Efficacy and safety of enzalutamide versus bicalutamide for patients with metastatic prostate cancer (TERRAIN): a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 study

Clinical Efficacy of Enzalutamide vs Bicalutamide Combined With Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Men With Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Black patients have been underrepresented in prospective clinical trials of advanced prostate cancer. This study evaluated the efficacy of enzalutamide compared with bicalutamide, with planned subset analysis of Black patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), which is a disease state responsive to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of enzalutamide vs bicalutamide in combination with ADT in men with mHSPC, with a subset analysis of Black patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this randomized clinical trial, a phase 2 screening design enabled a nondefinitive comparison of the primary outcome by treatment. Patients were stratified by race (Black or other) and bone pain (present or absent). Accrual of at least 30% Black patients was required. This multicenter trial was conducted at 4 centers in the US. Men with mHSPC with no history of seizures and adequate marrow, renal, and liver function were eligible. Data analysis was performed from February 2019 to March 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive oral enzalutamide (160 mg daily) or bicalutamide (50 mg daily) in addition to ADT.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was the 7-month prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (SMPR) rate, a previously accepted surrogate for overall survival (OS) outcome. Secondary end points included adverse reactions, time to PSA progression, and OS.

RESULTS

A total of 71 men (median [range] age, 65 [51-86] years) were enrolled; 29 (41%) were Black, 41 (58%) were White, and 1 (1%) was Asian. Thirty-six patients were randomized to receive enzalutamide, and 35 were randomized to receive bicalutamide. Twenty-six patients (37%) had bone pain and 37 patients (52%) had extensive disease. SMPR was achieved in 30 of 32 patients (94%; 95% CI, 80%-98%) taking enzalutamide and 17 of 26 patients (65%; 95% CI, 46%-81%) taking bicalutamide (P = .008) (difference, 29%; 95% CI, 5%-50%). Among Black patients, the SMPR was 93% (95% CI, 69%-99%) among those taking enzalutamide and 42% (95% CI, 19%-68%) among those taking bicalutamide (P = .009); among non-Black patients, the SMPR was 94% (95% CI, 74%-99%) among those taking enzalutamide and 86% (95% CI, 60%-96%) among those taking bicalutamide. The 12-month PSA response rates were 84% with enzalutamide and 34% with bicalutamide.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this randomized clinical trial comparing enzalutamide with bicalutamide suggest that enzalutamide is associated with improved outcomes compared with bicalutamide, in terms of the rate and duration of PSA response, in Black patients with mHSPC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02058706.

Novel therapies for advanced urologic cancers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Systemic treatment of advanced urogenital malignancies has changed significantly in recent years and it will continue to change rapidly in upcoming years. It is the scope of this review article to providing the reader with the most recently approved treatment strategies to be used in daily routine for the individualized and most optimal treatment of our patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Immunooncological therapy (IOT) has emerged as the treatment of choice in metastatic renal cell carcinoma and we describe the most relevant clinical trials and we will give some differential therapeutic recommendation who might be best treated with which combination therapy considering both oncological efficacy and treatment-related toxicity. New neoadjuvant treatment options for muscle-invasive bladder cancer are reported. With regard to metastatic prostate cancer, the landscape of medical therapy is continuously evolving and the new, and most relevant therapeutic strategies for metastatic hormone-naive and castration-resistant PCA are described. Last, but not least, we highlight latest developments in the management of advanced testis cancer.

SUMMARY

The novel treatment options reported in this article are ready for use in daily routine and already represent or will shortly represent new guideline-recommended therapies.

Apalutamide for the treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer-related death among men with the majority of deaths linked to metastatic disease. Accumulating clinical data have confirmed the substantial survival benefit of the addition of docetaxel or androgen signaling inhibitors to androgen deprivation therapy for the treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Apalutamide, a next-generation androgen receptor inhibitor, has recently been shown to provide an added survival benefit in the treatment of mCSPC and consequently approved for this indication. This review summarizes the body of evidence with regards to the preclinical activity and clinical efficacy of apalutamide with a specific focus on its efficacy in the treatment of mCSPC.

Evaluation of Fall and Fracture Risk Among Men With Prostate Cancer Treated With Androgen Receptor Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

A high incidence of fall and fracture in a subset of patients treated with androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs) has been reported, although the relative risk (RR) of fall and fracture for patients who receive ARI treatment is unknown.

Objective

To evaluate whether treatment with ARIs is associated with an elevated relative risk for fall and fracture in patients with prostate cancer.

Data Sources

Cochrane, Scopus, and MedlinePlus databases were searched from inception through August 2019.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials comparing patients with prostate cancer treated with any ARI or placebo were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two independent reviewers used a standardized data extraction and quality assessment form. A mixed effects model was used to estimate the effects of ARI on relative risk, with included studies treated as random effects and study groups treated as fixed effects in the pooled analysis. Sample size for each study was used to weight the mixed model. Statistical analysis was performed from August to October 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was RR of fall and fractures for patients receiving ARI treatment.

Results

Eleven studies met this study's inclusion criteria. The total population was 11 382 men (median [range] age: 72 [43-97] years), with 6536 in the ARI group and 4846 in the control group. Participants in the ARI group could have received enzalutamide, apalutamide, or darolutamide in combination with androgen deprivation therapy or other enzalutamide combinations; patients in the control group could have received placebo, bicalutamide, or abiraterone. The reported incidence of fall was 525 falls (8%) in the ARI group and 221 falls (5%) in the control group. The incidence of fracture was 242 fractures (4%) in the ARI group and 107 fractures (2%) in the control group. Use of an ARI was associated with an increased risk of falls and fractures: all-grade falls (RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.42-2.24; P < .001); grade 3 or greater fall (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.27-2.08; P < .001); all-grade fracture (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.35-1.89; P < .001), and likely grade 3 or greater fracture (RR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.12-2.63; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

Use of ARI was associated with an increase in falls and fractures in patients with prostate cancer as assessed by a retrospective systematic review and meta-analysis. Further studies are warranted to identify and understand potential mechanisms and develop strategies to decrease falls and fractures associated with ARI use.

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II-2020 Update: Treatment of Relapsing and Metastatic Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2016-2019). The guidelines were updated, and the levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added based on a systematic review of the literature.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography scanning has developed an increasingly important role in men with biochemical recurrence after local therapy. Early salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy appears as effective as adjuvant radiotherapy and, in a subset of patients, should be combined with androgen deprivation. New treatments have become available for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PCa), nonmetastatic CRPC, and metastatic CRPC, along with a role for local radiotherapy in men with low-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa. Also included is information on quality of life outcomes in men with PCa.

CONCLUSIONS

The knowledge in the field of advanced and metastatic PCa and CRPC is changing rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines are first endorsed by the EANM and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. A full version is available from the EAU office or online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/).

PATIENT SUMMARY

This article summarises the guidelines for the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. These guidelines are evidence based and guide the clinician in the discussion with the patient on the treatment decisions to be taken. These guidelines are updated every year; this summary spans the 2017-2020 period of new evidence.

