SYSTEMIC THERAPY OF PROSTATE CANCER: Androgen Receptor and Immune System Targeting Walter Stadler, MD, FACP University of Chicago Androgen Ablation Androgen Ablation & Prostate Ca • The androgen receptor is the most important therapeutic target in PCa – Targeting AR is effective in >90% – The AR is critical even in the “hormone refractory” state – Targeting AR is not curative • Androgen ablation has toxicity – Bone, muscle, sex – Toxicity minimal in comparison to other cancer therapies Natural History of Rising PSA Makarov, et al; J Urol:179:156, 2008 Prostate Ca System Therapy Philosophy • Natural history can be very long – Chronic disease management – Competing mortality/morbidity – Therapy toxicity can have significant functional signficance • Natural history is highly variable – Some patients have rapid disease progression – Disease mortality and morbidity not insignificant • Care is often fragmented – Urologists – Medical oncologists – Primary care Endocrine Axis in Prostate Cancer GnRH agonist Adrenal Blockade Antiandrogens Orchiectomy Tumor Androgens Androgen Ablation: Early vs Late • VA studies early vs delayed orchiectomy (1960’s) – Advanced metastatic cancer – No survival differences • MRC trial of delayed vs immediate hormonal therapy – 934 pts, asymptomatic clinical mets – Immediate LHRH/orchiectomy vs at symptoms – Decreased morbidity, improved survival with immediate • DOD prostate cancer database – Early hormonal therapy delayed clinical metastases in patients with Gleason >7 and PSA doubling < 12 mo • Swiss immediate vs delayed orchiectomy – 197 pts no primary tumor therapy, most without mets – Immediate delayed time to pain, urinary obstruction, or mets EORTC 30891: Immediate vs Delayed • T0-4, N0-2, no mets • Refused or ineligible for definitive local rxn • Immediate androgen ablation vs. at symptomatic progression • 1002 pts randomized • Reasons for starting deferred (n=245) – Symptoms objective findings: 56% – Asymptomatic objective findings: 10% – Asymptomatic marker rise: 26% EORTC 30891: Survival HR: 1.25 (1.05 – 1.48) EORTC 30891: Causes of Mortality Prostate Ca Mortality Non-Prostate Ca Mortality But in meta-analysis of RT ADT pts on ADT had higher incidence of fatal MI (D’Amico, et al, JCO 25:2420, 2007) Adjuvant Data Supports “Early” ADT • Prostatectomy LN positive immediate vs delayed ADT – Improved survival (Messing, et al, Lancet Oncol, 2006) • Clinical T3 (or high risk) radiotherapy – Survival advantage with long term adjuvant (EORTC, RTOG 85-31) (Bolla, et al, Lancet, 2002; Pilepich, et al Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phy, 2005) – Survival advantage with long vs short term ADT (EORTC) (Bolla, et al NEJM, 2009) – Disease-free and metastases-free survival advantage with combined plus long term versus combined plus short term (RTOG 92-02) (Horwitz, et al, J Clin Oncol, 2008) Morbidity of Androgen Ablation • • • • • • • • Hot flashes Loss of libido and impotence Gynecomastia Weight gain and loss of muscle mass Exacerbation of hypertension and diabetes Fatigue Osteoporosis and fractures Cognitive effects (?) Unadjusted Fracture-free Survival among Patients with Prostate Cancer Shahinian, V. et al. N Engl J Med 2005;352:154-164 Timing of Bisphosphonates • Risk of osteonecrosis and renal failure – Increases with duration of exposure – Risk benefit of use for hormone sensitive disease unclear • CALGB 90202 – Immediate versus delayed zoledronate for hormone sensitive bone scan positive pts. Fatigue, Muscle Loss and Elderly Prostate Cancer Patients Bylow, et al, Cancer, 2007 Diabetes and CV Risk ADT • Case control, – Ontario (Alibhai, JCO, 2009) • Median 6.5 yr follow up • DM HR (time to event): 1.16 (1.12 – 1.21) • MI HR: 0.91 (0.84 – 1.00) – US claims based • Incident DM HR: 1.36 (Lage, et al; Urology, 2007) • Incident DM HR: 1.44 (p<0.001), MI HR: 1.11 (p=0.03) • Adjuvant