Improved Outcomes with Enzalutamide in Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with prostate cancer who have high-risk biochemical recurrence have an increased risk of progression. The efficacy and safety of enzalutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy and enzalutamide monotherapy, as compared with androgen-deprivation therapy alone, are unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients with prostate cancer who had high-risk biochemical recurrence with a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of 9 months or less. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive enzalutamide (160 mg) daily plus leuprolide every 12 weeks (combination group), placebo plus leuprolide (leuprolide-alone group), or enzalutamide monotherapy (monotherapy group). The primary end point was metastasis-free survival, as assessed by blinded independent central review, in the combination group as compared with the leuprolide-alone group. A key secondary end point was metastasis-free survival in the monotherapy group as compared with the leuprolide-alone group. Other secondary end points were patient-reported outcomes and safety. RESULTS: A total of 1068 patients underwent randomization: 355 were assigned to the combination group, 358 to the leuprolide-alone group, and 355 to the monotherapy group. The patients were followed for a median of 60.7 months. At 5 years, metastasis-free survival was 87.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83.0 to 90.6) in the combination group, 71.4% (95% CI, 65.7 to 76.3) in the leuprolide-alone group, and 80.0% (95% CI, 75.0 to 84.1) in the monotherapy group. With respect to metastasis-free survival, enzalutamide plus leuprolide was superior to leuprolide alone (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.61; P<0.001); enzalutamide monotherapy was also superior to leuprolide alone (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.87; P = 0.005). No new safety signals were observed, with no substantial between-group differences in quality-of-life measures. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with prostate cancer with high-risk biochemical recurrence, enzalutamide plus leuprolide was superior to leuprolide alone with respect to metastasis-free survival; enzalutamide monotherapy was also superior to leuprolide alone. The safety profile of enzalutamide was consistent with that shown in previous clinical studies, with no apparent detrimental effect on quality of life. (Funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma; EMBARK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02319837.).

Treatment Patterns Among Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer in Brazil: An Analysis of a Private Healthcare System Database.

Background: With the ongoing expansion of life-prolonging therapies approved to treat advanced prostate cancer, there is currently an unmet need to better understand real-world treatment patterns and identify optimal treatment sequencing for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Methods: In this retrospective, observational cohort analysis, patients with confirmed mCRPC were identified in the Auditron claims database and used to describe mCRPC treatment patterns and trends in the Brazilian private healthcare system from 2014 to 2019. Demographics and clinical characteristics, prostate cancer stage at diagnosis, and type and number of treatment lines were evaluated. The primary endpoint was identification of the drugs used in first-line therapies in mCRPC, and the secondary endpoint included a description of sequential lines of therapy (second and third lines) in mCRPC. Results: A total of 168 electronic patient records were reviewed. Docetaxel was the most frequently used first-line treatment (35.7%), followed by abiraterone (33.3%) and enzalutamide (13.1%). Docetaxel, abiraterone, and enzalutamide also accounted for 34.6%, 28.0%, and 15.0%, respectively, of second-line therapies. In third-line therapies, cabazitaxel (26.1%), enzalutamide (23.9%), docetaxel (15.2%), and abiraterone (15.2%) were most commonly prescribed. Irrespective of stage at diagnosis, treatment patterns were similar once the disease progressed to the metastatic castration-resistance stage. Conclusions: Docetaxel was the most frequently utilized therapy for mCRPC treatment, followed by abiraterone and enzalutamide. Although the current analyses provide real-world insights into treatment patterns for patients with mCRPC in Brazil, additional real-world data are needed to further validate and expand on these findings.

Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma in a horseshoe kidney.

Horseshoe kidney has an incidence rate ranging from 1 in 400 to 1 in 1000, with a 2:1 ratio in men. It also has a predilection for chromosomal aneuploidies. From a pathophysiology standpoint, this anomaly occurs during the second to sixth week of gestation when the inferior portion of the metanephric blastema fuses to form an isthmus, commonly in the lower renal pole (90%). As a result of this fusion, the kidney may not bypass the inferior mesenteric artery and is impeded in its ascent. With an aberrant anatomical orientation and location, complications arise including hydronephrosis, renal calculi and a twofold risk of Wilms tumour. Despite these findings, the association of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) within a horseshoe kidney is extremely rare and fewer than 200 cases have been described. Therapeutically speaking, partial nephrectomies are the gold standard of treatment for renal tumours smaller than 4 cm in diameter, with a growing indication to accomplish this procedure by laparoscopic or robotic means. We report a case of an asymptomatic 58-year-old male with an incidental computed tomography scan finding of a 4-cm solid mass in the right moiety of a horseshoe kidney. He was treated by laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. There have only been 2 other reported cases to our knowledge on a laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in a horseshoe kidney for RCC. We believe that, in experienced hands, the laparoscopic approach may be used successfully for this clinical situation.