Aberrant activation of super enhancer and choline metabolism drive antiandrogen therapy resistance in prostate cancer

Next generation antiandrogens such as enzalutamide (Enz) are effective initially for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). However, the disease often relapses and the underlying mechanisms remain elusive. By performing H3-lysine-27 acetylation (H3K27ac) ChIP-seq in Enz-resistant CRPC cells, we identified a group of super enhancers (SEs) that are abnormally activated in Enz-resistant CRPC cells and associated with enhanced transcription of a subset of tumor promoting genes such as CHPT1, which catalyzes phosphatidylcholine (PtdCho) synthesis and regulates choline metabolism. Increased CHPT1 conferred CRPC resistance to Enz in vitro and in mice. While androgen receptor (AR) primarily binds to a putative CHPT1 enhancer and mediates androgen-dependent expression of CHPT1 gene in Enz-sensitive prostate cancer cells, AR binds to a different enhancer within the CHPT1 SE locus and facilities androgen-independent expression of CHPT1 in Enz-resistant cells. We further identified a long-non coding RNA transcribed at CHPT1 enhancer (also known as enhancer RNA) that binds to the H3K27ac reader BRD4 and participates in regulating CHPT1 SE activity and CHPT1 gene expression. Our findings demonstrate that aberrantly activated SE upregulates CHPT1 expression and confers Enz resistance in CRPC, suggesting that SE-mediated expression of downstream effectors such as CHPT1 can be viable targets to overcome Enz resistance in PCa.

Evaluation of Cognitive Function in Trials Testing New-Generation Hormonal Therapy in Patients with Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

In patients with prostate cancer, the use of new-generation hormonal therapy, added to androgen deprivation therapy, requires careful evaluation of cognitive function. The aim of this systematic review is to describe the evidence about cognitive function in randomized trials testing new-generation hormonal therapy (abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide, darolutamide). For each trial, we assessed the availability of both investigator-assessed cognitive impairment and disorders and patient-reported evaluation of cognitive function. Out of 19 trials, the investigator-based evaluation of cognitive impairment was available in seven (36.8%), while patient-reported evaluation of cognitive function results was presented only in one trial (5.3%). This analysis shows that, despite cognitive deterioration could be relevant in patients with prostate cancer, clinical development of new-generation hormonal drugs has not included a systematic evaluation of cognitive function.

Abstract

In patients with prostate cancer, earlier use and longer duration of new-generation hormonal therapy (NGHT), added to androgen deprivation therapy, requires careful evaluation of cognitive function. The aim of this systematic review is to describe the evidence about cognitive function in all the randomized trials (RCTs) testing NGHT (abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide, darolutamide). We assessed the availability of both investigator-assessed cognitive impairment and disorders and patient-reported evaluation of cognitive function. Nineteen RCTs (17,617 patients) were included. The investigator-based evaluation of cognitive impairment was available in seven RCTs (36.8%). In total, 19/19 RCTs (100%) included patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collection, but PRO tools adopted allowed evaluation of cognitive function in two RCTs (10.5%). Among them, PRO-based cognitive function results were presented only in one RCT (5.3%): in ENZAMET, mean changes from baseline were worse with enzalutamide than with placebo, but deterioration-free survival favored enzalutamide. Despite cognitive deterioration could be relevant, clinical development of NGHT has not included a systematic evaluation of cognitive function. Assessment by investigators is at risk of underreporting, and commonly used PROs do not allow proper cognitive function analysis. Furthermore, the methodology of analysis can jeopardize the interpretation of results. Although direct comparisons are scanty, there could be differences between different NGHTs.

Enzalutamide for the treatment of nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Enzalutamide is the first characterized second-generation nonsteroidal androgen receptor inhibitor (ARi). Its efficacy has been established in several clinical trials evaluating its role in different settings of prostate cancer. Recently, enzalutamide has been approved for the treatment of nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC).

AREAS COVERED

In this paper, the authors describe the chemical structure and pharmacologic characteristics of enzalutamide, providing a summary of clinical trials evaluating its efficacy and safety in prostate cancer patients.

EXPERT OPINION

Enzalutamide adds to the growing arsenal of ARi used in nmCRPC. An improvement in metastasis-free survival was observed with the use of these new treatment options; recently released preliminary data report also an OS benefit. These novel agents are generally well tolerated, but their safety profiles differ slightly. Since head-to-head comparisons between ARi in nmCRPC are lacking, the adverse events profile, as well as drug availability, costs, and considerations on treatment-sequencing, would most likely influence the selection of the individual agent in this setting. Further research is needed to improve treatment selection and clarify many unsolved issues. Abbreviations ARi: nonsteroidal androgen receptor inhibitor; nmCRPC: nonmetastatic castration resistant prostate cancer; ADT: androgen deprivation therapy; OS: overall survival; PSA: prostate specific antigen; FDA: Food and Drug Administration; AR: Androgen Receptor; MFS: metastasis free survival; PSA-DT: PSA doubling time; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; AEs: adverse events; mCRPC: metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer; mHSPC: metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer; rPFS: radiographic progression-free survival; OR: odds ratio.

Prostate Cancer, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations regarding diagnosis, risk stratification and workup, treatment options for localized disease, and management of recurrent and advanced disease for clinicians who treat patients with prostate cancer. The portions of the guidelines included herein focus on the roles of germline and somatic genetic testing, risk stratification with nomograms and tumor multigene molecular testing, androgen deprivation therapy, secondary hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.

Systemic Management for Nonmetastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of systemic therapies used for patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC).

METHODS

The relevant randomized controlled trials were retrieved from PubMed and the Cochrane Library. Network meta-analyses were used to compare multiple drugs simultaneously for the outcomes of nmCRPC. Direct evidence in trials and indirect evidence across trials were combined by the network meta-analyses to estimate the treatment efficiency.

OUTCOME

Eight studies were included in our research. For prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival, the rate of progression was significantly decreased following apalutamide, enzalutamide, bicalutamide+dutasteride, and bicalutamide treatment compared with placebo. Compared with placebo treatment, metastases-free survival was significantly increased in patients who received apalutamide (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.35), enzalutamide (HR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.24-0.35), and darolutamide (HR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.35-0.50). Direct comparison showed significant survival benefits in patients who received second-generation anti-androgen therapy (apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide: HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.61-0.91) compared with patients who received placebo. With respect to metastases-free survival, based on SUCRA analysis, there was 80% and 78% probability that apalutamide and enzalutamide were preferred treatment, while darolutamide was likely to be second-best choice. Compared with placebo, all agents were not associated with significantly higher likelihood of serious adverse events and grade 3 to 4 adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Our outcomes support equivalent efficacy and similar risk of adverse effects between apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide, supporting the use of these antiandrogen agents in high-risk of progression nmCRPC.

The FGF/FGFR system in the physiopathology of the prostate gland

Fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) are a family of proteins possessing paracrine, autocrine, or endocrine functions in a variety of biological processes, including embryonic development, angiogenesis, tissue homeostasis, wound repair, and cancer. Canonical FGFs bind and activate tyrosine kinase FGF receptors (FGFRs), triggering intracellular signaling cascades that mediate their biological activity. Experimental evidence indicates that FGFs play a complex role in the physiopathology of the prostate gland that ranges from essential functions during embryonic development to modulation of neoplastic transformation. The use of ligand- and receptor-deleted mouse models has highlighted the requirement for FGF signaling in the normal development of the prostate gland. In adult prostate, the maintenance of a functional FGF/FGFR signaling axis is critical for organ homeostasis and function, as its disruption leads to prostate hyperplasia and may contribute to cancer progression and metastatic dissemination. Dissection of the molecular landscape modulated by the FGF family will facilitate ongoing translational efforts directed toward prostate cancer therapy.

