Efficacy and Safety of Radiotherapy Plus Relugolix in Men With Localized or Advanced Prostate Cancer.

Importance: Combination androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy is commonly used for patients with localized and advanced prostate cancer. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of the oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist relugolix with radiotherapy for treating prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter post hoc analysis of patients with localized and advanced prostate cancer receiving radiotherapy in 2 randomized clinical trials (a phase 2 trial of relugolix vs degarelix, and a subset of the phase 3 HERO trial of relugolix vs leuprolide acetate) included men who were receiving radiotherapy and short-term (24 weeks) ADT (n = 103) from 2014 to 2015 and men receiving radiotherapy and longer-term (48 weeks) ADT (n = 157) from 2017 to 2019. The data were analyzed in November 2022. Interventions: Patients receiving short-term ADT received relugolix, 120 mg, orally once daily (320-mg loading dose) or degarelix, 80 mg, 4-week depot (240-mg loading dose) for 24 weeks with 12 weeks of follow-up. Patients receiving longer-term ADT received relugolix, 120 mg, orally once daily (360-mg loading dose) or leuprolide acetate injections every 12 weeks for 48 weeks, with up to 90 days of follow-up. Main Outcomes and Measures: Castration rate (testosterone level <50 ng/dL [to convert to nmol/L, multiply by 0.0347) at all scheduled visits between weeks 5 and 25 for patients receiving short-term ADT and weeks 5 and 49 for patients receiving longer-term ADT. Results: Of 260 patients (38 Asian [14.6%], 23 Black or African American [8.8%], 21 Hispanic [8.1%], and 188 White [72.3%] individuals), 164 (63.1%) received relugolix. Relugolix achieved castration rates of 95% (95% CI, 87.1%-99.0%) and 97% (95% CI, 90.6%-99.0%) among patients receiving short-term and longer-term ADT, respectively. Twelve weeks post-short-term relugolix, 34 (52%) achieved testosterone levels to baseline or more than 280 ng/dL. Ninety days post longer-term ADT, mean (SD) testosterone levels were 310.5 (122.4) (106.7) ng/dL (relugolix; n = 15) vs 53.0 ng/dL (leuprolide acetate; n = 8) among the subset assessed for testosterone recovery. Castration resistance-free survival was not statistically different between the relugolix and leuprolide acetate cohorts (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.35-2.72; P = .62). Adverse events grade 3 or greater for short-term or longer-term relugolix (headache, hypertension, and atrial fibrillation) were uncommon (less than 5%). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of these 2 randomized clinical trials suggest that relugolix rapidly achieves sustained castration in patients with localized and advanced prostate cancer receiving radiotherapy. No new safety concerns were identified when relugolix was used with radiotherapy.

A Phase 2 Randomized Open-label Study of Oral Darolutamide Monotherapy Versus Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Men with Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer (EORTC-GUCG 1532).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Darolutamide is an androgen receptor inhibitor that increases overall survival in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive and nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PCa). This phase 2 study assessed the efficacy and safety of darolutamide as monotherapy without ADT in patients with eugonadal testosterone levels. METHODS: This was a 24-wk, open-label, randomized study of patients with hormone-sensitive, histologically confirmed PCa requiring gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH); an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0/1; and life expectancy >1 yr. All patients received darolutamide 600 mg bid or a commercially available GnRH analog. The primary endpoint is a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, defined as a ≥80% decline at week 24 relative to baseline in the darolutamide study arm. The GnRH arm is used as an internal control. The secondary endpoints included changes in T levels, safety/tolerability, and quality of life. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 61 men enrolled, the median (range) age was 72 yr (53-86 yr); 42.6% of them had metastases. In the darolutamide arm, the evaluable population with available PSA values at baseline and week 24 consisted of 23 patients. Twenty-three (100%) evaluable darolutamide patients achieved a PSA decline of >80% at week 24 (primary endpoint), with a median (range) decrease of -99.1% (-91.9%, -100%). Serum T levels increased by a median (range) of 44.3 (5.7-144.0) at week 24, compared with baseline. In the darolutamide arm, 48.4% of men reported drug-related adverse events (AEs; mostly grade 1 or 2). The most frequent treatment-emergent AEs included gynecomastia (35.5%), fatigue (12.9%), hot flush (12.9%), and hypertension (12.9%). Health-related quality of life measures are descriptive, and GnRH arm results will be presented as an internal reference. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Darolutamide monotherapy was associated with a significant PSA response in nearly all men with hormone-naïve PCa. Testosterone-level changes and most common AEs (gynecomastia, fatigue, hypertension, and hot flush) were consistent with potent androgen receptor inhibition. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we report the first use of darolutamide, a novel antiandrogen, as monotherapy without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The study shows that darolutamide induce a profound suppression of prostate-specific antigen in all patients, with a safety profile different from that of ADT.