ADT (RTOG 85-31) (Efstatstiou, JCO, 2009) – Median 8.1 yr follow up – No increased risk MI/sudden death Intermittent ADT As a New Drug Screen • Drug x vs. placebo during “off” period • Need to monitor testosterone and DHT recovery • Drugs in study – Thalidomide – no major effect (Figg, ASCO 2008) – Pazopanib (VEGFR/PDGFR TKI) • Closed, too toxic – Dutasteride (5- reductase inhibitor) • UC/NU SPORE clinical trial and others Castrate Resistant Disease • Not really “hormone refractory” • AR still a relevant target • Other potential targets – Immune system – DNA and DNA repair • Mechanisms of castrate resistance – – – – – AR amplification AR mutation AR modification Ligand availability AR interactions What we know… • Prostate cancer requires AR signaling for development and sustenance. • AR activation is required throughout the natural history of prostate cancer. • AR activation in CRPC occurs via many mechanisms. • Successful blockade of the receptor pathways will confer greater therapeutic control on metastatic prostate cancer. Testosterone • Actually a growth inhibitory and differentiating agent in normal prostate • Cells adapted to androgen depleted environment – AR upregulation – Growth inhibited by androgen – Tumor shrinkage in xenograft models • Randomized phase II trial initiated Abiraterone Phase II Attard JCO 2009 Pre-Chemo Ryan ASCO 2009 Danila ASCO 2009 Post-Chemo Reid ASCO 2009 COU-AA-301 Study Design Patients • 1195 patients with progressive mCRPC • Failed 1 or 2 chemotherapy regimens, one of which contained docetaxel R A N D O M I Z E D 2:1 • • Abiraterone 1000 mg daily Prednisone 5 mg BID n=797 Efficacy endpoints (ITT) Primary end point • OS (25% improvement; HR 0.8) Secondary endpoints (ITT) Placebo daily Prednisone 5 mg BID n=398 • TTPP • PFS • PSA response Phase III, multinational, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (147 sites in 13 countries; USA, Europe, Australia, Canada) Stratification according to – – – – ECOG performance status (0-1 vs 2) Worst pain over previous 24 hours (BPI short form; 0-3 [absent] vs 4-10 [present]) Prior chemotherapy (1 vs 2) Type of progression (PSA only vs radiographic progression with or without PSA progression) Abbreviations: BPI=Brief Pain Inventory; TTPP=time to PSA progression; ITT=intent to treat; mCRPC=metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Source: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00638690. COU-AA-301 Patient Disposition Abiraterone (n=797) Placebo (n=398) 791 394 8 (1-21) 4 (1-21) Treatment ongoing, n (%) 222 (28.1) 54 (13.7) Treatment discontinued, n (%) 569 (71.9) 340 (86.3) Subjects treated Median number of cycles of therapy (range) COU-AA-301 Baseline Demographics Abiraterone (n=797) 69.0 (42-95) Placebo (n=398) 69.0 (39-90) Total (n=1195) 69.0 (39-95) White 93.3 92.7 93.1 Black 3.5 3.8 3.6 Asian 1.4 2.3 1.7 ECOG PS 2, % 10.7 11.1 10.8 Significant pain present, % 44.3 44.0 44.2 2 Prior chemotherapies, % 28.2 28.4 28.3 Median age, years (range) Race, % COU-AA-301 Baseline Disease Characteristics Abiraterone (n=797) Placebo (n=398) Bone 89.2 90.4 Node 45.4 41.5 Liver 11.3 7.6 Lung 13.0 11.4 Primary site of disease, % COU-AA-301: Abiraterone Acetate Improves OS in mCRPC 100 HR=0.646 (0.54-0.77) P <0.0001 Abiraterone: 14.8 months (95% CI: 14.1, 15.4) Overall Survival, % 80 60 40 Placebo: 10.9 months (95% CI: 10.2, 12.0) 20 1 Prior Chemo OS: 15.4 months abiraterone vs 11.5 months placebo 0 0 100 200 300 500 400 Days from Randomization 600 Abiraterone 797 728 631 475 204 25 0 Placebo 398 352 296 180 69 8 1 700 Survival Benefit Consistently Observed Across Patient Subgroups Variable Subgroup N HR 95% CI All subjects All 1195 0.66 0.56-0.79 Baseline ECOG 0-1 1068 0.64 0.53-0.78 2 127 0.81 0.53-1.24 <4 659 0.64 0.50-0.82 4 536 0.68 0.53-0.85 1 833 0.63 0.51-0.78 2 362 0.74 0.55-0.99 PSA only 363 0.59 0.42-0.82 Radiographic 