EE-Correction’ (included pts incorrectly routed to EE) analyses. Adverse events (AEs) were summarized by treatment received.Results:Baseline characteristics were similar across GUS and PBO pts, though a higher proportion of females and more severe joint symptoms were seen in the GUS group. At W24, 44.4% of GUS vs 19.8% of PBO pts achieved ACR20 (p&lt;0.001) (Figure). GUS was superior to PBO for all major secondary endpoints. Efficacy was consistent across subgroups defined by baseline characteristics, including in pts who discontinued prior TNFi use due to inadequate efficacy (84% GUS vs 81% PBO) and safety (16% GUS vs 19% PBO) (Table). 20 pts (12 GUS, 8 PBO) were incorrectly routed to EE. Results of PP (48.8% vs 23.8%) and EE-correction (48.1% vs 19.8%) sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analysis (Figure). AEs were similar between GUS- and PBO-treated pts (Table).Table 1.Baseline characteristics of, and adverse events reported by, randomized and treated COSMOS ptsGUS 100 mg Q8W (N=189)PBO (N=96) Age, y4949 Sex, Female54%46% Duration of PsA, y8.38.7 Body mass index, kg/m22931a Swollen (0-66) / tender (0-68) joint count10 / 219 / 18 Pt pain / Pt global arthritis / Physician global disease, 0-10 cm VAS6.5 / 6.5 / 6.96.0 / 6.2 / 6.4 Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, 0-31.3b1.2 C-reactive protein, mg/dL1.2b1.2 Methotrexate use at baseline56%53% Psoriatic body surface area, %17.913.4 Number of prior TNFi: 1 / 288% / 12%89% / 11% Reason for prior TNFi discontinuation: Efficacy / Safety84% / 16%* 81% / 19%*Pts with ≥1 AE / SAE37% / 3%48% / 3%Pts with ≥1 infection / serious infection18% / 0%20% / 0%Pts with ≥1 AE leading to study agent discontinuation2%2%Pts with ≥1 malignancy0.4%0Pts with ≥1 injection-site reaction2%1%Data shown are mean or %. aN=95; bN=188. *Missing for 1 pt. SAE – serious adverse events; VAS – visual analog scaleConclusion:In this Ph3b, placebo-controlled study of PsA pts with IR to 1-2 TNFi, GUS 100 mg Q8W elicited a significantly higher ACR20 response rate vs. PBO at W24; results of prespecified sensitivity and subgroup analyses were consistent. GUS safety in TNF-IR PsA pts through W24 is consistent with the favorable GUS safety profile in psoriasis and biologic-naïve PsA pts.3

AB0560 EFFECT OF DEUCRAVACITINIB ON THE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS IMPACT OF DISEASE (PsAID) QUESTIONNAIRES 12 AND 9: ANALYSIS OF A PHASE 2 STUDY OF ACTIVE PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS

Background:Tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) is an intracellular kinase that mediates IL-23, IL-12, and IFNα/β signaling. Deucravacitinib is a novel, oral selective inhibitor of TYK2 via the TYK2 regulatory domain. Phase 2 results showed deucravacitinib was efficacious and well tolerated versus placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID) questionnaire is a EULAR-developed, validated instrument designed to specifically assess the impact of PsA on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) from the pt’s perspective and is available as separate versions for clinical practice (PsAID-12) and clinical trials (PsAID-9).1Objectives:To compare the effect of deucravacitinib vs PBO on PsAID-12 and PsAID-9 responses and to assess relationships between PsAID scores and clinical and pt-reported outcome (PRO) measures.Methods:This is an ongoing, 1-year, double-blind, Phase 2 trial (NCT03881059). Pts with active PsA were randomized 1:1:1 to deucravacitinib 6 mg or 12 mg once daily, or PBO for 16 weeks (wk). PsAID-12 and PsAID-9, other PROs, and clinical response outcomes were assessed at baseline (BL) and Wk 16. Mean changes from BL in PsAID-12 and PsAID-9 total scores at Wk 16 were determined for each treatment group as well as by response outcomes (ie, achievement of response at Wk 16 for PROs and select clinical response outcomes; Table 1). Spearman correlations between PsAID-12 and PsAID-9 scores and clinical and PRO measures were also assessed.Results:203 pts were randomized and BL characteristics were similar across groups. Adjusted mean changes from BL in PsAID-12 and PsAID-9 scores at Wk 16 were significantly greater in the deucravacitinib groups vs PBO (Figure 1). Adjusted mean changes from BL in PsAID-12 and PsAID-9 scores at Wk 16 were significantly improved with deucravacitinib vs PBO in pts who achieved response for PROs, as well as PASDAS low disease activity and PASI 75 response (Table 1). Adjusted mean changes from BL were generally similar with deucravacitinib vs PBO in nonresponders. Spearman correlation analysis revealed significant correlations at BL and Wk 16 between PsAID-12 and PsAID-9 scores and clinical and PRO measures (P&lt;0.0001).Conclusion:With deucravacitinib vs PBO, PsAID-12 and PsAID-9 scores were significantly improved vs BL at Wk 16. PsAID detected additional improvements among pts achieving response for multiple other PROs and select clinical outcome measures.

POS0907 EFFECT OF UPADACITINIB ON REDUCING PAIN IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS AND INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO NONSTEROIDAL ANTI-INFLAMMATORY DRUGS

Background:Pain is a debilitating symptom of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and negatively impacts patient (pt) lives. Upadacitinib (UPA), a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor engineered for increased selectivity for JAK1 over JAK2, JAK3, and tyrosine kinase 2, 1 showed significant efficacy vs placebo (PBO) in the randomized phase 2/3 SELECT-AXIS 1 study in active AS.2Objectives:To evaluate the efficacy of UPA on multiple pain assessments through 64 weeks (wks).Methods:SELECT-AXIS 1 (NCT03178487) enrolled adults with active AS, who had an inadequate response, intolerance or contraindications to ≥2 NSAIDs, were biologic DMARD naive and met the modified New-York Criteria. Pts were randomized 1:1 to UPA 15 mg once daily (QD, n=93) or PBO (n=94) for 14 wks (Period 1), followed by open-label UPA 15 mg QD during 90-wk extension (Period 2); reported here are data through wk 64. Pain endpoints included the proportion of pts achieving ≥30%/≥50%/≥70% reduction in Pt’s Global Assessment (PGA) of pain on a 0–10 numeric rating scale (NRS), minimal clinically important difference (MCID, defined as ≥1 point reduction or ≥15% reduction from baseline [BL]) in PGA of pain, and much better improvement (MBI, defined as ≥2 point reduction and ≥33% reduction from BL) in PGA of pain. In addition, mean change from baseline in PGA of pain, BASDAI questions 2 (neck/back/hip pain) and 3 (peripheral pain/swelling), and pt’s assessment of back pain and nocturnal back pain NRS scores (NRS 0–10) were assessed. Non-responder imputation (binary endpoints) and mixed-effects model for repeated measurements (continuous endpoints) were used for missing data/dropouts in Period 1; as-observed analysis was used for Period 2.Results:A significantly higher proportion of pts receiving UPA vs PBO achieved reductions in all PGA of pain assessments as early as wk 2 that was sustained at all time points in Period 1; the only exception was ≥70% reduction in PGA of pain that was significant at wk 4 and sustained thereafter (Figure 1). For ≥30%/≥50%/≥70% reduction and MBI, the response rate increased over time with UPA; the difference for UPA vs PBO also continued to increase over time for ≥50% and ≥70% reduction endpoints. For MCID, an increase from BL to wk 2 was observed and plateaued thereafter. The mean change from BL in PGA of pain, BASDAI Q2, back pain, and nocturnal back pain NRS scores were significantly greater for UPA vs PBO at all time points in Period 1; BASDAI Q3 was significant at wk 8 and 14 (Figure 1). The effect of UPA on pain reduction was sustained through wk 64. PBO pts who switched to open-label UPA at wk 14 generally reached the same level of pain reduction as those initially randomized to UPA (Figure 1).Conclusion:In pts with active AS and an inadequate response/contraindication to NSAIDs, a greater proportion of patients treated with UPA achieved rapid, significant, and clinically meaningful reductions in pain vs PBO through 14 wks across multiple pain assessments. The reductions in pain were sustained over time, and pts who switched from PBO to UPA reached the same level of improvement as the continuous UPA group.