Comparative efficacy of apalutamide darolutamide and enzalutamide for treatment of non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Studies using apalutamide, enzalutamide, or darolutamide have shown improved metastasis free survival (MFS) rates, leaving clinicians with a dilemma of choosing one over the other, for nonmetastatic castration recurrent prostate cancer (nmCRPC). We performed a network meta-analysis to provide an indirect comparison of oncologic outcomes and adverse events (AEs) of these medications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and SCOPUS databases, for studies reporting apalutamide, enzalutamide, or darolutamide until January 25, 2020. Results were input into an EndNote library, and data were extracted into a predefined template. Progression free survival (PFS) was defined as radiologic progression or death. Network meta-analysis was done using R and meta-analysis was performed with RevMan v. 5. Surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) value was used to provide rank probabilities.

RESULTS

We found 3 studies reporting results for apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide. MFS was significantly lower in patients receiving darolutamide compared to both apalutamide (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.97) and enzalutamide (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.93). MFS was similar for enzalutamide and apalutamide (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.73-1.28). In PFS, apalutamide showed a slightly higher rate compared to darolutamide (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.59-0.99). There was no difference in overall survival (OS) between any of the medications. There was no statistically significant difference in AEs profile of the 3 medications. However, darolutamide had the highest SUCRA value and probability of being the most preferred medication based on AEs profile.

CONCLUSION

Enzalutamide and apalutamide had similar and higher MFS rate in indirect comparison with darolutamide. In cases where AEs are concerning, darolutamide might be the preferred agent.

Enzalutamide and Survival in Nonmetastatic, Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Preliminary trial results showed that enzalutamide significantly improved metastasis-free survival among men who had nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and rapidly increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels while taking androgen-deprivation therapy. Results from the final analysis of overall survival have not yet been reported.

METHODS

In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (defined on the basis of conventional imaging and a PSA doubling time of ≤10 months) who were continuing to receive androgen-deprivation therapy were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) to receive enzalutamide at a dose of 160 mg or placebo once daily. Overall survival was assessed with a group sequential testing procedure and an O'Brien-Fleming-type alpha-spending function.

RESULTS

As of October 15, 2019, a total of 288 of 933 patients (31%) in the enzalutamide group and 178 of 468 (38%) in the placebo group had died. Median overall survival was 67.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.0 to not reached) in the enzalutamide group and 56.3 months (95% CI, 54.4 to 63.0) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.89; P = 0.001). The exposure-adjusted rate of adverse events of grade 3 or higher was 17 per 100 patient-years in the enzalutamide group and 20 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group. Adverse events in the enzalutamide group were consistent with those previously reported for enzalutamide; the most frequently reported events were fatigue and musculoskeletal events.

CONCLUSIONS

Enzalutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy resulted in longer median overall survival than placebo plus androgen-deprivation therapy among men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a rapidly rising PSA level. The risk of death associated with enzalutamide was 27% lower than with placebo. Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profile of enzalutamide. (Funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma; PROSPER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02003924.).

Hormonal prostate cancer therapies and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review

Therapeutic intervention for prostate cancer mostly relies on eliminating circulating androgen or antagonizing its effect at the cellular level. As the use of endocrine therapies grows, an under-reported incidence of cardiovascular toxicities occurs in prostate cancer patients. In this review, we summarize data of clinical studies, investigating the cardiovascular and metabolic alterations associated with the use of old and new endocrine drugs (gonadotropin-releasing hormone [GnRH] agonists and antagonists, androgen receptor inhibitors, 17α-hydroxylase/c-17,20-lyase [CYP17] inhibitor) in prostate cancer. To date, studies looking for links between cardiovascular complications and hormone-mediated therapies in prostate cancer have reached conflicting results. Several confounding factors, such as age of patients and related cardiovascular liability, other comorbidities, and use of concomitant drugs, have to be carefully evaluated in future clinical trials. Further research is needed given the continuous advancements being made in prostate cancer treatment.

A review of prostate cancer treatment impact on the CNS and cognitive function

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the backbone of systemic therapy for men with prostate cancer (PC); almost one-half of patients receive treatment during their disease course. However, a range of cognitive and other central nervous system (CNS) changes have been associated with ADT. In this review, we discuss extant data describing these complications and the mechanisms through which medications used to deliver ADT may affect them.

METHODS

We performed a MEDLINE search for appropriate papers published between January 2000 and December 2018. Relevant papers were selected and reviewed; additional publications were identified by manually assessing references from included papers, and recent congress abstracts.

RESULTS

Of ~230 search outputs, 33 were selected for inclusion. Some studies suggested a clear association between ADT and CNS effects in men with PC, whereas others did not. Accurate assessment is limited by test instrument variability, inadequate sample sizes, short follow-up duration, and limited prospective longitudinal studies. The approved second-generation androgen receptor (AR) inhibitors enzalutamide and apalutamide were associated with some CNS-related adverse events (AEs) in clinical studies, including fatigue (which can interfere with cognitive function). The androgen synthesis inhibitor abiraterone acetate was associated with a low CNS AE profile when compared with enzalutamide. The AR antagonist darolutamide demonstrated a comparable incidence of cognitive disorder in clinical trials to that of ADT alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Adequately caring for men receiving ADT requires an understanding of the symptoms, incidence and magnitude of cognitive effects, and a feasible approach to cognitive assessment and management in clinical settings. Some CNS effects could relate to blood-brain barrier penetration and direct AR inhibitor activity; drug safety profiles may differ by the degree of blood-brain barrier penetration of particular agents. Ongoing clinical trials seek to define the CNS tolerability of newer AR pathway-targeted therapy options more clearly.

Pharmacotherapeutic strategies for castrate-resistant prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is a potentially symptomatic disease with an eventual lethal outcome. Novel pharmaceutical agents are continuously studied with encouraging results in CRPC.

AREAS COVERED

In this perspective, the authors present established and promising pharmacotherapeutic strategies for the management of CRPC; both with and without metastases. Apart from the different treatment strategies, the authors present the relevant sequence of treatment through disease progression.

EXPERT OPINION

Usually, docetaxel should be considered the first line treatment in mCRPC. Abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisone or enzalutamide (ENZ) could be alternative treatments in chemotherapy naïve patients. Sipuleucel-T has been approved for the treatment of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC. Ra-223 has been approved for patients with mCRPC with symptomatic bone metastases (not visceral metastases). Cabazitaxel has been approved as the second line treatment to docetaxel in mCRPC. No differences in the overall survival has been observed between sequences starting with docetaxel versus AA/ENZ. Between AA-to-ENZ and ENZ-to-AA sequence, the AA-to-ENZ sequence appeared to be more favorable than the ENZ-to-AA regarding progression-free survival but not overall survival. Carbazitaxel seemed to retain its activity regardless of the treatment sequence. Of note, ENZ and apalutamide have been approved in non-metastatic CRPC.

Risk Assessment and Considerations for Proper Management of Elderly Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Treatment decisions for elderly men with prostate cancer are complicated by the intersection of competing risks of cancer, potential complications of treatment, and individual patients' comorbidities.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of data guiding the assessment of elderly prostate cancer patients that addresses the risk from cancer and treatment, and to discuss a patient-centered approach to incorporating these factors into decision making.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Evidence was gathered via a systematic review of the current literature. The search strategy used the terms prostate cancer, elderly, geriatric, >75 yr of age, risk assessment, and treatment in several combinations, and was limited to phase ≥ II clinical trials published between January 2008 and November 2018. Additional supporting literature for the discussion was pulled by hand search.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The benefits of treatment identified for systemic therapies commonly used to treat men with prostate in general extend to elderly patients. Evidence supports a multifaceted assessment of the risks of cancer and aging, and an understanding of the side effects of treatment to optimally guide therapeutic decision making for elderly patients. There is little evidence defining a geriatric risk stratification system specific to prostate cancer, and recommendations are predominantly based on adapted geriatric oncology approaches and expert consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

The care of elderly men with prostate cancer should incorporate a review of cancer risk, an assessment of aging, and an understanding of the effects of treatment to provide the patient with thorough and personalized guidance for treatment decisions. Future studies of elderly men with prostate cancer can define and validate ideal risk stratification methods as well as management approaches that may be distinct from those for younger populations.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Treatment decisions for elderly men with prostate cancer require consideration of the risk posed by the cancer coupled with an understanding of the patient's general health status.

Bipolar androgen therapy in prostate cancer: Current evidences and future perspectives

Testosterone suppression by androgen deprivation therapy is the cornerstone of prostate cancer treatment. New-generation hormone therapies improved overall survival in castration-resistant prostate cancer. More recent trials showed a further increase in overall survival when enzalutamide or abiraterone are associated with androgen deprivation therapy in hormone-sensitive disease. However, a higher clonal pressure may lead to the upregulation of alternative pathways for cancer progression and to dedifferentiated diseases that would probably respond poorly to subsequent treatments. In this contest, new strategies that could be able to delay or even revert resistance are needed. The bipolar androgen therapy is an under-investigation treatment that consists in periodical oscillation between castration levels and supraphysiological levels of testosterone in order to prevent the adaptation of prostate cancer cells to a low-androgen environment. This review aims to underline the biological rationale of bipolar androgen therapy and gather evidences from the most recent clinical trials.

2,4-dienoyl-CoA reductase regulates lipid homeostasis in treatment-resistant prostate cancer

Despite the clinical success of Androgen Receptor (AR)-targeted therapies, reactivation of AR signalling remains the main driver of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) progression. In this study, we perform a comprehensive unbiased characterisation of LNCaP cells chronically exposed to multiple AR inhibitors (ARI). Combined proteomics and metabolomics analyses implicate an acquired metabolic phenotype common in ARI-resistant cells and associated with perturbed glucose and lipid metabolism. To exploit this phenotype, we delineate a subset of proteins consistently associated with ARI resistance and highlight mitochondrial 2,4-dienoyl-CoA reductase (DECR1), an auxiliary enzyme of beta-oxidation, as a clinically relevant biomarker for CRPC. Mechanistically, DECR1 participates in redox homeostasis by controlling the balance between saturated and unsaturated phospholipids. DECR1 knockout induces ER stress and sensitises CRPC cells to ferroptosis. In vivo, DECR1 deletion impairs lipid metabolism and reduces CRPC tumour growth, emphasizing the importance of DECR1 in the development of treatment resistance.

Pharmacological and genetic targeting of 5-lipoxygenase interrupts c-Myc oncogenic signaling and kills enzalutamide-resistant prostate cancer cells via apoptosis

Much of the morbidity and mortality due to prostate cancer happen because of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) which invariably develops after anti-androgenic therapy. FDA-approved enzalutamide is commonly prescribed for CRPC which works by blocking androgen receptor function. However, even after initial good response, enzalutamide-resistant prostate cancer (ERPC) develops which eventually leads to widespread metastasis. Management of ERPC is extremely difficult because available therapeutic regimen cannot effectively kill and eliminate ERPC cells. Though the mechanism behind enzalutamide-resistance is not properly understood, over-activation of c-Myc has been found to be a common event which plays an important role in the maintenance and progression of ERPC phenotype. However, direct-targeting of c-Myc poses special problem because of its non-enzymatic nature and certain amount of c-Myc activity is needed by non-cancer cells as well. Thus, c-Myc has emerged as an elusive target which needs to be managed by novel agents and strategies in a cancer-specific way. We investigated the effects of pharmacological and genetic inhibition of 5-lipoxygenase (5-Lox) on cell proliferation, apoptosis and invasive potential of enzalutamide-resistant prostate cancer cells. Transcriptional activity of c-Myc was analyzed by DNA-binding, luciferase-assays, and expression of c-Myc-target genes. We found that 5-Lox regulates c-Myc signaling in enzalutamide-resistant prostate cancer cells and inhibition of 5-Lox by Quiflapon/MK591 or shRNA interrupts oncogenic c-Myc signaling and kills ERPC cells by triggering caspase-mediated apoptosis. Interestingly, MK591 does not affect normal, non-cancer cells in the same experimental conditions. Our findings indicate that inhibition of 5-Lox may emerge as a promising new approach to effectively kill ERPC cells sparing normal cells and suggest that development of a long-term curative therapy of prostate cancer may be possible by killing and eliminating ERPC cells with suitable 5-Lox-inhibitors.

Discovery of pyridine tetrahydroisoquinoline thiohydantoin derivatives with low blood-brain barrier penetration as the androgen receptor antagonists

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most diagnosed type of malignancy in men and the major frequently cause of cancer-related death worldwide. The androgen receptor (AR) has become a promising drug target for the treatment of PC. Here, we reported the design, optimization and evaluation of pyridine tetrahydroisoquinoline thiohydantoin derivatives with improved activity and safety as potent AR antagonists. The most promising compound 42f exhibited potent inhibitory activity on AR and strongly blocked AR nuclear translocation. Moreover, 42f displayed promising in vitro antitumor activity toward AR-dependent prostate cancer cell lines (LNCaP) and also demonstrated therapeutic effects in LNCaP xenograft tumor model in mice (TGI: 79%) with no apparent toxicity observed in vivo. More importantly, 42f showed negligible penetration of the brain-blood barrier (BBB) compared with enzalutamide. These results provide a foundation for the development of a new class of androgen receptor antagonists for potential therapeutics against PC with lower seizurogenic risk for patients.

Subsequent risk of acute urinary retention and androgen deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer: A population-based retrospective cohort study

Acute urinary retention (AUR) is associated with hormone imbalance in men. However, limited studies focused on exploring the complications of AUR in patients with prostate cancer (PC) who receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Therefore, we aim to evaluate the subsequent risk of AUR in ADT-treated PC patients. We collected data from 24,464 male patients who were newly diagnosed with prostate malignancy from a longitudinal health insurance database of catastrophic illness in 2000 to 2008. All PC patients were categorized into 2 cohorts, namely, ADT cohort and non-ADT cohort, based on whether or not the patient receives ADT. The patients were followed up until the occurrence of AUR. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis were performed. After a 12-year follow-up, the incidence rates of AUR were 12.49 and 9.86 per 1000 person-years in ADT and non-ADT cohorts, respectively. Compared with the non-ADT cohort, the ADT cohort had a 1.21-fold increase in AUR risk based on the adjusted model (95% CI = 1.03-1.43). In addition, PC patients receiving early ADT treatment within 6 months or receiving only luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone treatment also had significantly increased risk of AUR. ADT was positively associated with AUR risk. PC patients receiving ADT should be informed about the risks of bladder outlet obstruction and AUR, and they may benefit from screening for related risk factors. New guidelines and treatments should be proposed in the future to manage ADT-related lower urinary tract symptoms and reduce the risk of AUR.

Age, Gleason Score, and PSA are important prognostic factors for survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Results of The Uroncor Group (Uro-Oncological Tumors) of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR)

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) has changed significantly in recent years. Inhibitors of androgen receptors have shown especially significant benefits in overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), with a good toxicity profile. Treatment selection depends on the patient's individual clinical, radiological, and biological characteristics.

OBJECTIVE

To describe treatment outcomes (efficacy, toxicity) in a cohort of patients with mCRPC in Spain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Multicenter, retrospective study of patients with mCRPC included in a database of the Urological Tumour Working Group (URONCOR) of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR). Metastatic CRPC was defined according to the prostate cancer working group 3 (PCWG3) criteria. The Kaplan-Meier technique was used to evaluate OS and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE, v.4.0) were used to assess toxicity. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to identify the factors significantly associated with OS.

RESULTS

A total of 314 patients from 17 hospitals in Spain diagnosed with mCRPC between June 2010 and September 2017 were included in this study. Mean age at diagnosis was 68 years (range 45-89). At a median follow-up of 35 months, OS at 1, 3, and 5 years were 92%, 38%, and 28%, respectively. Grades 1-2 and grade 3 toxicity rates were, respectively, 68% and 19%. No grade 4 toxicities were observed. On the multivariate analysis, the following factors were significantly associated with OS: age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.42, p = 0.010), PSA value at diagnosis of mCRPC (HR 0.55, p = 0.008), and Gleason score (HR 0.61, p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Age, Gleason score, and PSA at diagnosis of mCRPC are independently associated with overall survival in patients with mCRPC. The efficacy and toxicity outcomes in this patient cohort treated in radiation oncology departments in Spain are consistent with previous reports.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019

BACKGROUND

Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To present the results from the APCCC 2019.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Similar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naïve prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Panellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Androgens in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the sixth primary cause of cancer death. However, conflicts are present about the efficacy and safety of Non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAA) for its treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NSAAs versus any comparator for the treatment of advanced or metastatic PCa (mPCa).

METHODS

MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. References of included studies and clinicaltrials.gov were also searched for relevant studies. Only English language studies after 1990 were considered for review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of NSAAs as compared with any other comparator including surgery or chemotherapy in mPCa patients were included. The outcomes include efficacy, safety and the tolerability of the treatment. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used for quality assessment. Two authors were independently involved in the selection, extraction and quality assessment of included studies and disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight out of 1307 non-duplicate RCTs with 29154 patients were considered for the review. NSAA showed significantly better progression-free survival [PFS] (Hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.78; P=0.0001), time to distant metastasis or death [TTD] (HR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; P<0.0001), objective response (Odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI 1.06-2.54; P=0.03) and clinical benefits (OR, 1.33; 95% CI 1.08-1.63; P=0.006) as compared to the control group. There was no significant difference observed between the groups in terms of overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.87-1.03; P=0.18) and time to progression (HR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.77-1.11; P=0.43). Treatment-related adverse events were more with the NSAA group, but the discontinuation due to lack of efficacy reason was 43% significantly lesser than the control group in patients with mPCa. Rest of the outcomes were appeared to be non-significant.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with NSAA was appeared to be better efficacious with respect to PFS, TTD, and response rate with considerable adverse events when compared to the control group in patients with metastatic PCa.

Non-Steroidal Androgen Receptor Antagonists and Prostate Cancer: A Survey on Chemical Structures Binding this Fast-Mutating Target

The Androgen Receptor (AR) pathway plays a major role in both the pathogenesis and progression of prostate cancer. In particular, AR is chiefly involved in the development of Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (CRPC) as well as in the resistance to the secondgeneration AR antagonist enzalutamide, and to the selective inhibitor of cytochrome P450 17A1 (CYP17A1) abiraterone. Several small molecules acting as AR antagonists have been designed and developed so far, also as a result of the ability of cells expressing this molecular target to rapidly develop resistance and turn pure receptor antagonists into ineffective or event detrimental molecules. This review covers a survey of most promising classes of non-steroidal androgen receptor antagonists, also providing insights into their mechanism of action and efficacy in treating prostate cancer.

Is androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer associated with cardiovascular disease? A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is widely being applied in men who suffered from prostate cancer. Whether androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with an increased risk of developing cardiovascular-related disease is poorly defined.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present meta-analysis is to explore the relationship between ADT and the risk of cardiac events. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched databases from inception to April 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCT) or observational studies that reported data on ADT administration and cardiac event incidence. The connection was evaluated through estimating relative risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A significantly increased acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was detected in the ADT group compared with the control group (RR = 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-1.39, P < .05). A significant difference between cardiovascular disease (CVD) and ADT was also observed, with summary RR = 1.25, 95% CI, 1.11-1.40, P < .05. Furthermore, our study also suggested ADT was not related to increased incidence of sudden cardiac death (SCD) (RR = 1.13, 95% CI, 0.92-1.38, P = .24); AMI and CVD were not connected with the duration of ADT (AMI: RR = 1.31; 95% CI, 0.66-2.63, P = .44, for > 5 year group; CVD: RR = 1.12, 95% CI, 0.97-1.30, P = .12, for > 5 year group). In addition, the RR for risk of CVD was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.01-1.62, P < .05) for men with PCa on new hormonal agents.

DISCUSSION

Various ADT modalities have different impact on cardiovascular disease risk in different level. Long-term application of ADT is not associated with increased risk of AMI and CVD. Both abiraterone and enzalutamide could significantly increase the incidence of cardiac events in patients who suffered from prostate cancer. Cautions and periodic cardiovascular elevation are necessary for patients before the ADT starting.

CONCLUSIONS

Androgen deprivation therapy is associated with increased risk of AMI, CHD, in contrast, this association is not detected in SCD.

Efficacy and Safety of Targeting Androgen Receptor in Advanced Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review

Background::

Androgen receptor (AR) upstreams complex signaling pathways that regulate cell proliferation and contribute to breast tumorignensis. Several clinical trials were initiated to investigate the clinical relevance of targeting AR especially in hormone-receptor-negative breast cancer.

Methods::

The search was performed in PubMed and the meeting libraries of ASCO, ESMO, SABCS, ImpakT congresses from January 2005 to July 2017. The following key words were used: Breast cancer, Androgen receptor, androgen agonist/antagonist, Flutamide, Abiraterone, Bicalutamide, Enzalutamide, Enobosarm, selective androgen receptor modulator.

Results::

Screening of title/abstracts yielded a total of 20 relevant results. Of those, twelve studies were found eligible: eleven clinical trials along with one case report. Response rates ranged from 0 to 12% while clinical benefit rates reached up to 35% in 2 studies (with enzalutamide and enobosarm). Progression-free survival ranged from 2.8 to 4.5 months. The most widely used cutoff for AR expression was 10%. High expression of AR was associated with more clinical benefit. Regarding safety, anti-androgens were generally well tolerated with hot flushes, elevated transaminases and fatigue being the most commonly reported across all agents.

Conclusion::

Androgen receptor pathway targeting in advanced breast cancer remains a valid option with reasonable clinical benefit in non-selected patients. Future studies are needed to define an AR addicted cohort with better responses and outcome.

Efficacy and safety of abiraterone and enzalutamide for castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Previous evidence directly evaluating the efficacy and safety of abiraterone and enzalutamide treatment for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is limited. We aim to include more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to comprehensively assess the efficacy and safety of abiraterone and enzalutamide treatment.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrial.gov were systematically searched. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Stata 12.0 software. The comparison of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate and adverse events (AEs) between the treatment and control groups were performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Eight eligible RCTs with 6,490 patients were selected. Pooled HRs were 0.72 for overall survival, 0.45 for radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and 0.36 for PSA PFS. abiraterone and enzalutamide could significantly increase the PSA response rate OR = 8.67, 95%CI 4.42-17.04) and any AE occurrence (OR = 1.98, 95%CI 1.46-2.68). The treatment group had more occurrence of fatigue (OR = 1.34, 95%CI 1.20-1.49), back pain (OR = 1.15, 95%CI 1.01-1.15), hot flush (OR = 1.76, 95%CI 1.50-2.06), diarrhea (OR=1.22, 95%CI 1.07-2.40) and arthralgia (OR = 1.34, 95%CI 1.16-1.54). Particularly, AEs of special interest including any grade hypertension (OR = 2.06, 95%CI 1.71-2.47), hypokalemia (OR = 1.80, 95%CI 1.42-2.30) and fluid retention or edema (OR = 1.38, 95%CI 1.17-1.63) also occurred less in the control group. Moreover, a higher incidence of high-grade hypertension (OR = 2.60, 95%CI 1.79-3.79) and extremity pain (OR = 4.46, 95%CI 2.81-7.07) was observed in the treatment group.

CONCLUSION

The survival benefits of abiraterone and enzalutamide for CRPC were evident and promising, while the risk of AE occurrence was also acceptably higher in the treatment group than in the placebo group.

A rare case of idiopathic cholestasis: Clinical conundrums complicating enzalutamide therapy in metastatic prostate cancer

Current safety data affirms enzalutamide does not cause clinically significant liver dysfunction that warrant therapy cessation. Therefore, clinicians should not withhold potentially successful therapy merely for suspected hepatotoxicity or PnC.

Increased Risk of Hypertension with Enzalutamide in Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Hypertension is associated with enzalutamide in the treatment of prostate cancer. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to determine the risk of hypertension. Databases including Pubmed and Google scholar were searched to identify randomized clinical trials with enzalutamide. A total of seven studies including 7347 patients were selected. The overall incidences of all-grade and high-grade hypertension were 11.9% (95%% CI: 8.8-16.0%) and 4.9% (95%% CI: 3.5-6.8%) respectively, with a relative risk of 2.82 (95%% CI: 2.34-3.38, p < 0.001) for all-grade and 2.27 (95%% CI: 1.73-2.96, p < 0.001) for high-grade. There was a significant risk of developing hypertension with enzalutamide.

Enzalutamide versus flutamide for castration-resistant prostate cancer after combined androgen blockade therapy with bicalutamide: the OCUU-CRPC study

BACKGROUND

Before the androgen target therapy era, flutamide was widely used for castration-resistant prostate cancer in Japan. Enzalutamide is currently the recommended treatment; however, the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide and flutamide after combined androgen blockade therapy with bicalutamide, has not been compared.

METHODS

Patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer who received combined androgen blockade therapy with bicalutamide were randomly assigned to receive either enzalutamide or flutamide. The primary endpoint for efficacy was the 3-month prostate-specific antigen response rate. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02346578) and the University hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000016301).

RESULTS

Overall, 103 patients were enrolled. The 3- (80.8% vs. 35.3%; p < 0.001) and 6-month (73.1% vs. 31.4%; p < 0.001) prostate-specific antigen response rates were higher in the enzalutamide than in the flutamide group. The 3-month disease progression rates (radiographic or prostate-specific antigen progression) were 6.4% and 38.8% in the enzalutamide and flutamide groups, respectively [hazard ratio (HR): 0.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.05-0.47; p < 0.001]; the 6-month rates were 11.4% and 51.1%, respectively (HR 0.22; 95% CI 0.09-0.50; p < 0.001). Enzalutamide provided superior prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival compared with flutamide (HR 0.29; 95% CI 0.15-0.54; p < 0.001). Median time to prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival was not reached and was 6.6 months in the enzalutamide and flutamide groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

As an alternative anti-androgen therapy in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer who fail bicalutamide-combined androgen blockade therapy, enzalutamide provides superior clinical outcomes compared with flutamide. Enzalutamide should be preferred over flutamide in these patients.

Seizure Rates in Enzalutamide-Treated Men With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer and Risk of Seizure: The UPWARD Study

Importance

The androgen receptor inhibitor enzalutamide prolongs survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). In controlled clinical studies, 0.5% (10 of 2051) of patients experienced seizure, but patients with a history of or risk factors for seizure were excluded. Men with mCRPC and seizure risk factors have an estimated seizure rate of 2.8 per 100 patient-years without enzalutamide exposure.

Objective

To assess seizure incidence in patients with seizure risk factors who were receiving enzalutamide for mCRPC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The UPWARD study (A Study to Evaluate the Potential Increased Risk of Seizures Among Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Enzalutamide) is an international, multicenter (73 sites in 20 countries), single-arm, open-label safety study in institutional practice. Data were collected from September 25, 2013, to February 1, 2016. Patients had at least 1 risk factor for seizure at baseline, including medications that lower seizure threshold, history of stroke, or history of seizure. Exclusion criteria included seizure (assessed by neurologic examination and history) requiring antiseizure medication within the past 12 months.

Intervention

Treatment with oral enzalutamide, 160 mg/d.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was the proportion of evaluable patients with 1 or more independently confirmed seizures during the 4-month study period; evaluable patients were defined as those who had 3 months or more of treatment or 1 or more confirmed seizures during this treatment period.

Results

Of 423 patients with mCRPC receiving enzalutamide, 366 were evaluated. At baseline, risk factors for seizure included medications that lowered seizure threshold (242 of 423 patients [57.2%]), history of brain injury (112 [26.5%]), and history of cerebrovascular accident or transient ischemic attack (94 [22.2%]). Four of the 366 evaluable patients (1.1%) had at least 1 confirmed seizure within 4 months of enzalutamide initiation, and 3 (0.8%) additional patients experienced a seizure within 4 months following the 4-month study period. The incidence of confirmed seizure was 2.6 per 100 patient-years (7 seizures). Of the 423 patients receiving enzalutamide, 357 (84.4%) experienced at least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (an adverse event temporally related to the study treatment); 141 (33.3%) had at least 1 serious treatment-emergent adverse event, and 29 (6.9%) had at least 1 drug-related serious adverse event. Thirty-eight deaths (9.0%) were reported during treatment or within 30 days of drug discontinuation; 4 were considered possibly drug related.

