Rucaparib vs docetaxel (DTX) or second-generation androgen pathway inhibitor (ARPI) therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): TRITON3 final overall survival (OS) and safety.

A Alan Haruo Bryce (Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ) R Raymond S. McDermott (St Vincent’s University Hospital and Cancer Trials Ireland, Dublin, Ireland) J Josep M. Piulats M M. Neil Reaume (University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada) P Peter James Ostler (Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, United Kingdom) J Joel Roger Gingerich (Medical Oncology and Hematology, University of Manitoba, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada) E Elias Pintus S Srikala S. Sridhar (Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto) R Richard Martin Bambury (Cork University Hospital, Wilton, Ireland) U Urban Emmenegger (Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada) H Henriette Lindberg (Herlev Hospital, Herlev, Denmark) D David Morris (Dayton Children’s Hospital, Dayton, OH) F Franco Nole J John Nicholas Staffurth (Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, United Kingdom) W Wassim Abida (Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center) L Lisa Caunt (pharma&, New York, NY) D Darrin Despain (Pharma&, New York, NY) C Charles J. Ryan (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY) K Karim Fizazi (Centre Oscar Lambret, University of Paris-Saclay, Lille, France) S Simon Chowdhury

Abstract

155 Background: Primary results from the randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 TRITON3 (NCT02975934) study of rucaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) in patients with chemotherapy-naive mCRPC and BRCA1/2 (BRCA) vs the control arm of physician’s choice of DTX or ARPI (abiraterone acetate [ABI] or enzalutamide [ENZ]) demonstrated that rucaparib significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS, primary efficacy endpoint) vs physician’s choice. Here, we report final OS and safety results from TRITON3. Methods: Patients with disease progression after 1 prior second-generation ARPI in any setting were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg BID or physician’s choice of DTX, ABI, or ENZ (control). OS was a key secondary endpoint tested initially in the BRCA subgroup, followed by the intent-to-treat (ITT) population in an ordered step-down multiple-comparisons procedure. Crossover from placebo to rucaparib was allowed after radiographic progression was confirmed by independent radiology review. Results: As of March 1, 2024 (final analysis data cutoff),patients with BRCA (N = 302) and ATM (N = 103) alterations were randomized (ITT, N = 405). After an overall median follow-up of 44.0 months, median OS in the BRCA subgroup in the rucaparib arm was 23.2 months vs 21.2 months for the physician’s choice control arm (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.68–1.20]; P = 0.5044; Table). Hierarchical testing did not continue due to lack of statistical significance. No OS benefit was observed in the ITT population or ATM subgroup (Table). Median duration of treatment in rucaparib and physician’s choice arms was 8.3 and 5.1 months, respectively. The most frequent any-grade treatment emergent adverse event (TEAE) in the rucaparib (n = 270) and physician’s choice (n = 130) arms was asthenia/fatigue (61.5% and 63.1%, respectively). The most frequent grade ≥3 TEAE was anemia (23.7%) with rucaparib, and asthenia/fatigue (9.2%) with physician’s choice. Of the 135 patients in the physician’s choice arm, 77 patients had radiographic progression and 70 crossed over to rucaparib. Conclusions: Rucaparib remains the only PARPi to show improved rPFS vs a DTX-containing control arm and has a similar OS even when most patients cross over to rucaparib. Safety was consistent with prior reports. These data support rucaparib as a treatment option for patients with BRCA-mutated mCRPC. Clinical trial information: NCT02975934 . Median OS at final analysis. Group Rucaparib, n Physician's choice, n Rucaparib, months Physician's choice, months HR (95% CI) a BRCA 201 101 23.2 21.2 0.91 (0.68–1.20) ITT 270 135 22.8 21.7 0.99 (0.78–1.26) ATM 69 34 18.4 22.1 1.21 (0.77–1.90) a Calculated by stratified Cox proportional hazard model.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 5_suppl
Published February 10, 2025
Pages 155-155
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (20)

A

Alan Haruo Bryce

Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ

R

Raymond S. McDermott

St Vincent’s University Hospital and Cancer Trials Ireland, Dublin, Ireland

J

Josep M. Piulats

M

M. Neil Reaume

University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

P

Peter James Ostler

Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, United Kingdom

J

Joel Roger Gingerich

Medical Oncology and Hematology, University of Manitoba, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada

E

Elias Pintus

S

Srikala S. Sridhar

Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto

R

Richard Martin Bambury

Cork University Hospital, Wilton, Ireland

U

Urban Emmenegger

Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada

H

Henriette Lindberg

Herlev Hospital, Herlev, Denmark

D

David Morris

Dayton Children’s Hospital, Dayton, OH

F

Franco Nole

J

John Nicholas Staffurth

Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, United Kingdom

W

Wassim Abida

Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

L

Lisa Caunt

pharma&, New York, NY

D

Darrin Despain

Pharma&, New York, NY

C

Charles J. Ryan

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY

K

Karim Fizazi

Centre Oscar Lambret, University of Paris-Saclay, Lille, France

S

Simon Chowdhury