AB0524 EFFICACY OF GUSELKUMAB ACROSS BASDAI COMPONENTS IN TREATING AXIAL-RELATED SYMPTOMS OF PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: RESULTS FROM TWO PHASE 3, RANDOMIZED, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED STUDIES

Background:The monoclonal antibody guselkumab (GUS; anti- IL-23p19-subunit) is approved to treat psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Post hoc analyses of DISCOVER-1&amp;2 suggested that GUS may be effective in improving symptoms of axial manifestation of PsA.Objectives:Evaluate the efficacy of GUS across components of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) in improving symptoms of axial manifestations of active PsA patients (pts) using data from Phase 3, randomized, placebo (PBO)-controlled studies.Methods:DISCOVER-1&amp;2 enrolled pts with active PsA; pts were randomized to subcutaneous injections of guselkumab 100 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) or at Wk0, 4, and Q8W, or PBO. These post hoc analyses included pts who were identified by the investigator as having axial symptoms and sacroiliitis (prior X-ray or MRI or screening X-ray). BASDAI scores were assessed at Wks 0, 8, 16, 24, and 52. Mean BASDAI component scores through Wk52 are reported by treatment group. Pooled data from the two studies are reported. Mean BASDAI component scores are reported using observed data; total BASDAI scores with missing components were set to missing. The proportion of pts achieving ≥50% improvement in BASDAI (BASDAI 50) was also determined; pts with missing data or who met the treatment failure criteria (discontinued study agent or used prohibited medications) were considered nonresponders at all subsequent timepoints.Results:These analyses included 312 pts from DISCOVER-1&amp;2 (103 GUS Q4W, 91 GUS Q8W, 118 PBO); mean total BASDAI scores at Wk0 were 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6, respectively. Demographics and mean baseline BASDAI component scores (ie, fatigue, spinal pain, joint pain, enthesitis, qualitative morning stiffness, and quantitative morning stiffness) were similar across treatment groups (Table 1). In comparison with the total study population, this subgroup of pts had a higher mean C-reactive protein level at baseline and a higher proportion of pts with enthesitis and included a slightly higher proportion of males. Mean scores for all six BASDAI components, including spinal pain, decreased through Wk24 in GUS-treated pts, with separation from PBO observed as early as Wk8; improvements were maintained at Wk52. At Wk24, BASDAI 50 response rates were higher in the Q4W and Q8W groups vs PBO (38% and 40% vs 19%).1 At WK52, mean BASDAI component scores for PBO pts who crossed over to GUS Q4W at Wk24 were similar to those for pts who were randomized to GUS.2 A similar trend was observed for BASDAI50 response.Conclusion:Among PsA pts with axial symptoms and sacroiliitis (via investigator-confirmed imaging) in the DISCOVER-1&amp;2 trials, GUS treatment resulted in lower mean scores for all six BASDAI components compared with PBO as early as Wk 8 and through Wk24, with mean scores maintained at Wk52.

