Rucaparib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): TRITON3 interim overall survival and efficacy of rucaparib vs docetaxel or second-generation androgen pathway inhibitor therapy.

Authors

Alan Bryce

Alan Haruo Bryce

Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ

Alan Haruo Bryce , Josep M. Piulats , M. Neil Reaume , Peter James Ostler , Raymond S. McDermott , Joel Roger Gingerich , Elias Pintus , Srikala S. Sridhar , Wassim Abida , Gedske Daugaard , Axel Heidenreich , Laurence E. M. Krieger , Brieuc Sautois , Andrea Loehr , Darrin Despain , Jowell Go , Simon Paul Watkins , Simon Chowdhury , Charles J. Ryan , Karim Fizazi

Organizations

Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge-Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Oncología, Institut Català d'Oncologia, Barcelona, Spain, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, United Kingdom, St. Vincent’s University Hospital and Cancer Trials Ireland, Dublin, Ireland, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, Guy’s Hospital, London, United Kingdom, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark, Universitätsklinikum Köln, Cologne, Germany, Genesis Care, North Shore, Sydney, NSW, Australia, University Hospital of Liège, CHU Sart-Tilman, Liège, Belgium, Clovis Oncology, Boulder, CO, Clovis Oncology UK, Ltd, Cambridge, United Kingdom, Guy's Hospital and Sarah Cannon Research Institute, London, United Kingdom, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, Gustave Roussy Institute, Paris-Saclay University, Villejuif, France

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company
Clovis Oncology, Inc

Background: TRITON3 (NCT02975934) is a randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 study of rucaparib vs physician’s choice (docetaxel [DTX], abiraterone [ABI] or enzalutamide [ENZ]) in patients (pts) with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC with BRCA1/2 (BRCA) or ATM alterations. It was previously reported that rucaparib significantly improved the primary endpoint of radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) vs physician’s choice in pts with BRCA or ATM alterations. We report here the interim overall survival (OS) and also report on efficacy of rucaparib compared individually with either DTX or ABI/ENZ. Methods: Pts had disease progression after 1 prior second-generation androgen pathway inhibitor therapy in any setting and were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg BID or physician’s choice of DTX, ABI or ENZ. An ordered step-down multiple comparisons procedure was used to control the overall error rate. OS was a key secondary endpoint with rPFS as the primary endpoint tested first in the BRCA subgroup, then the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Subgroup analyses based on physician’s choice were exploratory. Results: As of August 25, 2022, 302 pts with BRCA and 103 pts with ATM alterations were randomized. OS maturity was 54% in the BRCA subgroup and 59% in the ITT population. rPFS and OS are shown. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) in the rucaparib, DTX and ABI/ENZ groups was asthenia/fatigue (61.1%, 67.6% and 57.6%, respectively). The most frequent grade ≥3 TEAE in the rucaparib, DTX and ABI/ENZ groups was anemia (23.7%), neutropenia (14.1%), and hypertension (10.2%), respectively. Conclusions: Rucaparib significantly improved rPFS vs either DTX or ABI/ENZ; safety was consistent with prior reports. Interim OS results suggest a trend towards improvement for rucaparib vs DTX or ABI/ENZ in pts with mCRPC and BRCA alterations. Clinical trial information: NCT02975934.

BRCA subgroupITT population
Rucaparib
(n=201)
Physician’s choice
(n=101)
DTX
(n=60)
ABI/ENZ
(n=41)
Rucaparib
(n=270)
Physician’s choice
(n=135)
DTX
(n=75)
ABI/ENZ
(n=60)
Median rPFS, mos (95% CI);
P valuea
vs rucaparib
11.2
(9.2–13.8)
6.4
(5.4–8.3); <0.0001
8.3
(6.1–9.9); 0.0009
4.5
(3.3–5.8); <0.0001
10.2
(8.3–11.2)
6.4
(5.6–8.2); 0.0003
8.3
(6.1–10.1); 0.0066
4.5
(3.7–5.8); <0.0001
HR (95% CI)
vs rucaparib
0.50
(0.36–0.69)
0.53
(0.37–0.77)
0.38
(0.25–0.58)
0.61
(0.47–0.80)
0.64
(0.46–0.88)
0.47
(0.34–0.66)
Median OS, mos (95% CI); P valuea
vs rucaparib
24.3
(19.9–25.7)
20.8
(16.3–23.1); 0.2080
18.9
(15.0–23.1); 0.1640
22.1
(15.9–28.3); 0.4023
23.6
(19.7–25.0)
20.9
(17.5–24.4); 0.6702
19.1
(15.3–23.1); 0.2013
22.1
(17.2–29.0); 0.9045
HR (95% CI)
vs rucaparib
0.81
(0.58–1.12)
0.75
(0.51–1.11)
0.81
(0.52–1.27)
0.94
(0.72–1.23)
0.80
(0.58–1.11)
1.01
(0.70–1.46)

aLog rank test. HR, hazard ratio.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2023 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium

Session Type

Oral Abstract Session

Session Title

Oral Abstract Session A: Prostate Cancer

Track

Prostate Cancer - Advanced,Prostate Cancer - Localized

Sub Track

Therapeutics

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT02975934

Citation

J Clin Oncol 41, 2023 (suppl 6; abstr 18)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2023.41.6_suppl.18

Abstract #

18

Abstract Disclosures