Genitourinary tumours, prostate

576MO - Health-related quality of life (HRQoL), pain and safety outcomes in the phase III VISION study of 177Lu-PSMA-617 in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Karim Fizazi, et al. 


177Lu-PSMA-617 plus SOC was generally well tolerated and delayed time to HRQoL and pain worsening versus SOC alone in patients with advanced mCRPC.


LBA26 - Darolutamide maintenance in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) previously treated with novel hormonal agents (NHA) and non-progressive disease after subsequent treatment with a taxane: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled phase II trial (SAKK 08/16)

Richard Cathomas, et al.


This proof of concept study met its primary endpoint and shows that switch maintenance with Daro after prior taxane and at least one NHA results in a statistically significant but clinically modest prolongation of rPFS and EFS with good tolerability. Median OS with Daro maintenance is promising and numerically superior to the control arm.


578MO - Phase Ib/II study of sabizabulin (VERU-111), an androgen receptor transport disruptor, in men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who failed an androgen receptor targeting agent (ARTA)

Mark C. Markowski, et al.


In the phase Ib/II clinical trial, oral 63mg daily dosing has a favorable safety profile and chronic dosing is feasible. Efficacy was observed with PSA declines and long term durable responses. The phase III VERACITY study evaluating sabizabulin in chemotherapy naïve men with mCRPC who have failed an AR targeting agent is ongoing. Sabazibulin appears to be in a similar class of other FDA approved targeted cytostatic drugs that have shown to significantly prolong progression and survival.


579MO - CheckMate 9KD cohort A2 final analysis: Nivolumab (NIVO) + rucaparib for chemotherapy (CT)-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)

Daniel P. Petrylak, et al. 


NIVO + rucaparib is active in pts with HRD+ CT-naïve mCRPC. Longer follow-up is needed to better characterize clinical benefits of adding NIVO to rucaparib for this population. Clinical activity in pts with HRD– tumors was limited. The safety profile of NIVO + rucaparib was as expected based on the individual components, with no new safety signals. Ongoing biomarker analyses will assess the impact of specific HRD mutations on treatment efficacy.