Osilodrostat Is an Effective and Well-Tolerated Treatment for Cushing’s Disease (CD): Results From a Phase III Study With an Upfront, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase (LINC 4)

Background: In a prior Phase III, randomized-withdrawal study, osilodrostat, a potent oral 11β-hydroxylase inhibitor, provided rapid and sustained normalization of mean urinary free cortisol (mUFC) in most patients (pts) with CD. Now, we report efficacy and safety results from another Phase III study of osilodrostat in pts with CD that included an upfront, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase (LINC 4: NCT02697734). Methods: Adults with CD with mUFC >1.3 x ULN were randomized 2:1 to osilodrostat 2 mg bid or matching placebo for a 12-week (W) double-blind period, with dose adjustments at W2, 5 and 8 (range 1-20 mg bid) based on efficacy and tolerability; dose matching and adjustments were managed by independent endocrinologists. From W12 to W48, all pts received open-label osilodrostat, with dose adjustments permitted (range 1-30 mg bid). At W48, pts could enter an optional extension. Primary endpoint: proportion of randomized pts in each arm who received ≥1 treatment dose with mUFC ≤ULN at W12. Results: 73 pts were randomized and received osilodrostat (n=48) or matching placebo (n=25; baseline median [range] mUFC 2.5 x ULN [0.7-12.5] vs 2.2 x ULN [0.2-18.9]). 77% of osilodrostat recipients achieved mUFC ≤ULN at W12 vs 8% of placebo recipients (OR 43.4; 95% CI 7.1-343.2; P<0.0001). At W36, 81% (95% CI 69.9-89.1) of osilodrostat recipients had mUFC ≤ULN (key secondary endpoint). Median time to first controlled mUFC response was 35 days (95% CI 34‒52) for pts randomized to osilodrostat. Median duration of osilodrostat exposure at data cut-off (Feb 25, 2020) was 71.7 vs 62.3 weeks for pts randomized to osilodrostat and placebo (median [IQR] dose 4.7 [3.8-9.0] vs 6.0 mg/day [3.7-9.7]). Up to W12, 3 osilodrostat pts discontinued, 1 because of an AE (arthralgia), vs 0 with placebo. The most common (≥30%) AEs occurring by W12 were decreased appetite (38% osilodrostat vs 16% placebo), arthralgia (35% vs 8%) and nausea (31% vs 12%). AEs related to hypocortisolism and adrenal-hormone-precursor accumulation occurred in 15% vs 0% and 44% vs 36% of osilodrostat and placebo pts; most were grade 1/2 and resolved with dose reduction/interruption and/or concomitant medication. During the overall study period, the most common (≥30%) AEs occurring on osilodrostat treatment were arthralgia (45%), decreased appetite (45%), fatigue (38%), nausea (37%) and headache (33%). Improvements in cardiovascular- and metabolic-related parameters, including systolic and diastolic blood pressure and HbA1c, were observed with osilodrostat treatment at W12 and W48. Conclusion: Osilodrostat was superior to placebo at normalizing mUFC levels at W12 (77% vs 8%). Improvements in mUFC levels were sustained at W36. Few pts discontinued because of AEs; hypocortisolism-related AEs were infrequent and manageable. We conclude that osilodrostat is a highly effective and well-tolerated treatment for pts with CD.

First results from the phase 3 CheckMate 274 trial of adjuvant nivolumab vs placebo in patients who underwent radical surgery for high-risk muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (MIUC).