832 0.69 0.56-0.84 Baseline PSA above median YES 591 0.65 0.52-0.81 Visceral disease at entry YES 709 0.60 0.48-0.74 Baseline LDH above median YES 581 0.71 0.58-0.88 Baseline ALK-P above median YES 587 0.60 0.48-0.74 North America 652 0.64 0.51-0.80 Other 543 0.69 0.54-0.90 Baseline BPI No. of prior chemo regimens Type of progression Region 0.5 0.75 Abbreviations: HR=hazard ratio; ALK-P=alkaline phosphatase. Favors Abiraterone 1 1.5 Favors Placebo COU-AA-301: Secondary End Points Achieved Statistical Significance Abiraterone (n=797) Placebo (n=398) HR (95% CI) P Value TTPP, mo 10.2 6.6 0.58 (0.46, 0.73) <0.0001 rPFS, mo 5.6 3.6 0.67 (0.59, 0.78) <0.0001 38.0 10.1 PSA response rate (>50% reduction), % Total <0.0001 COU-AA-301: Summary of AEs Abiraterone (n=791) Placebo (n=394) All Grades Grades 3/4 All Grades Grades 3/4 All treatment-emergent AEs, % 98.9 54.5 99.0 58.4 Serious AEs, % 37.5 32.1 41.4 35.3 AEs leading to discontinuation, % 18.7 10.5 22.8 13.5 Deaths within 30 days of last dose, % 10.5 13.2 Underlying disease 7.5 9.9 Other specified cause 2.9 3.3 0 0 Drug-related AEs COU-AA-301: AEs of Special Interest Abiraterone (n=791) Placebo (n=394) All Grades Grades 3/4 All Grades Grades 3/4 Fluid retention 30.5 2.3 22.3 1.0 Hypokalemia 17.1 3.8 8.4 0.8 LFT abnormalities 10.4 3.5 8.1 3.0 Hypertension 9.7 1.3 7.9 0.3 Cardiac disorders 13.3 4.1 10.4 2.3 AE, % Novel More Potent AR Antagonists • BMS-641988 (development discontinued) • MDV3100 – Phase I/II trial – Phase III trial initiated (docetaxel refractory) 60 mg (n=22) 150 mg (n=23) 2 pt off study <12 wk 240 mg (n=28) 3 pt off study <12 wk 7 pt off study <12 wk Scher, et al, ASCO 2009 Castrate Resistant Disease Non-Hormonal Treatment Options • Good prognosis (asymptomatic, “low volume”) – Standard docetaxel chemotherapy – ? Immunotherapy (Provenge, sipuleucel-T) – Investigational therapy • Poor prognosis – Standard docetaxel chemotherapy – Standard cabazitaxel – Investigational chemotherapy combinations Sipuleucel-T: Autologous APCs Cultured with Antigen Fusion Protein Recombinant Prostatic Acid Phosphatase (PAP) fusion antigen combines with resting antigen presenting cell (APC) APC takes up the antigen Antigen is processed and presented on surface of the APC Fully activated, the APC is now sipuleucel-T INFUSE PATIENT Inactive T-cell Active T-cell T-cells proliferate and attack cancer cells sipuleucel-T activates T-cells in the body The precise mechanism of sipuleucel-T in prostate cancer has not been established. 44 Sipuleucel-T: Logistics of Therapy Day 1 Leukapheresis Apheresis Center Day 2-3 sipuleucel-T is manufactured Central Processing Day 3-4 Patient is infused Doctor’s Office COMPLETE COURSE OF THERAPY: Weeks 0, 2, 4 45 Randomized Phase 3 IMPACT Trial (IMmunotherapy Prostate AdenoCarcinoma Treatment) Asymptomatic or Minimally Symptomatic Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer (N=512) Sipuleucel-T Q 2 weeks x 3 2:1 Placebo Q 2 weeks x 3 P R O G R E S S I O N Treated at Physician Discretion S U R V I V A L Treated at Physician Discretion and/or Salvage Protocol Primary Endpoint: Overall Survival Secondary Endpoint: Objective Disease Progression 46 IMPACT Overall Survival Final Analysis (349 events) 36.5 mo median f/u HR = 0.759 (95% CI: 0.606, 0.951) p = 0.017 (Cox model) Sipuleucel-T (n = 341) Median Survival: 25.8 mo. 36 mo. survival: 32.1% Placebo (n = 171) Median Survival: 21.7 mo. 36 mo. survival: 23.0% No. at Risk Sipuleucel-T 341 274 142 56 18 3 Placebo 171 123 59 22 5 2 47 Adverse Events More Commonly1 Reported in Sipuleucel-T Group Preferred Term Chills Pyrexia Headache Influenza-Like Illness Myalgia Hypertension Hyperhidrosis Groin Pain Sipuleucel-T N = 338 % 54.1 29.3 16.0 9.8 9.8 7.4 5.3 5.0 Placebo N = 168 % 12.5 13.7 4.8 3.6 4.8 3.0 0.6 2.4 1 Reported by ≥ 5% of sipuleucel-T patients and having a ≥ 2-fold difference from placebo. The majority of the most common AEs were mild or moderate in severity. Safety results obtained from primary analysis did not substantively change with additional data obtained after study closure. 