Conclusions and Relevance

Incidence of seizure is similar in patients with mCRPC and similar seizure risk factors with or without enzalutamide exposure. The risk profile presented, along with the previously established efficacy of enzalutamide, suggests that enzalutamide can benefit patients with a history of seizures or other predisposing factors, but each patient should be closely monitored for the duration of treatment.

TCF4 induces enzalutamide resistance via neuroendocrine differentiation in prostate cancer

In treating patients with castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), enzalutamide, the second-generation androgen receptor (AR) antagonist, is an accepted standard of care. However, clinical benefits are limited to a median time of 4.8 months because resistance inevitably emerges. To determine the mechanism of treatment resistance, we carried out a RNA sequence analysis and found increased expression levels of neuroendocrine markers in the enzalutamide-resistant LNCaP human prostate cancer (CaP) cell line when compared to the parental cell line. Subsequent studies demonstrated that Transcription Factor-4 (TCF4), a transcription factor implicated in WNT signaling, mediated neuroendocrine differentiation (NED) in response to enzalutamide treatment and was elevated in the enzalutamide-resistant LNCaP. In addition, we observed that PTHrP mediated enzalutamide resistance in tissue culture and inducible TCF4 overexpression resulted in enzalutamide-resistance in a mouse xenograft model. Finally, small molecule inhibitors of TCF4 or PTHrP partially reversed enzalutamide resistance in CaP cells. When tissues obtained from men who died of metastatic CaP were examined, a positive correlation was found between the expression levels of TCF4 and PTHrP. Taken together, the current results indicate that TCF4 induces enzalutamide resistance via NED in CaP.

Landmarks in prostate cancer

The field of prostate cancer has been the subject of extensive research that has resulted in important discoveries and shaped our appreciation of this disease and its management. Advances in our understanding of the epidemiology, natural history, anatomy, detection, diagnosis, grading, staging, imaging, and management of prostate cancer have changed clinical practice and influenced guideline recommendations. The development of the Gleason score and subsequent modifications enabled accurate prediction of prognosis. Increased anatomical understanding and improved surgical techniques resulted in the development of nerve-sparing surgery for radical prostatectomy. The advent of active surveillance has changed the management of low-risk disease, and chemotherapy and hormonal therapy have improved the outcomes of patients with distant disease. Ongoing research and clinical trials are expected to yield more practice-changing results in the near future.

Switching from a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist to a GnRH antagonist in prostate cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

We sought to address whether there are clinical responses when patients who are failing gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist therapy are switched to degarelix. Androgen-deprivation therapy remains the backbone of treatment for disseminated prostate cancer and may be achieved with orchiectomy, GnRH agonists, or degarelix, a GnRH antagonist.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis with a search of the BIOSIS Previews, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar databases using key terms. Quantitative meta-analysis was performed to provide a pooled estimate of prostate specific antigen (PSA) response at three months.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were identified, eight of which were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. Patient characteristics were broadly similar between the studies. Out of 155 patients across all included studies, 20 had stable PSA after the switch (12.9%), 14 had a 10-30% decrease in PSA (9.0%), three had a 30-50% decrease (1.9%), and 13 had a more than 50% decrease (8.4%). Random effects meta-analysis of these data demonstrated a pooled response rate of 27.75% (95% confidence interval 18.9-36.5%; I²=7.9%). Changes in testosterone levels following the switch could not be quantitatively assessed due to lack of sufficient data.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that a switch to GnRH antagonist following progression on a GnRH agonist may result in a stable or decreased PSA at three months in about 30% of patients. This information should be considered among the potential options to discuss with patients with a rising PSA on GnRH agonist therapy.

ARCHES: A Randomized, Phase III Study of Androgen Deprivation Therapy With Enzalutamide or Placebo in Men With Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Enzalutamide, a potent androgen-receptor inhibitor, has demonstrated significant benefits in metastatic and nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).

METHODS

ARCHES (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02677896) is a multinational, double-blind, phase III trial, wherein 1,150 men with mHSPC were randomly assigned 1:1 to enzalutamide (160 mg/day) or placebo, plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), stratified by disease volume and prior docetaxel chemotherapy. The primary end point was radiographic progression-free survival.

RESULTS

As of October 14, 2018, the risk of radiographic progression or death was significantly reduced with enzalutamide plus ADT versus placebo plus ADT (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.50; P < .001; median not reached v 19.0 months). Similar significant improvements in radiographic progression-free survival were reported in prespecified subgroups on the basis of disease volume and prior docetaxel therapy. Enzalutamide plus ADT significantly reduced the risk of prostate-specific antigen progression, initiation of new antineoplastic therapy, first symptomatic skeletal event, castration resistance, and reduced risk of pain progression. More men achieved an undetectable prostate-specific antigen level and/or an objective response with enzalutamide plus ADT (P < .001). Patients in both treatment groups reported a high baseline level of quality of life, which was maintained over time. Grade 3 or greater adverse events were reported in 24.3% of patients who received enzalutamide plus ADT versus 25.6% of patients who received placebo plus ADT, with no unexpected adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Enzalutamide with ADT significantly reduced the risk of metastatic progression or death over time versus placebo plus ADT in men with mHSPC, including those with low-volume disease and/or prior docetaxel, with a safety analysis that seems consistent with the safety profile of enzalutamide in previous clinical trials in castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Enzalutamide: A Review in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

Oral enzalutamide (Xtandi^®), a second generation androgen receptor inhibitor, is indicated for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) in numerous countries worldwide, with specific indications in this patient population varying between individual countries. Based on extensive experience in the clinical trial and/or real-world settings, oral enzalutamide 160 mg once daily is an effective and generally well tolerated treatment in a broad spectrum of patients with CRPC, including in nonmetastatic and metastatic disease and in chemotherapy-naive and -experienced metastatic CRPC. Enzalutamide is an emerging option for the treatment of men with nonmetastatic CRPC who are at high-risk for developing metastatic disease, and remains an important first-line option in chemotherapy-naive or -experienced patients with metastatic CRPC.

A phase II randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study of salvage radiation therapy plus placebo versus SRT plus enzalutamide with high-risk PSA-recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy (SALV-ENZA)

BACKGROUND

In men with a rising PSA following radical prostatectomy, salvage radiation therapy (SRT) offers a second chance for cure. Hormonal therapy can be combined with SRT in order to increase prostate tumor control, albeit with associated higher rates of treatment side effects. This trial studies the effectiveness of SRT combined with hormonal therapy using a more potent anti-androgen with a favorable side effect profile. Enzalutamide, a next generation selective androgen receptor antagonist, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) where it has been shown to improve overall survival in combination with androgen deprivation therapy. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of combination SRT and enzalutamide for freedom-from-PSA-progression. Secondary objectives include time to local recurrence within the radiation field, metastasis-free survival and safety as determined by frequency and severity of adverse events.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a randomized, double-blind, phase II, prospective, multicenter study in adult males with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy. Following registration, enzalutamide 160 mg or placebo by mouth (PO) once daily will be administered for 6 months. Following two months of study drug, external beam radiotherapy to 66.6-70.2 Gray (Gy) will be administered to the prostate bed over 7-8 weeks while continuing daily placebo/enzalutamide. This is followed by two additional months of placebo/enzalutamide.