391 Background: The standard of care (SOC) for patients (pts) with MIUC is radical surgery ± cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (chemo), but many pts are cisplatin-ineligible. There is no conclusive evidence supporting adjuvant chemo in pts who did not receive neoadjuvant chemo and in those with residual disease after neoadjuvant cisplatin. This phase 3 trial of adjuvant nivolumab (NIVO) vs placebo (PBO) in pts with MIUC after radical surgery ± neoadjuvant cisplatin (CheckMate 274) aims to address an unmet need in these pts. We report the initial results. Methods: This is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial of NIVO vs PBO in pts with high-risk MIUC (bladder, ureter, or renal pelvis) after radical surgery. Pts were randomized 1:1 to NIVO 240 mg Q2W or PBO for ≤ 1 year of adjuvant treatment. Pts had radical surgery within 120 days ± neoadjuvant cisplatin or were ineligible/declined cisplatin-based chemo, evidence of UC at high risk of recurrence per pathologic staging, were disease-free by imaging, and ECOG PS ≤ 1. Primary endpoints: disease-free survival (DFS) in all randomized pts (ITT population) and in pts with tumor PD-L1 expression ≥ 1%. DFS was stratified by nodal status, prior neoadjuvant cisplatin, and PD-L1 status. Non–urothelial tract recurrence-free survival (NUTRFS) in ITT pts and in pts with PD-L ≥ 1% is a secondary endpoint. Safety is an exploratory endpoint. Results: In total, 353 pts were randomized to NIVO (PD-L1 ≥ 1%, n = 140) and 356 pts to PBO (PD-L1 ≥ 1%, n = 142). The primary endpoint of DFS was met in ITT pts (median follow-up, 20.9 mo for NIVO; 19.5 mo for PBO) and in pts with PD-L1 ≥ 1%. DFS and NUTRFS were improved with NIVO vs PBO in both populations (Table). DFS improvement with NIVO was generally consistent across subgroups. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 17.9% and 7.2% of pts in the NIVO and PBO arms, respectively. Conclusions: NIVO demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in DFS vs PBO for MIUC after radical surgery, both in ITT pts and pts with PD-L1 ≥ 1%. AEs were manageable and consistent with previous reports. These results support adjuvant NIVO as a new SOC for pts with MIUC with high risk for recurrence despite neoadjuvant chemo or those ineligible for and/or declining cisplatin-based chemo. Clinical trial information: NCT02632409 . Research Sponsor: Bristol Myers Squibb[Table: see text]

Molecular determinants associated with long-term response to apalutamide (APA) in nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC).

8 Background: SPARTAN, a phase 3 placebo (PBO)-controlled study in patients (pts) with nmCRPC, showed that APA plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly improves metastasis-free survival compared with PBO + ADT. This exploratory analysis investigated potential biological signatures of pts with long-term responses to APA and PBO. Methods: The biomarker cohort of SPARTAN was characterized as long-term responders (LTR) or early progressors (EP) based on time to metastasis, and separated into quartiles for APA and PBO groups. Pts progressing in the first quartile (APA, 21; PBO, 17), with shortest time to metastatic event, were classified as EP, those progressing in the last quartile (APA, 39; PBO, 20) as LTR. Gene expression profiles were generated from 233 archival primary prostate tumors. Predefined gene signatures indicative of cancer biology were compared between LTR and EP groups within the APA and PBO arms using 2 sample t tests. Signatures associated with LTR and EP were identified using p values of less than 0.05. Results: Median time to metastatic progression was 40.5 months in APA pts and 22 months in PBO pts in the LTR group and 7.3 and 3.6 months in APA and PBO pts, respectively, in the EP group. Signatures categorized into 3 general mechanistic classes (immune regulation, proliferation, and hormone dependence) associated with LTR on APA included increased T cell activity reflected by T cell activation ( p = 0.0045), stimulation ( p = 0.0642), cytokine response ( p = 0.0489), and interferon production (gamma response p = 0.0227 ), and decreased T cell exclusion ( p = 0.0652), low proliferative capacity ( p = 0.0435), and increased hormonal dependence ( p = 0.0485). High risk (DECIPHER p = 0.0406, metastatic potential p = 0.0077), hormone nonresponsive (basal p = 0.0115; androgen receptor activity-low, p = 0.0437), and neuroendocrine-like tumors ( p = 0.0125) were associated with early progression on treatment with PBO. Conclusions: Although the data require confirmation in larger studies, these molecular determinants may have utility in selecting pts with nmCRPC who may derive the most benefit from APA and other androgen signaling inhibitors. Clinical trial information: NCT01946204.

Pembrolizumab (pembro) plus enzalutamide (enza) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for patients (pts) with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC): The phase III KEYNOTE-991 study.

