Neeraj Agarwal

BACKGROUND: Multiple loss-of-function alterations in genes that are involved in DNA repair, including homologous recombination repair, are associated with response to poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition in patients with prostate and other cancers. METHODS: ; cohort B (142 patients) had alterations in any of 12 other prespecified genes, prospectively and centrally determined from tumor tissue. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) to receive olaparib or the physician's choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone (control). The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival in cohort A according to blinded independent central review. RESULTS: In cohort A, imaging-based progression-free survival was significantly longer in the olaparib group than in the control group (median, 7.4 months vs. 3.6 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.47; P<0.001); a significant benefit was also observed with respect to the confirmed objective response rate and the time to pain progression. The median overall survival in cohort A was 18.5 months in the olaparib group and 15.1 months in the control group; 81% of the patients in the control group who had progression crossed over to receive olaparib. A significant benefit for olaparib was also seen for imaging-based progression-free survival in the overall population (cohorts A and B). Anemia and nausea were the main toxic effects in patients who received olaparib. CONCLUSIONS: In men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had disease progression while receiving enzalutamide or abiraterone and who had alterations in genes with a role in homologous recombination repair, olaparib was associated with longer progression-free survival and better measures of response and patient-reported end points than either enzalutamide or abiraterone. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme; PROfound ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02987543.).

BACKGROUND: Apalutamide is an inhibitor of the ligand-binding domain of the androgen receptor. Whether the addition of apalutamide to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) would prolong radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival as compared with placebo plus ADT among patients with metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer has not been determined. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer to receive apalutamide (240 mg per day) or placebo, added to ADT. Previous treatment for localized disease and previous docetaxel therapy were allowed. The primary end points were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 525 patients were assigned to receive apalutamide plus ADT and 527 to receive placebo plus ADT. The median age was 68 years. A total of 16.4% of the patients had undergone prostatectomy or received radiotherapy for localized disease, and 10.7% had received previous docetaxel therapy; 62.7% had high-volume disease, and 37.3% had low-volume disease. At the first interim analysis, with a median of 22.7 months of follow-up, the percentage of patients with radiographic progression-free survival at 24 months was 68.2% in the apalutamide group and 47.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for radiographic progression or death, 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.60; P<0.001). Overall survival at 24 months was also greater with apalutamide than with placebo (82.4% in the apalutamide group vs. 73.5% in the placebo group; hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.89; P = 0.005). The frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 42.2% in the apalutamide group and 40.8% in the placebo group; rash was more common in the apalutamide group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer, overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival were significantly longer with the addition of apalutamide to ADT than with placebo plus ADT, and the side-effect profile did not differ substantially between the two groups. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; TITAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02489318.).

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that olaparib led to significantly longer imaging-based progression-free survival than the physician's choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had qualifying alterations in homologous recombination repair genes and whose disease had progressed during previous treatment with a next-generation hormonal agent. The results of the final analysis of overall survival have not yet been reported. METHODS: , and cohort B included 142 patients with at least one alteration in any of the other 12 prespecified genes. Crossover to olaparib was allowed after imaging-based disease progression for patients who met certain criteria. Overall survival in cohort A, a key secondary end point, was analyzed with the use of an alpha-controlled, stratified log-rank test at a data maturity of approximately 60%. The primary and other key secondary end points were reported previously. RESULTS: The median duration of overall survival in cohort A was 19.1 months with olaparib and 14.7 months with control therapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.97; P = 0.02). In cohort B, the median duration of overall survival was 14.1 months with olaparib and 11.5 months with control therapy. In the overall population (cohorts A and B), the corresponding durations were 17.3 months and 14.0 months. Overall, 86 of 131 patients (66%) in the control group crossed over to receive olaparib (56 of 83 patients [67%] in cohort A). A sensitivity analysis that adjusted for crossover to olaparib showed hazard ratios for death of 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19 to 0.91) in cohort A, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.11 to 5.98) in cohort B, and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.29 to 1.06) in the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: and whose disease had progressed during previous treatment with a next-generation hormonal agent, those who were initially assigned to receive olaparib had a significantly longer duration of overall survival than those who were assigned to receive enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone as the control therapy, despite substantial crossover from control therapy to olaparib. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp and Dohme; PROfound ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02987543.).

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC typically undergo surgery and/or receive systemic therapy. Tumor histology and risk stratification of patients is important in therapy selection. The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer stratify treatment recommendations by histology; recommendations for first-line treatment of ccRCC are also stratified by risk group. To further guide management of advanced RCC, the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel has categorized all systemic kidney cancer therapy regimens as "Preferred," "Other Recommended Regimens," or "Useful in Certain Circumstances." This categorization provides guidance on treatment selection by considering the efficacy, safety, evidence, and other factors that play a role in treatment selection. These factors include pre-existing comorbidities, nature of the disease, and in some cases consideration of access to agents. This article summarizes surgical and systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC.