Darolutamide and Survival in Metastatic, Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Darolutamide is a potent androgen-receptor inhibitor that has been associated with increased overall survival among patients with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. Whether a combination of darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel would increase survival among patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is unknown. METHODS: In this international, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in a 1:1 ratio to receive darolutamide (at a dose of 600 mg [two 300-mg tablets] twice daily) or matching placebo, both in combination with androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: The primary analysis involved 1306 patients (651 in the darolutamide group and 655 in the placebo group); 86.1% of the patients had disease that was metastatic at the time of the initial diagnosis. At the data cutoff date for the primary analysis (October 25, 2021), the risk of death was significantly lower, by 32.5%, in the darolutamide group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.80; P<0.001). Darolutamide was also associated with consistent benefits with respect to the secondary end points and prespecified subgroups. Adverse events were similar in the two groups, and the incidences of the most common adverse events (occurring in ≥10% of the patients) were highest during the overlapping docetaxel treatment period in both groups. The frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 66.1% in the darolutamide group and 63.5% in the placebo group; neutropenia was the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event (in 33.7% and 34.2%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, overall survival was significantly longer with the combination of darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel than with placebo plus androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel, and the addition of darolutamide led to improvement in key secondary end points. The frequency of adverse events was similar in the two groups. (Funded by Bayer and Orion Pharma; ARASENS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02799602.).

Safety and effectiveness of the radium-223-taxane treatment sequence in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in a global observational study (REASSURE).

BACKGROUND: Radium-223 and taxane chemotherapy each improve survival of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Whether the radium-223-taxane sequence could extend survival without cumulative toxicity was explored. METHODS: The global, prospective, observational REASSURE study (NCT02141438) assessed real-world safety and effectiveness of radium-223 in patients with mCRPC. Using data from the prespecified second interim analysis (data cutoff, March 20, 2019), hematologic events and overall survival (OS) were evaluated in patients who were chemotherapy-naive at radium-223 initiation and subsequently received taxane chemotherapy starting ≤90 days ("immediate") or >90 days ("delayed") after the last radium-223 dose. RESULTS: Following radium-223 therapy, 182 patients received docetaxel (172 [95%]) and/or cabazitaxel (44 [24%]); 34 patients (19%) received both. Seventy-three patients (40%) received immediate chemotherapy and 109 patients (60%) received delayed chemotherapy. Median time from last radium-223 dose to first taxane cycle was 3.6 months (range, 0.3-28.4). Median duration of first taxane was 3.7 months (range, 0-22.0). Fourteen patients (10 in the immediate and four in the delayed subgroup) had grade 3/4 hematologic events during taxane chemotherapy, including neutropenia in two patients in the delayed subgroup and thrombocytopenia in one patient in each subgroup. Median OS was 24.3 months from radium-223 initiation and 11.8 months from start of taxane therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world clinical practice settings, a heterogeneous population of patients who received sequential radium-223-taxane therapy had a low incidence of hematologic events, with a median survival of 1 year from taxane initiation. Thus, taxane chemotherapy is a feasible option for those who progress after radium-223. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02141438. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Radium-223 and chemotherapy are treatment options for metastatic prostate cancer, which increase survival but may affect production of blood cells as a side effect. We wanted to know what would happen if patients received chemotherapy after radium-223. Among the 182 men treated with radium-223 who went on to receive chemotherapy, only two men had severe side effects affecting white blood cell production (neutropenia) during chemotherapy. On average, the 182 men lived for 2 years after starting radium-223 and 1 year after starting chemotherapy. In conclusion, patients may benefit from chemotherapy after radium-223 treatment without increasing the risk of side effects.