Discrete-Choice Experiment to Understand the Preferences of Patients with Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer in the USA, Canada, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) have broadened, and treatment decisions can have a long-lasting impact on patients' quality of life. Data on patient preferences can improve therapeutic decision-making by helping physicians suggest treatments that align with patients' values and needs. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to quantify patient preferences for attributes of chemohormonal therapies among patients with mHSPC in the USA, Canada, and the UK. METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment survey instrument was developed and administered to patients with high- and very-high-risk localized prostate cancer and mHSPC. Patients chose between baseline androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) alone and experimentally designed, hypothetical treatment alternatives representing chemohormonal therapies. Choices were analyzed using logit models to derive the relative importance of attributes for each country and to evaluate differences and similarities among patients across countries. RESULTS: A total of 550 respondents completed the survey (USA, 200; Canada, 200; UK, 150); the mean age of respondents was 64.3 years. Treatment choices revealed that patients were most concerned with treatment efficacy. However, treatment-related convenience factors, such as route of drug administration and frequency of monitoring visits, were as important as some treatment-related side effects, such as skin rash, nausea, and fatigue. Patient preferences across countries were similar, although patients in Canada appeared to be more affected by concomitant steroid use. CONCLUSION: Patients with mHSPC believe the use of ADT alone is insufficient when more effective treatments are available. Efficacy is the most significant driver of patient choices. Treatment-related convenience factors can be as important as safety concerns for patients.

Personalised versus non-individualised case-based CME: A randomised pilot study.

The PinPoint Case Platform (PPCP) offers independent online case-based CME. To align with personal learning needs, a functionality of needs assessments ("QuickScan") was developed, directing users to follow personalised case journeys. A randomised study was conducted, comparing its effectiveness, time efficiency and user experience with a format of non-individualised case-based learning. Forty-two residents in urology from five European countries were randomly assigned to follow non-individualised case-based learning (control group) or a needs assessment plus personalised case journeys on different topics in prostate cancer. After performing a pre- and post-assessment, both groups showed a similar increase in test scores (Mann-Whitney U = 247; p = .113), but the time needed for completing the learning exercise was significantly lower in the group with the personalised approach (median: 45 vs 90 minutes; Mann-Whitney U = 97.5; p = .0141). The quality of the two learning methods was similarly well received by both groups. In conclusion, learners who followed personalised case journeys learned similarly effective but more time efficient than non-individualised case-based learners. Future studies should determine if these findings can be extrapolated to board-certified physicians following CME activities.

Impact of enzalutamide on patient-reported fatigue in patients with prostate cancer: data from the pivotal clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a multifactorial symptom commonly reported by patients with prostate cancer as a result of disease and treatment. This study assesses the impact enzalutamide has on patient-reported fatigue ("fatigue") by using patient-reported outcomes from four pivotal, placebo-controlled trials of enzalutamide (ARCHES (NCT02677896), PROSPER (NCT02003924), PREVAIL (NCT01212991), and AFFIRM (NCT00974311)). METHODS: Fatigue was assessed in the individual studies using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate item GP1 at baseline, weeks 13 or 17, and every 12 weeks until disease progression. Longitudinal changes were assessed using mean scores and mixed-model repeated measures. RESULTS: The fatigue rates at baseline were higher in patients with later-stage disease (metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC)) and among patients who had already received prior treatment lines; rates ranged between 58% in PROSPER (nonmetastatic CRPC) and 86% in AFFIRM (post-docetaxel metastatic CRPC). Irrespective of disease state, initiation of enzalutamide or placebo resulted in an early increase of fatigue (by weeks 13 or 17), with fatigue levels stabilizing thereafter. At last assessment, ≥55% of patients reported fatigue improvement or stabilization in all trials compared to baseline. More patients reported fatigue worsening by ≥1 or ≥2 units with enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) than with placebo plus ADT in ARCHES, PROSPER, and PREVAIL, but the between-group difference was <10% in all trials. CONCLUSIONS: The levels of fatigue were greater in mCRPC and lower in earlier states of disease. In all trials, patients reported a small increase in fatigue for the first 13-17 weeks after starting enzalutamide or placebo, with slightly greater fatigue with enzalutamide in all studies except AFFIRM, but fatigue stabilized or improved thereafter. This suggests a role for clinical management of fatigue to help patients cope early in treatment.

