Pasritamig was administered to patients who had received a median of four prior lines of systemic therapy. It was well tolerated, with manageable adverse events, making it suitable for outpatient administration. The treatment showed a median radiographic progression-free survival of 7.85 months, and 14 out of 33 participants achieved a ≥50% reduction in baseline PSA levels. So, stay tuned.
We report phase I trial results for pasritamig, a first-in-class, T-cell–engaging bispecific antibody targeting human kallikrein 2 (KLK2) expressed on the surface of prostate cancer (PC) cells.
Participants had metastatic castration-resistant PC and ≥1 prior therapy. Pasritamig was escalated from 0.5 mg to 2,000 mg for subcutaneous administration and from 150 mg to 900 mg for intravenous (IV) administration at dosing frequencies ranging from once every week to once every 6 weeks with different step-up dosing schedules. The primary objectives were to determine safety and the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of pasritamig. Secondary objectives included preliminary assessment of antitumor activity.
One hundred seventy-four participants received pasritamig, with a median of 4 prior lines of systemic therapy. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 144 of 174 (82.8%) participants, with 17 of 174 (9.8%) experiencing grade ≥3 TRAEs. The RP2D was determined to be 3.5 mg (day 1), 18 mg (day 8), 300 mg (day 15), and then 300 mg IV once every 6 weeks. In the RP2D safety population (n = 45), infusion-related reactions (11/45, 24.4%), fatigue (7/45, 15.6%), cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 4/45, 8.9%, all grade 1), and lipase increase (4/45, 8.9%) were the most frequent TRAEs; all were grade 1 or 2. In the RP2D efficacy population (n = 33), median radiographic progression-free survival was 7.85 (95% CI, 2.89 to not estimable) months, and 14 of 33 (42.4%) participants achieved a ≥50% decrease from baseline in prostate-specific antigen.
Pasritamig demonstrated a favorable safety profile with very low rates of CRS and could be safely administered in an outpatient setting. Preliminary antitumor activity demonstrated proof of concept for KLK2 as a target in PC, warranting further development of pasritamig.
In patients with localized prostate cancer, predominantly low-risk and intermediate-risk disease, the long-term update reveals 13-year outcomes. Treatment failure occurred less frequently in men undergoing HIMRT (n = 13) compared with those undergoing CIMRT.
Another study showing the benefits of adding AR blocker to ADT. Improved PFs and suggestive improvement in OS, also less fatigue.
Less radiation is non-inferior, this is for low and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer patients. Would like input from our radiation oncologists as to whether or not this adoptable?
Protons vs IMRT for localized prostate cancer showed no difference in outcome or quality of life. There will be longer f/u and other endpoints studied but the take-home message is that protons are not significantly better than photons.
Will we be replaced by AI? It seems that for radiologists, an AI system was better than the human counterpart in this study looking at prostate cancer diagnostic imaging. I doubt many of us would accept a solely computer-generated report, but this study highlights how AI may help as a supportive tool in the primary diagnostic setting. Of course, prospective validation will be needed.