Efficacy and safety of darolutamide in Black/African-American patients from the phase III ARAMIS study.

Aim: Darolutamide significantly improved metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) versus placebo in the phase III ARAMIS study. We evaluated outcomes in Black/African-American patients in ARAMIS. Materials & methods: Patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomized 2:1 to darolutamide (n = 955) or placebo (n = 554) plus androgen-deprivation therapy. The primary end point was MFS. Secondary end points included OS and safety. Results: In 52 (3.4%) Black/African-American patients, darolutamide improved MFS (median: not reached vs 12.4 months) and OS (3-year survival rates: 100 vs 71%) versus placebo. The safety profile of darolutamide in Black/African-American patients was consistent with that of all ARAMIS patients. Conclusion: In Black/African-American patients, darolutamide improved MFS and OS and was well tolerated, consistent with the overall ARAMIS population.

In patients with prostate cancer that has stopped responding to androgen-deprivation therapy, or 'ADT,' and has not spread to other parts of the body (known as nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, or 'nmCRPC'), darolutamide is an oral treatment option. Darolutamide added to ADT was tested in patients with nmCRPC in a large international study called ARAMIS and was found to prolong the time that patients were free from their cancer spreading compared with patients who received ADT alone. This report provides information on the effect of darolutamide in the 52 Black/African­American patients who took part in ARAMIS. In these patients, darolutamide showed similar effects on lowering the risk of their cancer spreading and was well tolerated.

Progressive transition from pre-planned to intraoperative optimizing seed implant: post implementation analysis.

PURPOSE: To perform a dosimetric comparison between a pre-planned technique and a pre-plan based intraoperative technique in prostate cancer patients treated with I-125 permanent seed implantation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty patients were treated with I-125 permanent seed implantation using TRUS guidance. The first 15 of these patients (Arm A) were treated with a pre-planned technique using ultrasound images acquired prior to seed implantation. To evaluate the reproducibility of the prostate volume, ultrasound images were also acquired during the procedure in the operating room (OR). A surface registration was applied to determine the 6D offset between different image sets in arm A. The remaining 15 patients (Arm B) were planned by putting the pre-plan on the intraoperative ultrasound image and then re-optimizing the seed locations with minimal changes to the pre-plan needle locations. Post implant dosimetric analyses included comparisons of V(100)(prostate), D(90)(prostate) and V(100)(rectum). RESULTS: In Arm A, the 6D offsets between the two image sets were θ(x)=-1.4±4.3; θ(y)=-1.7±2.6; θ(z)=-0.5±2.6; X=0.5±1.8 mm; Y=-1.3±-3.5 mm; Z=-1.6±2.2 mm. These differences alone degraded V(100) by 6.4% and D(90) by 9.3% in the pre-plan, respectively. Comparing Arm A with Arm B, the pre-plan based intraoperative optimization of seed locations used in the plans for patients in Arm B improved the V(100) and D(90) in their post-implant studies by 4.0% and 5.7%, respectively. This was achieved without significantly increasing the rectal dose (V(100)(rectum)). CONCLUSIONS: We have progressively moved prostate seed implantation from a pre-planned technique to a pre-plan based intraoperative technique. In addition to reserving the advantage of cost-effective seed ordering and efficient OR implantation, our intraoperative technique demonstrates increased accuracy and precision compared to the pre-planned technique.