Overall Survival in Men With Bone Metastases From Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treated With Bone-Targeting Radioisotopes: A Meta-analysis of Individual Patient Data From Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Both α-emitting and ß-emitting bone-targeted radioisotopes (RIs) have been developed to treat men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Only 1 phase 3 randomized clinical trial has demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit from an α-emitting RI, radium 223 (223Ra), vs standard of care. Yet no head-to-head comparison has been done between α-emitting and ß-emitting RIs. Objective: To assess OS in men with bone metastases from CRPC treated with bone-targeted RIs and to compare the effects of α-emitting RIs with ß-emitting RIs. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and meeting proceedings between January 1993 and June 2013 were reviewed. Key terms included randomized trials, radioisotopes, radiopharmaceuticals, and prostate cancer. Data were collected, checked, and analyzed from February 2017 to October 2018. Study Selection: Selected trials included patients with prostate cancer, recruited more than 50 patients from January 1993 to June 2013, compared RI use with no RI use (placebo, external radiotherapy, or chemotherapy), and were randomized. Patients were diagnosed with histologically proven prostate cancer and disease progression after both surgical or chemical castration and have evidence of bone metastasis. Nine randomized clinical trials were identified as eligible, but 3 were excluded for insufficient data. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Individual patient data were requested for each eligible trial, and all data were checked with a standard procedure. The log-rank test stratified by trial was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs), and a similar fixed-effects (FE) model was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs). The between-trial heterogeneity of treatment effects was evaluated by Cochran test and I2 and was accounted by a random-effects (RE) model. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival; secondary outcomes were symptomatic skeletal event (SSE)-free survival and adverse events. Results: Based on 6 randomized clinical trials including 2081 patients, RI use was significantly associated with OS compared with no RI use (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.95; P = .004) with high heterogeneity (χ25 = 24.46; P < .001; I2 = 80%), but this association disappeared when using an RE model (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61-1.06; P = .12; τ2 = 0.08). The heterogeneity is explained both by the type of RI and by the inclusion of 2 outlier trials that included 275 patients; the OS benefit was significantly higher with the α-emitting RI 223Ra (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.83) but not significant with the ß-emitting RI strontium-89 (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.84-1.10) (P for interaction = .004). Excluding the outlier trials led to an overall HR of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.73-0.92; P < .001) (between-trial heterogeneity: χ23 = 6.51; P = .09; I2 = 54%) using an FE model and an HR of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.65-0.99; P = .04; τ2 = 0.02) using an RE model. The HR for SSE-free survival was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.69-0.93; P = .004) (between-trial heterogeneity: χ23 = 6.71; P = .08; I2 = 55%) when using an FE model and was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.58-1.01; P = .06; τ2 = 0.04) when using an RE model. There were more hematological toxic effects with RI use compared with no RI use (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.17-1.88; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In metastatic CRPC, a significant improvement of OS and SSE-free survival was obtained with bone-targeted α-emitting but not ß-emitting RIs. Caution is necessary for generalizability of these results, given the between-trial heterogeneity.

The role of bisphosphonates or denosumab in light of the availability of new therapies for prostate cancer.

Most men with advanced prostate cancer will develop bone metastases, which have a substantial impact on quality of life. Bone metastases can lead to skeletal-related events (SREs), which place a burden on patients and healthcare systems. For men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and bone metastases, the treatment landscape has evolved rapidly over the past few years. The relatively recent approvals of the hormonal agents abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide, second-line chemotherapy cabazitaxel, and the radiopharmaceutical radium-223 dichloride (radium-223), have provided clinicians with a greater choice of treatments. These compounds have benefits in terms of overall survival based on the results of pivotal phase 3 studies. The bisphosphonate zoledronic acid and the RANK ligand inhibitor denosumab are indicated for the prevention of SREs in men with metastatic CRPC but studies of these compounds have not demonstrated a survival benefit. The important question of the role of bisphosphonates or denosumab in combination with these new agents has thus materialised. Current and emerging evidence from clinical studies of abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide and radium-223, suggest that addition of bisphosphonates or denosumab to these new therapies may provide further clinical benefits for patients with prostate cancer and bone metastases. This evidence may help to shape clinical practice but are based largely on post hoc analyses of clinical trial data. It is therefore apparent that further data are required from both clinical studies and real-world settings to enable physicians to understand the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with the new agents plus bisphosphonates or denosumab.