Efficacy and Safety of Darolutamide in Combination With Androgen-Deprivation Therapy and Docetaxel in Black Patients From the Randomized ARASENS Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ARASENS trial (NCT02799602), darolutamide in combination with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and docetaxel significantly reduced the risk of death by 32.5% (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80; P < .0001) compared with placebo plus ADT with docetaxel in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). We present efficacy and safety of darolutamide versus placebo in Black patients from ARASENS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mHSPC were randomized 1:1 to darolutamide 600 mg or placebo twice daily in combination with ADT and docetaxel. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Key secondary endpoints included time to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and safety. RESULTS: In ARASENS, 54 Black patients received darolutamide (n = 26) or placebo (n = 28) plus ADT and docetaxel. In Black patients, overall survival favored darolutamide versus placebo (median, not reached vs. 38.7 months; stratified HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-1.02), with 4-year survival rates of 62% versus 41%. The darolutamide group also had longer time to CRPC compared with the placebo group (median, not reached vs .12.6 months; HR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.02-0.30). The safety profile of darolutamide in Black patients was consistent with that observed for the overall ARASENS population (grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events, TEAEs: 61.5% vs. 66.1%; serious TEAEs: 42.3% vs. 44.8%). CONCLUSION: In this small population of Black patients with mHSPC from the ARASENS trial, darolutamide was associated with an improvement in survival and time to CRPC and was well tolerated. Efficacy and safety findings in Black patients were consistent with the overall ARASENS population.

Which patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer benefit from docetaxel: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Adding docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, but uncertainty remains about who benefits most. We therefore aimed to obtain up-to-date estimates of the overall effects of docetaxel and to assess whether these effects varied according to prespecified characteristics of the patients or their tumours. METHODS: The STOPCAP M1 collaboration conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. We searched MEDLINE (from database inception to March 31, 2022), Embase (from database inception to March 31, 2022), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from database inception to March 31, 2022), proceedings of relevant conferences (from Jan 1, 1990, to Dec 31, 2022), and ClinicalTrials.gov (from database inception to March 28, 2023) to identify eligible randomised trials that assessed docetaxel plus ADT compared with ADT alone in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Detailed and updated individual participant data were requested directly from study investigators or through relevant repositories. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival and failure-free survival. Overall pooled effects were estimated using an adjusted, intention-to-treat, two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis, with one-stage and random-effects sensitivity analyses. Missing covariate values were imputed. Differences in effect by participant characteristics were estimated using adjusted two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis of within-trial interactions on the basis of progression-free survival to maximise power. Identified effect modifiers were also assessed on the basis of overall survival. To explore multiple subgroup interactions and derive subgroup-specific absolute treatment effects we used one-stage flexible parametric modelling and regression standardisation. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019140591. FINDINGS: We obtained individual participant data from 2261 patients (98% of those randomised) from three eligible trials (GETUG-AFU15, CHAARTED, and STAMPEDE trials), with a median follow-up of 72 months (IQR 55-85). Individual participant data were not obtained from two additional small trials. Based on all included trials and patients, there were clear benefits of docetaxel on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·70 to 0·88; p<0·0001), progression-free survival (0·70, 0·63 to 0·77; p<0·0001), and failure-free survival (0·64, 0·58 to 0·71; p<0·0001), representing 5-year absolute improvements of around 9-11%. The overall risk of bias was assessed to be low, and there was no strong evidence of differences in effect between trials for all three main outcomes. The relative effect of docetaxel on progression-free survival appeared to be greater with increasing clinical T stage (pinteraction=0·0019), higher volume of metastases (pinteraction=0·020), and, to a lesser extent, synchronous diagnosis of metastatic disease (pinteraction=0·077). Taking into account the other interactions, the effect of docetaxel was independently modified by volume and clinical T stage, but not timing. There was no strong evidence that docetaxel improved absolute effects at 5 years for patients with low-volume, metachronous disease (-1%, 95% CI -15 to 12, for progression-free survival; 0%, -10 to 12, for overall survival). The largest absolute improvement at 5 years was observed for those with high-volume, clinical T stage 4 disease (27%, 95% CI 17 to 37, for progression-free survival; 35%, 24 to 47, for overall survival). INTERPRETATION: The addition of docetaxel to hormone therapy is best suited to patients with poorer prognosis for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer based on a high volume of disease and potentially the bulkiness of the primary tumour. There is no evidence of meaningful benefit for patients with metachronous, low-volume disease who should therefore be managed differently. These results will better characterise patients most and, importantly, least likely to gain benefit from docetaxel, potentially changing international practice, guiding clinical decision making, better informing treatment policy, and improving patient outcomes. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Prostate Cancer UK.

