Serum testosterone levels and testosterone 'bounce' phenomenon predict response to novel anti-androgen therapies in castration-resistant prostate cancer

Baseline serum testosterone and differential efficacy of bipolar androgen therapy and enzalutamide in the randomized TRANSFORMER trial

Bipolar androgen therapy (BAT) is effective in a subset of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. Treatment selection biomarkers are needed due to other therapies that can be equally efficacious. We performed post-hoc analysis to determine whether baseline serum testosterone (T) is a treatment selection marker in the TRANSFORMER study, a randomized trial of abiraterone-pretreated mCRPC patients assigned to BAT (n = 94) or enzalutamide (n = 101). The findings suggest that patients with poor outcomes to abiraterone and serum T ≥ 20 ng/dL may benefit preferentially from BAT over enzalutamide. Baseline testosterone could be considered in the treatment selection process when BAT is an option.

Testosterone bounce predicts favorable prognoses for prostate cancer patients treated with degarelix

BACKGROUND

To clarify the clinical roles of changes in testosterone (T) levels with a cut-off level of 20 ng/dL as predictive factors for prostate cancer patients treated with degarelix acetate.

METHODS

A total of 120 prostate cancer patients who received hormone therapies with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist degarelix acetate were retrospectively analyzed. The predictive values of nadir T levels, max T levels, T bounce, and other clinical factors were evaluated for overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and progression-free survival (PFS). T bounce was defined as satisfying both nadir serum T levels of <20 ng/dL and max serum T levels of ≥20 ng/dL during hormone therapies.

RESULTS

In 120 prostate cancer patients, 16 (13%) patients did not achieve nadir T < 20 ng/dL, and 76 (63%) patients had max T ≥ 20 ng/dL. The median times to nadir T and max T are 108 and 312 days, respectively. T bounce was shown in 60 (50%) patients and is associated with favorable prognoses both for OS (p = 0.0019) and CSS (p = 0.0013) but not for PFS (p = 0.92). While in the subgroup analyses of the patients with the progression of the first-line hormone therapies, T bounce predicts favorable OS (p = 0.0015) and CSS (p = 0.0013) after biochemical recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study revealed that T bounce with cut-off levels of 20 ng/dL is a promising biomarker that predicts OS and CSS for prostate cancer patients treated with degarelix acetate.

Comparative Effectiveness of Abiraterone and Enzalutamide in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer in Taiwan

Background

Abiraterone and enzalutamide are widely used as first-line treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC); however, their efficacy in mCRPC has been inconsistently demonstrated in other outcome studies from real-world databases. The aim of our study was to assess the comparative effectiveness of abiraterone and enzalutamide in patients with mCRPC using real-world data from Taiwan.

Methods

This retrospective cohort population-based study included patients identified in the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database who had been diagnosed with mCRPC and who had taken abiraterone or enzalutamide between December 2014 and August 2017. The study’s outcome evaluated the differences in overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) between abiraterone and enzalutamide over a 15-month follow-up period. The patients were followed from the index date to when the outcome occurred, to December 31, 2018, or to the patients’ withdrawal from the National Health Insurance program. The estimated relative treatment effects of abiraterone and enzalutamide on OS and TTF were adjusted by the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the Kaplan–Meier method and a Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

The abiraterone and enzalutamide groups consisted of 1,046 and 118 patients, respectively. After IPTW adjustment, 1,164 patients in the abiraterone group and 1,158 in the enzalutamide group underwent an outcome evaluation. Enzalutamide showed a similar OS rate to that of abiraterone (57.58% vs. 49.51%, p = 0.095 by log-rank test). Enzalutamide significantly reduced the risk of death for mCRPC when compared with abiraterone [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 0.828; 95% CI 0.731–0.938]. However, similar results were not observed in the TTF outcomes (63.84% vs. 67.79%, p = 0.2651 by log-rank test; aHR, 0.902; 95% CI 0.812–1.002).

Conclusion

In conclusion, enzalutamide was associated with better OS for mCRPC than abiraterone in the Taiwan population. Our study showed that there was no statistically significant difference in TTF between enzalutamide and abiraterone. Studies with longer surveillance of enzalutamide and abiraterone using real-world databases are needed.