TPS184 Background: The combination of pembro, an anti–PD-1 antibody, added to enza, a nonsteroidal antiandrogen agent, has shown antitumor activity in abiraterone-resistant metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the KEYNOTE-365 trial (NCT02861573) and in pts with mCRPC for whom enza was ineffective in the KEYNOTE-199 trial (NCT02787005). The efficacy of enza may be proimmunogenic, suggesting that it may be additive or synergistic in antitumor activity when combined with pembro. These data indicate that pembro + enza with ADT warrants phase 3 evaluation. Methods: KEYNOTE-991 (NCT04191096) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase 3 trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of enza + ADT (luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist during study treatment or bilateral orchiectomy) + pembro or placebo in pts with mHSPC. Eligibility criteria include age ≥18 years, mHSPC, ≥2 bone lesions or visceral disease, no prior treatment with next-generation hormone agents, adequate organ function, and ECOG PS 0 or 1. Pts must provide tissue for biomarker analysis. Approximately 1232 pts will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive enza 160 mg orally once daily + ADT + pembro 200 mg intravenously (IV) every 3 weeks (Q3W) or enza 160 mg orally once daily + ADT + placebo IV Q3W. Treatment will continue with pembro up to 35 cycles and treatment with enza will proceed continuously from day 1 of cycle 1 until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The stratification factors are prior docetaxel therapy (yes or no) and presence of high-volume disease (yes or no). Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging and radionuclide bone imaging will be used to assess response according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 (PCWG3)–modified RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR) every 12 weeks (Q12W) from the date of randomization. Imaging will continue until the end of treatment and will resume Q12W during the posttreatment period. The dual-primary endpoints are BICR-assessed radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS; according to PCWG3-modified RECIST v1.1) and overall survival (OS). Key secondary endpoints are time to first subsequent anticancer therapy (TFST) and time to symptomatic skeletal-related event (TTSSRE). Safety and tolerability will be evaluated using a tiered approach. The dual-primary (rPFS and OS) and key secondary (TFST and TTSSRE) endpoints will be evaluated using a stratified log-rank test. Event rates will be summarized using the Kaplan-Meier method, and hazard ratios will be estimated using a stratified Cox regression model. KEYNOTE-991 is enrolling at 40 sites in Australia, Chile, Colombia, Germany, Israel, Japan, Poland, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United States. Clinical trial information: NCT04191096.

Analysis of the effect of crossover from placebo (PBO) to darolutamide (DARO) on overall survival (OS) benefit in the ARAMIS Trial.

240 Background: DARO is a structurally distinct androgen receptor inhibitor approved for the treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) based on significantly prolonged metastasis-free survival compared with PBO (median 40.4 vs 18.4 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34–0.50; P &lt; 0.0001) and a favorable safety profile in the phase III ARAMIS trial. Following unblinding at the primary analysis, crossover from PBO to DARO was permitted for the subsequent open-label treatment phase. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effect of PBO–DARO crossover on OS benefit. Methods: Patients (pts) with nmCRPC receiving androgen deprivation therapy were randomized 2:1 to DARO (n = 955) or PBO (n = 554). In addition to OS, secondary endpoints included times to pain progression, first cytotoxic chemotherapy, first symptomatic skeletal event, and safety. The OS analysis was planned to occur after approximately 240 deaths, and secondary endpoints were evaluated in a hierarchical order. Iterative parameter estimation (IPE) and rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) analyses were performed as pre-planned sensitivity analyses to adjust for the treatment effect of PBO–DARO crossover. The IPE method used a parametric model for the survival times and iteratively determined the model parameter describing the magnitude of the treatment effect, whereas a grid search and non-parametric log-rank test were used for the RPSFT analysis. The IPE and RPSFT analyses both generated a Kaplan–Meier curve for the PBO arm that predicts what would have been observed in the absence of PBO–DARO crossover. Results: After unblinding, 170 pts (30.7% of those randomized to PBO) crossed over from PBO to DARO; median treatment duration from unblinding to the final data cut-off was 11 months. Final analysis of the combined double-blind and open label periods was conducted after 254 deaths (15.5% of DARO and 19.1% of PBO pts) and showed a statistically significant OS benefit for DARO vs PBO (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53–0.88; P = 0.003). Results from the IPE (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.51–0.84; P &lt; 0.001) and RPSFT (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.51–0.90; P = 0.007) analyses were similar to those from the intention-to-treat population, showing that the impact of PBO–DARO crossover was small. Additional analyses accounting for the effect of PBO–DARO crossover will be presented. The safety profile of DARO continued to be favorable at the final analysis, and discontinuation rates at the end of the double-blind period remained unchanged from the primary analysis (8.9% with DARO and 8.7% with PBO). Conclusions: Early treatment with DARO in men with nmCRPC is associated with significant improvement in OS regardless of pts crossing over from PBO to DARO. The safety profile of DARO remained favorable at the final analysis. Clinical trial information: NCT02200614.