Abiraterone plus prednisone added to androgen deprivation therapy and docetaxel in de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (PEACE-1): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study with a 2 × 2 factorial design.

BACKGROUND: Current standard of care for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer supplements androgen deprivation therapy with either docetaxel, second-generation hormonal therapy, or radiotherapy. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of abiraterone plus prednisone, with or without radiotherapy, in addition to standard of care. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study with a 2 × 2 factorial design (PEACE-1) at 77 hospitals across Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were male, aged 18 years or older, with histologically confirmed or cytologically confirmed de novo metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 (or 2 due to bone pain). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy alone or with intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks), standard of care plus radiotherapy, standard of care plus abiraterone (oral 1000 mg abiraterone once daily plus oral 5 mg prednisone twice daily), or standard of care plus radiotherapy plus abiraterone. Neither the investigators nor the patients were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary endpoints were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. Abiraterone efficacy was first assessed in the overall population and then in the population who received androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel as standard of care (population of interest). This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01957436. FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2013, and Dec 20, 2018, 1173 patients were enrolled (one patient subsequently withdrew consent for analysis of his data) and assigned to receive standard of care (n=296), standard of care plus radiotherapy (n=293), standard of care plus abiraterone (n=292), or standard of care plus radiotherapy plus abiraterone (n=291). Median follow-up was 3·5 years (IQR 2·8-4·6) for radiographic progression-free survival and 4·4 years (3·5-5·4) for overall survival. Adjusted Cox regression modelling revealed no interaction between abiraterone and radiotherapy, enabling the pooled analysis of abiraterone efficacy. In the overall population, patients assigned to receive abiraterone (n=583) had longer radiographic progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 99·9% CI 0·41-0·71; p<0·0001) and overall survival (0·82, 95·1% CI 0·69-0·98; p=0·030) than patients who did not receive abiraterone (n=589). In the androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel population (n=355 in both with abiraterone and without abiraterone groups), the HRs were consistent (radiographic progression-free survival 0·50, 99·9% CI 0·34-0·71; p<0·0001; overall survival 0·75, 95·1% CI 0·59-0·95; p=0·017). In the androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel population, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 217 (63%) of 347 patients who received abiraterone and 181 (52%) of 350 who did not; hypertension had the largest difference in occurrence (76 [22%] patients and 45 [13%], respectively). Addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel did not increase the rates of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, fatigue, or neuropathy compared with androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel alone. INTERPRETATION: Combining androgen deprivation therapy, docetaxel, and abiraterone in de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer improved overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival with a modest increase in toxicity, mostly hypertension. This triplet therapy could become a standard of care for these patients. FUNDING: Janssen-Cilag, Ipsen, Sanofi, and the French Government.

Oral Relugolix for Androgen-Deprivation Therapy in Advanced Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Injectable luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists (e.g., leuprolide) are the standard agents for achieving androgen deprivation for prostate cancer despite the initial testosterone surge and delay in therapeutic effect. The efficacy and safety of relugolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, as compared with those of leuprolide are not known. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with advanced prostate cancer, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive relugolix (120 mg orally once daily) or leuprolide (injections every 3 months) for 48 weeks. The primary end point was sustained testosterone suppression to castrate levels (<50 ng per deciliter) through 48 weeks. Secondary end points included noninferiority with respect to the primary end point, castrate levels of testosterone on day 4, and profound castrate levels (<20 ng per deciliter) on day 15. Testosterone recovery was evaluated in a subgroup of patients. RESULTS: A total of 622 patients received relugolix and 308 received leuprolide. Of men who received relugolix, 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.9 to 97.9) maintained castration through 48 weeks, as compared with 88.8% (95% CI, 84.6 to 91.8) of men receiving leuprolide. The difference of 7.9 percentage points (95% CI, 4.1 to 11.8) showed noninferiority and superiority of relugolix (P<0.001 for superiority). All other key secondary end points showed superiority of relugolix over leuprolide (P<0.001). The percentage of patients with castrate levels of testosterone on day 4 was 56.0% with relugolix and 0% with leuprolide. In the subgroup of 184 patients followed for testosterone recovery, the mean testosterone levels 90 days after treatment discontinuation were 288.4 ng per deciliter in the relugolix group and 58.6 ng per deciliter in the leuprolide group. Among all the patients, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was 2.9% in the relugolix group and 6.2% in the leuprolide group (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving men with advanced prostate cancer, relugolix achieved rapid, sustained suppression of testosterone levels that was superior to that with leuprolide, with a 54% lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. (Funded by Myovant Sciences; HERO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03085095.).

