Background Abiraterone + prednisone (abiraterone) and enzalutamide are both indicated for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We aimed to determine the best sequence in which to utilize both agents as well as their second-line efficacy. Methods In this multicentre, randomized, open-label phase II crossover trial conducted across 6 cancer centres in British Columbia, Canada, patients ≥ 18 years with newly-diagnosed mCRPC without neuroendocrine differentiation and ECOG performance status ≤ 2 were randomized 1:1 using simple randomization to receive abiraterone 1000 mg orally daily plus prednisone 5 mg orally twice daily followed by enzalutamide 160 mg orally daily (arm A), or the opposite sequence (arm B). Primary endpoints were time to second PSA progression and PSA response rate (≥ 30% decline) on second-line therapy, analyzed by intention-to-treat in randomized patients and patients that crossed over, respectively. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02125357. The trial is completed and final analyses are reported here. Findings 202 patients were randomized (101 to each arm) between October 21, 2014 and December 13, 2016. At the time of data cutoff 73 and 75 patients had crossed over in arm A and B, respectively. Time to second PSA progression was longer in arm A (median 19•3 vs 15•2 months, HR = 0•66, 95% CI 0•45-0•97, p = 0•036), at a median followup of 22•8 months (IQR 10•3-33•4). Second-line PSA response rates were 36% for enzalutamide and 4% for abiraterone (p < 0•0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (27 [27%] of 101 patients in arm A vs 18 [18%] of 101 in arm B) and fatigue (10 [10%] vs 4 [4%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 15 (15%) of 101 patients in arm A and 20 (20%) of 101 in arm B. There were no treatment related deaths.

What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Targeted agents have greatly changed the therapeutic landscape in RCC. A substantial number of trials have been published in recent years. The current review summarises and analyses the available data to date. OBJECTIVE To estimate the effects of drugs with molecular targets on patients with advanced renal cell cancer (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Collaboration Library were systematically searched on‐line through to June 2011 to identify eligible randomised trials. We also searched abstract reports from major oncology and urology meetings. We included randomised trials that tested a targeted agent and reported at least one outcome by allocation on an intent‐to‐treat basis. Completeness of ascertainment and risk of bias were assessed. Our primary outcome was progression‐free survival (PFS). RESULTS In all, 28 studies met our inclusion criteria and 10 were placebo‐controlled. Two studies were too small to assess, and five early studies used nonspecific anti‐angiogenic agents with poor activity. In all, 15 studies, in 5587 patients, tested anti‐vascular epithelial growth factor (VEGF) agents: bevacizumab (BEV), sorafenib, sunitinib, pazopanib, tivozanib, or axitinib. Three studies, in 1147 patients, tested the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, temsirolimus or everolimus. Two studies included epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors, and one tested the combination of temsirolimus plus BEV. In treatment‐naive patients with mostly good–moderate prognostic risk, in separate trials oral sunitinib (one trial) and intravenous BEV plus subcutaneousinterferon‐α (two trials) improved PFS compared with the previous standard of care interferon‐α within randomised phase III trials. Sorafenib did not improve PFS over interferon‐α in the first‐line setting and the addition of cytokines did not improve sorafenib efficacy. In poor‐risk patients, the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus improved PFS and overall survival (OS). The studies of other VEGF inhibitors have used placebo controls no longer appropriate in this setting, although pazopanib is an approved option. Several trials examined agents in the second‐line setting. After cytokine therapy, sorafenib (one study) and pazopanib (one study) prolonged PFS over placebo. A preliminary report of the investigational VEGF receptorinhibitor axitinib gave superior PFS to sorafenib after either prior cytokine or prior sunitinib treatment. After cancer progression ≤6 months of sunitinib and/or sorafenib therapy, everolimusprolonged PFS. OS was marginally improved in several studies. A more substantial effect on OS may have been diluted by crossover from control therapy to the investigational arm and/or by other anti‐angiogenic agents after trial closure. Patient‐reported outcomes were considered unreliable in trials without ‘blinding’. A clear cell RCC (ccRCC) component was required for most trials, and information for non‐ccRCCs is consequently limited CONCLUSIONS Agents targ...

Purpose: Mapatumumab (TRM-1, HGS-ETR1) is a fully human agonistic monoclonal antibody that targets and activates tumor necrosis factor^related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) receptor 1 (death receptor 4). Mapatumumab functions like the natural receptor ligand, TRAIL, a tumor necrosis factor superfamily member that is an important mediator of apoptosis in cancer cell lines. Promising preclinical activity with mapatumumab has been observed. Experimental Design: This phase I, open-label, dose-escalation study assessed the tolerability and toxicity profile of z2 doses of mapatumumab administered i.v. in patients with advanced solid tumors. Patients received mapatumumab every 28 days until progression or dose-limiting toxicity.Results: There were escalation levels from 0.01 to 20.0 mg/kg. Forty-one patients, 27 female, with a median age of 55 years (range, 23-81) were entered into the study and received 143 courses. The most common diagnoses were colorectal (10 patients) and ovarian cancer (9 patients). Patients received a median of two cycles (range, 1-33). Mapatumumab was well tolerated. Adverse events considered at least possibly related to mapatumumab that occurred most frequently included fatigue (36.2%), hypotension (34.1%), nausea (29.3%), and pyrexia (12.2%). The majority of adverse events were grade 1or 2. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. Linear pharmacokinetics was observed for doses up to 0.3 mg/kg and for the 20 mg/kg level, whereas exposure at 3 and 10 mg/kg increased less than proportionally. No objective responses were observed, but 12 patients had stable disease for 1.9 to 29.4 months. Conclusions: Mapatumumab is well tolerated and further evaluation of this TRAIL-R1 targeting agent is warranted.

Background: Prostate cancer has a propensity to metastasize to the bone. Currently, there are no curative treatments for this stage of the disease. Sensitive biomarkers that can be monitored in the blood to indicate the presence or development of bone metastases and/or response to therapies are lacking. Surface-enhanced laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (SELDI-TOF MS) is an affinity-based approach that allows sensitive and high-throughput protein profiling and screening of biological samples. Methods: We used SELDI-TOF MS for protein profiling of sera from prostate cancer patients (n ‫؍‬ 38) with and without bone metastases in our effort to identify individual or multiple serum markers that may be of added benefit to those in current use. Serum was applied to ProteinChip ® surfaces (H4 and IMAC) to quickly screen samples and detect peaks predominating in the samples obtained from patients with bone metastases. Unique proteins in the bone metastasis cohort observed by SELDI-TOF MS were identified by two-dimensional gel electrophoresis, in-gel trypsin digestion, and tandem MS. The identities of the proteins were confirmed by ELISA and immunodepletion assays. Results: The cluster of unique proteins in the sera of patients with bone metastases was identified as isoforms of serum amyloid A. Machine-learning algorithms were also used to identify patients with bone metastases with a sensitivity and specificity of 89.5%.

No abstract