Final analysis results from TITAN: A phase III study of apalutamide (APA) versus placebo (PBO) in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

11 Background: TITAN evaluated APA or PBO added to ADT in pts with mCSPC. Pts with high- and low-volume disease, prior docetaxel, prior treatment for localized disease, and prior ADT (≤ 6 mos) were eligible. At the first interim analysis, with 22.7 mos median follow-up, APA significantly improved dual primary end points of overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) (HR 0.48) compared with PBO (Chi et al. NEJM. 2019). At that time, OS analysis was first planned interim while rPFS was final. TITAN was unblinded, allowing pts without progression who were still receiving PBO to cross over to APA. Herein, we report the final analysis of efficacy and safety results from TITAN. Methods: 1052 mCSPC pts were randomized 1:1 to receive APA (240 mg QD) or PBO plus ADT. Time-to-event end points were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model. A preplanned sensitivity analysis for OS, accounting for crossover using inverse probability censoring weighted (IPCW) log-rank test, was conducted. No formal statistical retesting was performed; nominal p values were reported without multiplicity adjustment. Change from baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) total score was assessed using a mixed-effect repeated-measures model. Results: With 44 mos median follow-up, 405 OS events had occurred. After unblinding, 208 PBO pts (39.5%) crossed over to APA. Median treatment duration was 39.3 mos for the APA group, 20.2 mos for the entire PBO group, and 15.4 mos for the PBO→APA crossover group. OS was superior in the APA group compared with the PBO group despite crossover (Table). 48-mo survival rates were 65% (APA) vs 52% (PBO). Other end points also favored APA vs PBO (Table). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL), per total FACT-P, was maintained in the APA group through the study and was not different from the PBO group. Safety was consistent with previous reports. Conclusions: With close to 4 yrs of follow-up, the final analysis of TITAN demonstrated that in a broad population of pts with mCSPC, APA plus ADT provides an improvement in OS with a 35% reduction in risk of death, which increased to 48% reduction after adjusting for pts who crossed over from PBO to APA. In addition, there was consistent benefit with APA in other end points, including delaying castration resistance, and HRQoL continued to be maintained with an acceptable safety profile. Clinical trial information: NCT02489318. [Table: see text]

Abstract PD14-08: Primary efficacy results from AIPAC: A double-blinded, placebo controlled, randomized multinational phase IIb trial comparing weekly paclitaxel plus eftilagimod alpha (soluble LAG-3 protein) vs. weekly paclitaxel plus placebo in HR-positive metastatic breast cancer patients