Whole-body MRI in oncology: can a single anatomic T2 Dixon sequence replace the combination of T1 and STIR sequences to detect skeletal metastasis and myeloma?

OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of a single T2 Dixon sequence to the combination T1+STIR as anatomical sequences used for detecting tumoral bone marrow lesions in whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) examinations. METHODS: Between January 2019 and January 2020, seventy-two consecutive patients (55 men, 17 women, median age = 66 years) with solid (prostate, breast, neuroendocrine) cancers at high risk of metastasis or proven multiple myeloma (MM) prospectively underwent a WB-MRI examination including coronal T1, STIR, T2 Dixon and axial diffusion-weighted imaging sequences. Two radiologists independently assessed the combination of T1+STIR sequences and the fat+water reconstructions from the T2 Dixon sequence. The reference standard was established by consensus reading of WB-MRI and concurrent imaging available at baseline and at 6 months. Repeatability and reproducibility of MRI scores (presence and semi-quantitative count of lesions), image quality (SNR: signal-to-noise, CNR: contrast-to-noise, CRR: contrast-to-reference ratios), and diagnostic characteristics (Se: sensitivity, Sp: specificity, Acc: accuracy) were assessed per-skeletal region and per-patient. RESULTS: Repeatability and reproducibility were at least good regardless of the score, region, and protocol (0.67 ≤ AC1 ≤ 0.98). CRR was higher on T2 Dixon fat compared to T1 (p < 0.0001) and on T2 Dixon water compared to STIR (p = 0.0128). In the per-patient analysis, Acc of the T2 Dixon fat+water was higher than that of T1+STIR for the senior reader (Acc = +0.027 [+0.025; +0.029], p < 0.0001) and lower for the junior reader (Acc = -0.029 [-0.031; -0.027], p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A single T2 Dixon sequence with fat+water reconstructions offers similar reproducibility and diagnostic accuracy as the recommended combination of T1+STIR sequences and can be used for skeletal screening in oncology, allowing significant time-saving. KEY POINTS: • Replacement of the standard anatomic T1 + STIR WB-MRI protocol by a single T2 Dixon sequence drastically shortens the examination time without loss of diagnostic accuracy. • A protocol based on fat + water reconstructions from a single T2 Dixon sequence offers similar inter-reader agreement and a higher contrast-to-reference ratio for detecting lesions compared to the standard T1 + STIR protocol. • Differences in the accuracy between the two protocols are marginal (+ 3% in favor of the T2 Dixon with the senior reader; -3% against the T2 Dixon with the junior reader).

Cabazitaxel versus Abiraterone or Enzalutamide in Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel, as compared with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were previously treated with docetaxel and had progression within 12 months while receiving the alternative inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) are unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had previously received docetaxel and an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) to receive cabazitaxel (at a dose of 25 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously every 3 weeks, plus prednisone daily and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) or the other androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (either 1000 mg of abiraterone plus prednisone daily or 160 mg of enzalutamide daily). The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival. Secondary end points of survival, response, and safety were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 255 patients underwent randomization. After a median follow-up of 9.2 months, imaging-based progression or death was reported in 95 of 129 patients (73.6%) in the cabazitaxel group, as compared with 101 of 126 patients (80.2%) in the group that received an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median imaging-based progression-free survival was 8.0 months with cabazitaxel and 3.7 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. The median overall survival was 13.6 months with cabazitaxel and 11.0 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.89; P = 0.008). The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months with cabazitaxel and 2.7 months with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.68; P<0.001), a prostate-specific antigen response occurred in 35.7% and 13.5% of the patients, respectively (P<0.001), and tumor response was noted in 36.5% and 11.5% (P = 0.004). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 56.3% of patients receiving cabazitaxel and in 52.4% of those receiving an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Cabazitaxel significantly improved a number of clinical outcomes, as compared with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had been previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen-signaling-targeted agent (abiraterone or enzalutamide). (Funded by Sanofi; CARD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02485691.).

Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer assessment: Current status and future directions.

Over the past decade, updated definitions for the different stages of prostate cancer and risk for distant disease, along with the advent of new therapies, have remarkably changed the management of patients. The two expectations from imaging are accurate staging and appropriate assessment of disease response to therapies. Modern, next-generation imaging (NGI) modalities, including whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) and nuclear medicine (most often prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA] positron emission tomography [PET]/computed tomography [CT]) bring added value to these imaging tasks. WB-MRI has proven its superiority over bone scintigraphy (BS) and CT for the detection of distant metastasis, also providing reliable evaluations of disease response to treatment. Comparison of the effectiveness of WB-MRI and molecular nuclear imaging techniques with regard to indications and the definition of their respective/complementary roles in clinical practice is ongoing. This paper illustrates the evolution of WB-MRI imaging protocols, defines the current state-of-the art, and highlights the latest developments and future challenges. The paper presents and discusses WB-MRI indications in the care pathway of men with prostate cancer in specific key situations: response assessment of metastatic disease, "all in one" cancer staging, and oligometastatic disease.

Cytoreductive nephrectomy and exposure to sunitinib - a post hoc analysis of the Immediate Surgery or Surgery After Sunitinib Malate in Treating Patients With Metastatic Kidney Cancer (SURTIME) trial.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse if exposure to sunitinib in the Immediate Surgery or Surgery After Sunitinib Malate in Treating Patients With Metastatic Kidney Cancer (SURTIME) trial, which investigated opposite sequences of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) and systemic therapy, is associated with the overall survival (OS) benefit observed in the deferred CN arm. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A post hoc analysis of SURTIME trial data. Variables analysed included number of patients receiving sunitinib, time from randomisation to start sunitinib, overall response rate by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, and duration of drug exposure and dose in the intention-to-treat population of the immediate and deferred arm. Descriptive methods and 95% confidence-intervals (CI) were used. RESULTS: In the deferred arm, 97.7% (95% CI 89.3-99.6%; n = 48) received sunitinib vs 80% (95% CI 66.9-88.7%, n = 40) in the immediate arm. Following immediate CN, 19.6% progressed 4 weeks after CN and the median time to start sunitinib was 39.5 vs 4.5 days in the deferred arm. At week 16, 46.0% had progressed at metastatic sites in the immediate CN arm vs 32.7% in the deferred arm. Sunitinib dose reductions, escalations and interruptions were not statistically significantly different between arms. Among patients who received sunitinib in the immediate or deferred arm the median total sunitinib treatment duration was 172.5 vs 248 days. Reduction of target lesions was more profound in the deferred arm. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to the deferred CN approach, immediate CN impairs administration, onset, and duration of sunitinib. Starting with systemic therapy leads to early and more profound disease control and identification of progression prior to planned CN, which may have contributed to the observed OS benefit.

Darolutamide and survival in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a patient and caregiver perspective and plain language summary of the ARASENS trial.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a publication about the ARASENS trial, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in February 2022. The trial includes 1,306 men with a type of prostate cancer called metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (also called mHSPC). In the trial, researchers wanted to learn if combining a treatment called darolutamide (also known by the brand name Nubeqa®) with two other medicines called androgen deprivation therapy (also called ADT) and docetaxel (brand name Taxotere®) could help treat patients with mHSPC better than placebo plus ADT and docetaxel. ADT with docetaxel is a treatment used for patients with mHSPC. Darolutamide is an approved treatment for a different type of prostate cancer called non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (also called nmCRPC). WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: The trial results showed that combining darolutamide with ADT and docetaxel increased the chance of survival and lowered the risk of death by 32.5% compared to combining ADT and docetaxel with placebo instead. Compared to patients who received the placebo, patients who received darolutamide had a delay in: their cancer becoming castration-resistant worsening pain having cancer-related bone fractures or related symptoms needing additional therapies for cancer The percentage of trial patients who had medical problems during the trial, also called adverse events, was similar between trial patients who received darolutamide and those who received the placebo. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: Combining darolutamide with ADT and docetaxel helped treat trial patients with mHSPC better than placebo with ADT and docetaxel. Darolutamide in combination with ADT and docetaxel could be a treatment option for patients with mHSPC. Patients should always talk to their doctors and nurses before making any decisions about their treatment. This summary also includes perspectives on the ARASENS trial and prostate cancer from 3 members of the patient community. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT number: NCT02799602.