48 Challenges • Why no effect on prostate cancer progression? – Ability to measure disease progression sucks – Something “bad” happened in control group – Something “good” happened in treated group that is unrelated to cancer – Important: no effect on symptoms • Cost – $93,000 not include all apheresis and infusion costs • Logistics – Limited apheresis capacity – Limited processing capacity Other Immune Therapy Approaches • Anti-CTLA4: Ipilimumab – “Turn off the brake” • Potential for severe auto-immune disease • Auto-immune diarrhea • Anti-tumor activity in phase II trials – Castrate/Docetaxel resistant pts: • Phase II External beam RT ± ipilimumab • Based on possible immune enhancing effects of RT – Castrate resistant pre-chemo pts: • Placebo vs Ipilimumab Other Immune Therapy Approaches (2) • A true vaccine: PSA-TRICOM – “Prime” and “boost” vaccinations – Castrate/Docetaxel resistant patients – Quadramet ± PSA-TRICOM How do we Measure “Immune Activation” • Ongoing blood collection study to: – Analytically validate HMBG1 in serum as marker of “danger signal” – Analyze serum antibodies to identify new immune targets – Store serum for evaluating other possible biomarkers CABAZITAXEL PHASE III mCRPC patients who progressed during and after treatment with a docetaxel-based regimen (N=755) Stratification factors ECOG PS (0, 1 vs. 2) • Measurable vs. non-measurable disease cabazitaxel 25 mg/m² q 3 wk + prednisone* for 10 cycles (n=378) mitoxantrone 12 mg/m² q 3 wk + prednisone* for 10 cycles (n=377) *Oral prednisone/prednisolone: 10 mg daily. Primary endpoint: OS Secondary endpoints: Progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, and safety 53 Inclusion: Patients with measurable disease must have progressed by RECIST; otherwise must have had new lesions or PSA progression Summary of Demographics and Patient Characteristics Age Median (years) ≥65 (%) ECOG PS (%) 0, 1 2 PSA (ng/mL) Median Measurability of disease (%) Measurable disease Non-measurable disease Disease Site (%) Bone Lymph node Visceral PSA: Prostate-specific antigen. 54 MP (n=377) CBZP (n=378) 67.0 57.0 68.0 64.9 91.2 8.8 92.6 7.4 127.5 143.9 54.1 45.9 53.2 46.8 87.0 44.8 24.9 80.2 45.0 24.9 Primary Endpoint: Overall Survival Proportion 100 of OS (%) MP 12.7 15.1 0.70 0.59–0.83 <.0001 Median OS (months) Hazard Ratio 95% CI P-value 80 CBZP 60 40 20 0 0 months Number at risk 55 MP CBZP 377 378 6 months 12 months 18 months 24 months 30 months 300 321 188 231 67 90 11 28 1 4 Most Frequent Grade ≥3 TreatmentEmergent AEs* MP (n=371) All grades (%) Grade ≥3 (%) Any adverse event CBZP (n=371) All grades (%) Grade ≥3 (%) 88.4 39.4 95.7 57.4 Febrile neutropenia 1.3 1.3 7.5 7.5 Diarrhea 10.5 0.3 46.6 6.2 Fatigue 27.5 3 36.7 4.9 Asthenia 12.4 2.4 20.5 4.6 Back pain 12.1 3 16.2 3.8 Nausea 22.9 0.3 34.2 1.9 Vomiting 10.2 0 22.6 1.9 Hematuria 3.8 0.5 16.7 1.9 Abdominal pain 3.5 0 11.6 1.9 *Sorted by decreasing frequency of events grade ≥3 in the CBZP arm. 56 Total Deaths During Study Safety Population 57 MP (n=371) CBZP (n=371) Total deaths during study 275 (74.1%) 227 (61.2%) Due to progression 253 (68.2%) 197 (53.1%) Due to AEs 7 (1.9%) 18 (4.9%) Due to other reasons 15 (4.0%) 12 (3.2%) XL184 • MET/VEGF pathway targeted • Dramatic changes in bone scan • Clinical implications to be determined Conclusions • Advanced prostate cancer pts can have a long history – Opportunity for multiple therapies – Toxicities and quality of life important – Issues of co-morbid disease and aging • • • • • Philosophy of chronic d. management Androgen receptor pathway targeting is key DNA targeted chemotherapy plays a role Immunotherapy may play a role New therapies need to be identified