Apalutamide plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone versus placebo plus abiraterone and prednisone in metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (ACIS): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multinational, phase 3 study.
The majority of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) will have disease progression of a uniformly fatal disease. mCRPC is driven by both activated androgen receptors and elevated intratumoural androgens; however, the current standard of care is therapy that targets a single androgen signalling mechanism. We aimed to investigate the combination treatment using apalutamide plus abiraterone acetate, each of which suppresses the androgen signalling axis in a different way, versus standard care in mCRPC.
ACIS was a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 study done at 167 hospitals in 17 countries in the USA, Canada, Mexico, Europe, the Asia-Pacific region, Africa, and South America. We included chemotherapy-naive men (aged ≥18 years) with mCRPC who had not been previously treated with androgen biosynthesis signalling inhibitors and were receiving ongoing androgen deprivation therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and a Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form question 3 (ie, worst pain in the past 24 h) score of 3 or lower. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a centralised interactive web response system with a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size 4) to oral apalutamide 240 mg once daily plus oral abiraterone acetate 1000 mg once daily and oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily (apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone group) or placebo plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (abiraterone-prednisone group), in 28-day treatment cycles. Randomisation was stratified by presence or absence of visceral metastases, ECOG performance status, and geographical region. Patients, the investigators, study team, and the sponsor were masked to group assignments. An independent data-monitoring committee continually monitored data to ensure ongoing patient safety, and reviewed efficacy data. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was reported for all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is completed and no longer recruiting and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02257736.
982 men were enrolled and randomly assigned from Dec 10, 2014 to Aug 30, 2016 (492 to apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone; 490 to abiraterone-prednisone). At the primary analysis (median follow-up 25·7 months [IQR 23·0-28·9]), median radiographic progression-free survival was 22·6 months (95% CI 19·4-27·4) in the apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone group versus 16·6 months (13·9-19·3) in the abiraterone-prednisone group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·69, 95% CI 0·58-0·83; p<0·0001). At the updated analysis (final analysis for overall survival; median follow-up 54·8 months [IQR 51·5-58·4]), median radiographic progression-free survival was 24·0 months (95% CI 19·7-27·5) versus 16·6 months (13·9-19·3; HR 0·70, 95% CI 0·60-0·83; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse event was hypertension (82 [17%] of 490 patients receiving apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone and 49 [10%] of 489 receiving abiraterone-prednisone). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 195 (40%) patients receiving apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone and 181 (37%) patients receiving abiraterone-prednisone. Drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events with fatal outcomes occurred in three (1%) patients in the apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone group (2 pulmonary embolism, 1 cardiac failure) and five (1%) patients in the abiraterone-prednisone group (1 cardiac failure and 1 cardiac arrest, 1 mesenteric arterial occlusion, 1 seizure, and 1 sudden death).
Despite the use of an active and established therapy as the comparator, apalutamide plus abiraterone-prednisone improved radiographic progression-free survival. Additional studies to identify subgroups of patients who might benefit the most from combination therapy are needed to further refine the treatment of mCRPC.
Janssen Research & Development.
Saad F
，Efstathiou E
，Attard G
，Flaig TW
，Franke F
，Goodman OB Jr
，Oudard S
，Steuber T
，Suzuki H
，Wu D
，Yeruva K
，De Porre P
，Brookman-May S
，Li S
，Li J
，Thomas S
，Bevans KB
，Mundle SD
，McCarthy SA
，Rathkopf DE
，ACIS Investigators
... -
《-》
Feasibility of Indirect Treatment Comparisons Between Niraparib Plus Abiraterone Acetate and Other First-Line Poly ADP-Ribose Polymerase Inhibitor Treatment Regimens for Patients with BRCA1/2 Mutation-Positive Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Canc
Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) are a novel option to treat patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Niraparib plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) is indicated for BRCA1/2 mutation-positive mCRPC. Niraparib plus AAP demonstrated safety and efficacy in the phase 3 MAGNITUDE trial (NCT03748641). In the absence of head-to-head studies comparing PARPi regimens, the feasibility of conducting indirect treatment comparisons (ITC) to inform decisions for patients with first-line BRCA1/2 mutation-positive mCRPC has been explored.