Which traits affect how long patients with advanced prostate cancer live when treated with enzalutamide?

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of a research article originally published in European Journal of Cancer. The PROSPER study involved men who had a type of advanced prostate cancer called nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). In men with nmCRPC, their cancer has progressed on traditional hormone therapy but scans show that it has not spread to other parts of the body. The main results of the PROSPER study showed that patients treated with enzalutamide lived longer than patients treated with placebo. For this analysis, researchers looked at whether this was different depending on patients' traits. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: Researchers found that age and location did not affect how long patients lived when treated with enzalutamide. They found three patient traits that did make a difference. Being able to carry out daily activities, low prostate-specific antigen level (PSA level), and receiving no other prostate cancer treatments after the study meant that patients were more likely to live longer. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: Patients with nmCRPC treated with enzalutamide lived longer than patients treated with placebo. Age and location did not affect how long these patients lived, but other traits did. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02003924 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Real-world outcomes of second novel hormonal therapy or radium-223 following first novel hormonal therapy for mCRPC.

Aim: To evaluate real-world clinical outcomes of radium-223 or alternative novel hormonal therapy (NHT) following first-line NHT for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Patients & methods: Retrospective analysis of the US Flatiron database (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03896984). Results: In the radium-223 cohort (n = 120) versus the alternative NHT cohort (n = 226), proportionally more patients had prior symptomatic skeletal events and bone-only metastases, and first-line NHT duration was shorter. Following second-line therapy, 49 versus 39% of patients received subsequent life-prolonging therapy; of these, 47 versus 76% received taxane. Median overall survival was 10.8 versus 11.2 months. Conclusion: Real-world patients with mCRPC had similar median overall survival following second-line radium-223 or alternative NHT after first-line NHT. Many patients received subsequent therapy, with less taxane use after radium-223.

Lay abstract Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer are often first treated with novel hormonal therapy (NHT) using abiraterone or enzalutamide. To aid decisions about what treatment to use next, we reviewed information about patients who were treated with an alternative NHT (226 patients) or the nuclear medicine radium-223 (120 patients) after the first NHT. Most patients given radium-223 had cancer that had spread to their bones only, whereas many patients given an alternative NHT had cancer in their bones and other parts of their body. Around one in four patients given radium-223 and one in five given an alternative NHT had symptoms related to their bone metastases after starting treatment. Five in every ten patients given radium-223 received further therapy, including chemotherapy in 50% of these patients, while four in every ten patients given an alternative NHT received further therapy, including chemotherapy in 75%. On average, patients lived for almost a year after starting radium-223 or an alternative NHT.

Cabazitaxel versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: post hoc analysis of the CARD study excluding chemohormonal therapy for castrate-naive disease.

BACKGROUND: In the CARD study (NCT02485691), cabazitaxel significantly improved clinical outcomes versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitor. However, some patients received docetaxel or the prior alternative androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitor in the metastatic hormone-sensitive (mHSPC) setting. Therefore, the CARD results cannot be directly translated to a Japanese population. METHODS: Patients (N = 255) received cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 IV Q3W, prednisone, G-CSF) versus abiraterone (1000 mg PO, prednisone) or enzalutamide (160 mg PO) after prior docetaxel and progression ≤12 months on the alternative androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitor. Patients who received combination therapy for mHSPC were excluded (n = 33) as docetaxel is not approved in this setting in Japan. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients (median age 70 years) were included in this subanalysis. Median number of cycles was higher for cabazitaxel versus androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitors (7 versus 4). Clinical outcomes favoured cabazitaxel over abiraterone or enzalutamide including, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS; median 8.2 versus 3.4 months; P < 0.0001), overall survival (OS; 13.9 versus 11.8 months; P = 0.0102), PFS (4.4 versus 2.7 months; P < 0.0001), confirmed prostate-specific antigen response (37.0 versus 14.4%; P = 0.0006) and objective tumour response (38.9 versus 11.4%; P = 0.0036). For cabazitaxel versus androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitor, grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in 55% versus 44% of patients, with adverse events leading to death on study in 2.7% versus 5.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Cabazitaxel significantly improved outcomes including rPFS and OS versus abiraterone or enzalutamide and are reflective of the Japanese patient population. Cabazitaxel should be considered the preferred treatment option over abiraterone or enzalutamide in this setting.