Abstract Background:Eftilagimod alpha (efti, IMP321),a soluble LAG-3 protein (LAG-3Ig) that binds to a subset of MHC class II molecules, mediates antigen-presenting cell (APC) activation followed by CD8 T-cell activation. AIPAC (Active Immunotherapy PAClitaxel; NCT02614833) investigatedcombinations of the APC activator efti + weekly paclitaxel compared to paclitaxel + placebo in metastatic breast carcinoma (MBC) patients (pts). Methods:The placebo-controlled, double-blinded, 1:1 randomized, multinational, phase IIb trial enrolled pts with measurable disease, hormone receptor-positive (HR+) MBC with indications for first line weekly paclitaxel without indication for HER2/neu targeted therapy. Pts received paclitaxel (80 mg/m² IV at D1, D8, D15 plus efti (30 mg) or placebo at D2, D16 (injected SC every 2 weeks) for 6 cycles (1 cycle = 4 weeks). Maintenance phase followed in which pts benefitting from treatment received efti or placebo for an additional 52 weeks. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) (RECIST1.1) determined by blinded independent central read (BICR). Secondary endpoints included local read PFS, RECIST 1.1 tumor response, pharmacodynamic effects, quality of life and overall survival. The study was powered (80 %) to detect 0.667 hazard ratio (HR) based on 5% one-sided alpha and planned to enroll 226 pts. Results: From Jan 2017-Jul 2019, 227 pts were randomized. All except 1 received ≥ 1 treatment and were included in the full analysis set [(efti (n = 114); placebo (n = 112)]. Data cut-off was 10th Jan 2020 with 12 month median follow-up. HR for PFS assessed by BICR was 0.93 [95 % CI 0.67-1.30], p =0.341. In the efti group 63 % (95% CI 52- 71%) were progression free at 6 months compared to 54 % (95% CI 43-63%) in the placebo group. ORR was 48.3 % in the efti group compared to 38.4 % in the placebo group as assessed by BICR (p=0.118). Efti increased numbers of PBMCs and T cells (CD4 and CD8) significantly compared to placebo. In predefined subgroups such as pts with low monocytes at baseline, luminal B subtype or age &amp;lt;65 years, clinically meaningful improvement in PFS was observed. TEAE rates leading to death (or discontinuation) in the two groups were similar, at 1.8 % (5.3 %) and 2.7 % (6.3 %) for the efti and placebo groups, respectively. Three pts (1.3 %) were withdrawn from treatment due to grade 3-4 immediate hypersensitivity reactions to efti, while 4 pts (1 in efti group vs. 3 in placebo group) were withdrawn from the study due to grade 2-3 hypersensitivity to paclitaxel. The most frequent (≥10%) TEAEs ≥ grade 3 were gamma-glutamyl transferase increase (19.3% vs 29.5%), aspartate aminotransferase increase (8.8% vs 10.7%) and neutropenia (15.8% vs 14.3%) reported in the efti and placebo group, respectively. Injection site reaction (34.2% vs 3.6%) and injection site erythema (30.7% vs 1.8%) were more frequent in efti versus placebo arms. Conclusion: Efti did not prolong overall median PFS in women with HR+ MBC receiving first line chemotherapy. Tested in a randomized setting against placebo in pts receiving paclitaxel, efti is well tolerated and did not add clinically significant toxicity while inducing a sustained, significant increase in CD8 T cells in blood and clinical benefits in some predefined subgroups. Relevant subgroups and overall survival will be investigated. BICRInvestigatorEfti+paclitaxel(N= 114)Placebo+paclitaxel(N= 112)Efti+paclitaxel(N= 114)Placebo+paclitaxel(N= 112)Median PFS, months (95% CI)7.29 (6.64-7.46)7.29 (5.52-7.46)7.16 (5.65-7.39)6.70 (5.52-7.33)HR (95% CI)0.93 (0.67-1.30)0.92 (0.69-1.23)P value0.3410.305Mean PFS [SE], months7.12 [0.37]6.64 [0.38]6.81 [0.33]6.30 [0.31] Citation Format: Hans Wildiers, Anne Armstrong, Eveline Cuypere, Florence Dalenc, Luc Dirix, Steve Chan, Frederik Marme, Carolina Pia Schröder, Jens Huober, Jill Wagemans, Peter Vuylsteke, Jean-Philippe Jacquin, Etienne Brain, Sherko Kümmel, Zsuzsanna Pápai, Luca Perjesi, Christian Mueller, Chrystelle Brignone, Frederic Triebel. Primary efficacy results from AIPAC: A double-blinded, placebo controlled, randomized multinational phase IIb trial comparing weekly paclitaxel plus eftilagimod alpha (soluble LAG-3 protein) vs. weekly paclitaxel plus placebo in HR-positive metastatic breast cancer patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD14-08.