A systematic literature review was conducted to identify evidence from randomized controlled trials on relevant comparators to inform the feasibility of conducting ITCs via network meta-analysis (NMA) or population-adjusted indirect comparisons (PAIC). Feasibility was assessed based on network connectivity, data availability in the BRCA1/2 mutation-positive population, and degree of within- and between-study heterogeneity or bias.
NMAs between niraparib plus AAP and other PARPi regimens (olaparib monotherapy, olaparib plus AAP, and talazoparib plus enzalutamide) were inappropriate due to the disconnected network, differences in trial populations related to effect modifiers, or imbalances within BRCA1/2 mutation-positive subgroups. The latter issue, coupled with the lack of a common comparator (except for olaparib plus AAP), also rendered anchored PAICs infeasible. Unanchored PAICs were either inappropriate due to lack of population overlap (vs. olaparib monotherapy) or were restricted by unmeasured confounders and small sample size (vs. olaparib plus AAP). PAIC versus talazoparib plus enzalutamide was not possible due to lack of published arm-level baseline characteristics and sufficient efficacy outcome data in the relevant population.
The current randomized controlled trial evidence network does not permit robust comparisons between niraparib plus AAP and other PARPi regimens for patients with 1L BRCA-positive mCRPC. Decision-makers should scrutinize any ITC results in light of their limitations. Real-world evidence combined with clinical experience should inform treatment recommendations in this indication.
De Santis M
，Breijo SM
，Robinson P
，Capone C
，Pascoe K
，Van Sanden S
，Hashim M
，Trevisan M
，Daly C
，Reitsma F
，van Beekhuizen S
，Ruan H
，Heeg B
，Verzoni E
... -
《-》
Adjustment for imbalances in baseline characteristics in the MAGNITUDE phase 3 study confirms the clinical benefit of niraparib in combination with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.
MAGNITUDE (NCT03748641) demonstrated favourable outcomes with niraparib plus abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (+AAP) versus placebo+AAP in patients with BRCA1/2-altered metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Imbalances in prognostic variables were reported between arms, which impacts estimation of both the clinical benefit and cost‑effectiveness of niraparib+AAP for healthcare systems. A pre-specified multivariable analysis (MVA) demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) with niraparib+AAP. Here, we used an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) model to adjust for covariate imbalances and assess time-to-event outcomes.
IPTW analysis of time-to-event outcomes was conducted using data from patients with BRCA1/2-altered mCRPC (N = 225) in MAGNITUDE. Patients received niraparib+AAP or placebo+AAP. OS, radiographic progression-free survival, time to symptomatic progression, time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy and time to prostate-specific antigen progression were assessed. Weighted Kaplan-Meier curves were generated for each endpoint, and adjusted hazard ratios (HR) were obtained from a weighted Cox model.
Improvements in survival outcomes were estimated for niraparib+AAP versus placebo+AAP: unadjusted median OS was 30.4 months versus 28.6 months, respectively (HR: 0.79; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.55, 1.12; p = 0.183). Following IPTW, median OS increased to 34.1 months with niraparib+AAP versus a decrease to 27.4 with placebo (HR: 0.65; 95 % CI: 0.46, 0.93; p = 0.017). Similar improvements were observed for other time-to-event endpoints.
IPTW adjustment provided a more precise estimate of the clinical benefit of niraparib+AAP versus placebo+AAP in patients with BRCA1/2-altered mCRPC. Results were consistent with the pre-specified MVA, and further demonstrated the value of adjusting for baseline imbalances, particularly in smaller studies.
NCT03748641 (MAGNITUDE).
Roubaud G
，Attard G
，Boegemann M
，Olmos D
，Trevisan M
，Antoni L
，Pascoe K
，Capone C
，Van Sanden S
，Hashim M
，Palmer S
，Chi K
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