Characterisation and classification of oligometastatic disease: a European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer consensus recommendation.

Oligometastatic disease has been proposed as an intermediate state between localised and systemically metastasised disease. In the absence of randomised phase 3 trials, early clinical studies show improved survival when radical local therapy is added to standard systemic therapy for oligometastatic disease. However, since no biomarker for the identification of patients with true oligometastatic disease is clinically available, the diagnosis of oligometastatic disease is based solely on imaging findings. A small number of metastases on imaging could represent different clinical scenarios, which are associated with different prognoses and might require different treatment strategies. 20 international experts including 19 members of the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer OligoCare project developed a comprehensive system for characterisation and classification of oligometastatic disease. We first did a systematic review of the literature to identify inclusion and exclusion criteria of prospective interventional oligometastatic disease clinical trials. Next, we used a Delphi consensus process to select a total of 17 oligometastatic disease characterisation factors that should be assessed in all patients treated with radical local therapy for oligometastatic disease, both within and outside of clinical trials. Using a second round of the Delphi method, we established a decision tree for oligometastatic disease classification together with a nomenclature. We agreed oligometastatic disease as the overall umbrella term. A history of polymetastatic disease before diagnosis of oligometastatic disease was used as the criterion to differentiate between induced oligometastatic disease (previous history of polymetastatic disease) and genuine oligometastatic disease (no history of polymetastatic disease). We further subclassified genuine oligometastatic disease into repeat oligometastatic disease (previous history of oligometastatic disease) and de-novo oligometastatic disease (first time diagnosis of oligometastatic disease). In de-novo oligometastatic disease, we differentiated between synchronous and metachronous oligometastatic disease. We did a final subclassification into oligorecurrence, oligoprogression, and oligopersistence, considering whether oligometastatic disease is diagnosed during a treatment-free interval or during active systemic therapy and whether or not an oligometastatic lesion is progressing on current imaging. This oligometastatic disease classification and nomenclature needs to be prospectively evaluated by the OligoCare study.

Quality of life in patients with metastatic prostate cancer following treatment with cabazitaxel versus abiraterone or enzalutamide (CARD): an analysis of a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study.

BACKGROUND: In the CARD study, cabazitaxel significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. Here, we report the quality-of-life outcomes from the CARD study. METHODS: CARD was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study involving 62 clinical sites across 13 European countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2) with confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of an interactive voice-web response system to receive cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks, 10 mg daily prednisone, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg orally once daily plus 5 mg prednisone twice daily) or enzalutamide (160 mg orally daily). Stratification factors were ECOG performance status, time to disease progression on the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor, and timing of the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival; here, we present more detailed analyses of pain (assessed using item 3 on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF]) and symptomatic skeletal events, alongside preplanned patient-reported outcomes, assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire and the EuroQoL-5 dimensions, 5 level scale (EQ-5D-5L). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Pain response was analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of BPI-SF item 3, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of either FACT-P or EQ-5D-5L (PRO population). Analyses of skeletal-related events were also done in the intention-to-treat population. The CARD study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02485691, and is no longer enrolling. FINDINGS: Between Nov 17, 2015, and Nov 28, 2018, of 303 patients screened, 255 were randomly assigned to cabazitaxel (n=129) or abiraterone or enzalutamide (n=126). Median follow-up was 9·2 months (IQR 5·6-13·1). Pain response was observed in 51 (46%) of 111 patients with cabazitaxel and 21 (19%) of 109 patients with abiraterone or enzalutamide (p<0·0001). Median time to pain progression was not estimable (NE; 95% CI NE-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·5 months (4·9-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·55, 95% CI 0·32-0·97; log-rank p=0·035). Median time to symptomatic skeletal events was NE (95% CI 20·0-NE) with cabazitaxel and 16·7 months (10·8-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·35-1·01; log-rank p=0·050). Median time to FACT-P total score deterioration was 14·8 months (95% CI 6·3-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·9 months (6·3-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·72, 95% CI 0·44-1·20; log-rank p=0·21). There was a significant treatment effect seen in changes from baseline in EQ-5D-5L utility index score in favour of cabazitaxel over abiraterone or enzalutamide (p=0·030) but no difference between treatment groups for change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (p=0·060). INTERPRETATION: Since cabazitaxel improved pain response, time to pain progression, time to symptomatic skeletal events, and EQ-5D-5L utility index, clinicians and patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer can be reassured that cabazitaxel will not reduce quality of life when compared with treatment with a second androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. FUNDING: Sanofi.

