PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 657 patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletions or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to receive amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, chemotherapy, or amivantamab-chemotherapy. The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) of amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. During the study, hematologic toxicities observed in the amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy arm necessitated a regimen change to start lazertinib after carboplatin completion.

RESULTS: All baseline characteristics were well balanced across the three arms, including by history of brain metastases and prior brain radiation. PFS was significantly longer for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression or death 0.48 and 0.44, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 6.3 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively]. Consistent PFS results were seen by investigator assessment (HR for disease progression or death 0.41 and 0.38 for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 8.2 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively). Objective response rate was significantly higher for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (64% and 63% versus 36%, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Median intracranial PFS was 12.5 and 12.8 versus 8.3 months for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (HR for intracranial disease progression or death 0.55 and 0.58, respectively). Predominant adverse events (AEs) in the amivantamab-containing regimens were hematologic, EGFR-, and MET-related toxicities. Amivantamab-chemotherapy had lower rates of hematologic AEs than amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mCRPC were prospectively identified as HRR+ with/without BRCA1/2 alterations and randomized 1 : 1 to niraparib (200 mg orally) plus AAP (1000 mg/10 mg orally) or placebo plus AAP. At IA2, secondary endpoints [time to symptomatic progression, time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, overall survival (OS)] were assessed.

RESULTS: Overall, 212 HRR+ patients received niraparib plus AAP (BRCA1/2 subgroup, n = 113). At IA2 with 24.8 months of median follow-up in the BRCA1/2 subgroup, niraparib plus AAP significantly prolonged radiographic progression-free survival {rPFS; blinded independent central review; median rPFS 19.5 versus 10.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.55 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.78]; nominal P = 0.0007} consistent with the first prespecified interim analysis. rPFS was also prolonged in the total HRR+ population [HR = 0.76 (95% CI 0.60-0.97); nominal P = 0.0280; median follow-up 26.8 months]. Improvements in time to symptomatic progression and time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy were observed with niraparib plus AAP. In the BRCA1/2 subgroup, the analysis of OS with niraparib plus AAP demonstrated an HR of 0.88 (95% CI 0.58-1.34; nominal P = 0.5505); the prespecified inverse probability censoring weighting analysis of OS, accounting for imbalances in subsequent use of poly adenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase inhibitors and other life-prolonging therapies, demonstrated an HR of 0.54 (95% CI 0.33-0.90; nominal P = 0.0181). No new safety signals were observed.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: KEYNOTE-122 was an open-label, randomized study conducted at 29 sites, globally. Participants with platinum-pretreated recurrent and/or metastatic NPC were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to pembrolizumab or chemotherapy with capecitabine, gemcitabine, or docetaxel. Randomization was stratified by liver metastasis (present versus absent). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), analyzed in the intention-to-treat population using the stratified log-rank test (superiority threshold, one-sided P = 0.0187). Safety was assessed in the as-treated population.

RESULTS: Between 5 May 2016 and 28 May 2018, 233 participants were randomly assigned to treatment (pembrolizumab, n = 117; chemotherapy, n = 116); Most participants (86.7%) received study treatment in the second-line or later setting. Median time from randomization to data cut-off (30 November 2020) was 45.1 months (interquartile range, 39.0-48.8 months). Median OS was 17.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.7-22.9 months] with pembrolizumab and 15.3 months (95% CI 10.9-18.1 months) with chemotherapy [hazard ratio, 0.90 (95% CI 0.67-1.19; P = 0.2262)]. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 12 of 116 participants (10.3%) with pembrolizumab and 49 of 112 participants (43.8%) with chemotherapy. Three treatment-related deaths occurred: 1 participant (0.9%) with pembrolizumab (pneumonitis) and 2 (1.8%) with chemotherapy (pneumonia, intracranial hemorrhage).

PATIENTS AND METHODS: A nested case-control study was conducted with the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) with 1871 cases and 1871 matched controls. Conditional logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the association of pre-diagnostic circulating MSP with risk of incident prostate cancer overall and by tumour subtype. EPIC-derived estimates were combined with published data to calculate an MR estimate using two-sample inverse-variance method.

RESULTS: Plasma MSP concentrations were inversely associated with prostate cancer risk after adjusting for total prostate-specific antigen concentration [odds ratio (OR) highest versus lowest fourth of MSP = 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51-0.84, Ptrend = 0.001]. No heterogeneity in this association was observed by tumour stage or histological grade. Plasma MSP concentrations were 66% lower in rs10993994 TT compared with CC homozygotes (per allele difference in MSP: 6.09 ng/ml, 95% CI 5.56-6.61, r2=0.42). MR analyses supported a potentially causal protective association of MSP with prostate cancer risk (OR per 1 ng/ml increase in MSP for MR: 0.96, 95% CI 0.95-0.97 versus EPIC observational: 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.99). Limitations include lack of complete tumour subtype information and more complete information on the biological function of MSP.