DISCUSSION

The SALV-ENZA trial is the first phase II placebo-controlled double-blinded randomized study to test SRT in combination with a next generation androgen receptor antagonist in men with high-risk recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. The primary hypothesis of this study is that clinical outcomes will be improved by the addition of enzalutamide compared to standard-of-care SRT alone and pave the path for phase III evaluation of this combination.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

ClinicaltTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02203695 Date of Registration: 06/16/2014. Date of First Participant Enrollment: 04/16/2015.

Overexpressed ABCB1 Induces Olaparib-Taxane Cross-Resistance in Advanced Prostate Cancer

Castration-resistant prostate cancer remains as an incurable disease. Exploiting DNA damage repair defects via inhibition of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) is becoming an attractive therapeutic option. The TOPARP-A clinical trial demonstrated that the PARP inhibitor olaparib may be an effective strategy for treating prostate cancer. However, several unanswered questions regarding the use of olaparib remain: 1) How do we best stratify patients for olaparib treatment? 2) Where do we place olaparib in the treatment sequence paradigm? 3) Is there cross-resistance between olaparib and currently used therapies? Here, we tested putative cross-resistance between current therapies and olaparib in treatment-resistant castration-resistant prostate cancer models. Docetaxel-resistant cells exhibited robust resistance to olaparib which could be attributed to blunted PARP trapping in response to olaparib treatment. Upregulated ABCB1 mediates cross-resistance between taxanes and olaparib, which can be overcome through decreasing ABCB1 expression or inhibiting ABCB1 using elacridar or enzalutamide. We also show that combining olaparib with enzalutamide is more effective in olaparib-sensitive cells than either single agent. Our results demonstrate that cross-resistance between olaparib and other therapies could blunt response to treatment and highlight the need to develop strategies to maximize olaparib efficacy.

Enzalutamide versus flutamide for castration-resistant prostate cancer after combined androgen blockade therapy with bicalutamide: study protocol for a multicenter randomized phase II trial (the OCUU-CRPC study)

Background

Enzalutamide is an oral androgen receptor targeted agent that has been shown to improve survival in PREVAIL trials and has been approved for patients with chemo-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Meanwhile, flutamide is a non-steroidal oral anti-androgen that was commonly used before the approval of bicalutamide. The objective of the OCUU-CRPC study is to compare the efficacy and safety between second-line hormonal therapy of enzalutamide and flutamide as alternative anti-androgen therapy (AAT) after combined androgen blockade (CAB) therapy that included bicalutamide in patients with CRPC.

Methods

A total of 100 patients with CRPC with or without distant metastases after disease progression who received CAB therapy with bicalutamide were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio according to distant metastases to the enzalutamide (160 mg/day, 4 × 40 mg capsules once daily) and flutamide (375 mg/day; 3 × 125 mg tablets thrice daily) groups. The primary endpoint for the drug efficacy is the response rate of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (i.e., the ratio of patients whose PSA declined by ≥50% from baseline) at 3 months. Meanwhile, the secondary endpoints are PSA progression rate at 3 and 6 months, PSA response rate at 6 months, change in quality of life, PSA progression-free survival, and safety. The patient registration started in January 2015 and will end in March 2018, and the follow-up period is 6 months after the last patient registration. The main result will be reported in March 2019.

Discussion

In the OCUU-CRPC study, we compare the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide or alternative AAT with flutamide in participants with CRPC who were previously treated with a CAB therapy with bicalutamide. The expected results of this study will be that enzalutamide is superior to flutamide in terms of PSA response. A longer time to disease progression with enzalutamide over flutamide may translate to better overall survival. However, flutamide may be more accessible for patients owing to its lower cost than enzalutamide.

Trial registration

The OCUU-CRPC study was prospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02346578, January 2015) and University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000016301, January 2015).

Enzalutamide, an oral androgen receptor inhibitor for treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer

Androgen receptor (AR) signaling is a key pathway in prostate cancer, and patients are initially treated with androgen deprivation therapy. Patients who have stopped responding to androgen deprivation therapy are considered to have castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), which is still dependent on AR signaling. Enzalutamide, an orally available AR inhibitor, was initially approved by the US FDA for the treatment of patients with metastatic CRPC who have previously received docetaxel. The indication was subsequently extended to include all patients with metastatic CRPC, and most recently to include patients with nonmetastatic CRPC. This review summarizes the body of evidence supporting enzalutamide efficacy and safety in CRPC.

Timing of androgen deprivation monotherapy and combined treatments in castration-sensitive and castration-resistant prostate cancer: a narrative review

PURPOSE

Standard androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) can be initiated early at the time of diagnosis in asymptomatic castration-sensitive advanced prostate cancer. This definition has recently been expanded to also include an early combined treatment with standard ADT and new antihormonal drugs. We aimed to present the best available evidence for the timing of initiation of ADT monotherapy and combined treatments in castration-sensitive/-resistant prostate cancer.

METHODS

For this narrative review, we searched Cochrane reviews in the Cochrane Library, systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE, phase III and ongoing trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and screened the reference lists to extract articles of interest. One author screened the references which were finally included after assessing their relevance through discussion with other experts in the field.

RESULTS

The identified references were grouped by medication (standard ADT, androgen biosynthesis inhibitor, androgen receptor antagonists or combined therapies) and tumor stage (castration sensitive or resistant). The evidence was narratively summarized and discussed in the context of the current therapeutic landscape.

CONCLUSIONS

Early standard ADT can reduce symptoms of disease progression and may extend progression-free and overall survival. The patient should be well informed about the higher rates of treatment-related side effects. Deferring standard ADT might be indicated only for well-informed or unfit patients. Early standard ADT is increasingly combined with new antihormonal drugs in castration-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer to gain additional survival and quality of life benefits. Combined treatment at the time of development of castration-resistant disease is well established.

Management algorithms for prostate-specific antigen progression in prostate cancer: Biochemical recurrence after definitive therapy and progression to non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Current prostate cancer (PCa) guidelines primarily focus on localized or metastatic PCa. A multidisciplinary genitourinary oncology panel determined that additional guidance focusing on monitoring and management of biochemical recurrence (BCR) following radical therapy and non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) was warranted.

METHODS

The most up-to-date national and international guidelines, consensus statements, and emerging phase 3 trials were identified and used to inform development of algorithms by a multidisciplinary genitourinary oncology panel outlining optimal monitoring and treatment for patients with non-metastatic PCa.

RESULTS

A total of eight major national and international guidelines/consensus statements published since 2015 and three phase 3 trials were identified. Working group discussions among the multidisciplinary genitourinary oncology panel led to the development of two algorithms: the first addressing management of patients with BCR following radical therapy (post-BCR), and the second addressing management of nmCRPC. The post-BCR algorithm suggests consideration of early salvage treatment in select patients and provides guidance regarding observation vs. intermittent or continuous androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). The nmCRPC algorithm suggests continued ADT and monitoring for all patients, with consideration of treatment with apalutamide or enzalutamide for patients with high-risk disease (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] doubling time of ≤ 10 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Two treatment algorithms have been developed to guide the management of non-metastatic PCa and should be considered in the context of local guidelines and practice patterns.