Shortening the acquisition time of whole-body MRI: 3D T1 gradient echo Dixon vs fast spin echo for metastatic screening in prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare 3D T1-weighted fast spin echo (FSE) and 3D T1-weighted gradient echo (GE) mDixon as morphologic sequences to complement diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for the metastatic screening in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty PCa patients at high risk of metastases prospectively underwent both a 3D T1 FSE (14 min) and a rapid 3D T1 GEmDixon (1 min 20 s) sequences within a WB-MRI protocol. Two readers assessed the diagnostic performance of the FSE/Fat/in-phase (IP)/IP+Fat sequences in detecting bone and node metastases. The reference standard was established by a panel of four physicians on the basis of all baseline and follow-up imaging, biological and clinical information. The reproducibility of readings, predictive accuracy (Acc) from ROC curves analysis, and contrast-to-reference ratio (CRR) in lesions were assessed for each sequence. RESULTS: In bone and lymph nodes (per-region analysis), reproducibility was at least good for all sequences/readers, except for nodes in the common iliac/inguinal regions. In bone (per-organ analysis), Acc of FSE was superior to that of mDixon (difference + 4%, p < 0.0083). In nodes (per-organ analysis), Acc of Fat was superior to that of other sequences (difference + 4% to + 6% depending on reader, p < 0.0083). In the per-patient analysis, Acc of FSE was superior to that of mDixon (difference + 4% to + 6% depending on sequence, p < 0.0083). Fat images had higher CRR compared with FSE in the thoracic spine, the bony pelvis and lymph node metastases (p < 0.025). CONCLUSION: 3D T1 GEmDixon may replace 3D T1 FSE to complement DWI in WB-MRI for metastatic screening in PCa. It demonstrates an Acc ranging from + 4% to + 6% (nodes) to - 4% to - 6% (bone and patient staging) compared with FSE and considerably reduces the examination time, offering the perspective of acquiring WB-MRI examinations in less than 20 min. KEY POINTS: • The replacement of 3D T1 FSE by the 3D T1 GE mDixon as morphologic sequence to complement DWI drastically reduces the acquisition time of WB-MRI studies. • The 3D T1 GE mDixon sequence offers similar reproducibility of image readings compared with that of the 3D T1 FSE. • Differences in diagnostic accuracy are limited (+ 4%/+ 6% in favor of mDixon to detect node metastases; + 4%/+ 6% in favor of FSE to detect bone metastases/metastatic disease in a patient).

Patient-reported outcomes following enzalutamide or placebo in men with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (PROSPER): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the PROSPER trial, enzalutamide significantly improved metastasis-free survival in patients with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. Here, we report the results of patient-reported outcomes of this study. METHODS: In the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 PROSPER trial, done at 254 study sites worldwide, patients aged 18 years or older with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of up to 10 months were randomly assigned (2:1) via an interactive voice web recognition system to receive oral enzalutamide (160 mg per day) or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by prostate-specific antigen doubling time and baseline use of a bone-targeting agent. The primary endpoint was metastasis-free survival, reported elsewhere. Secondary efficacy endpoints, reported here, were pain progression (assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form [BPI-SF] questionnaire) and health-related quality of life (assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire [EORTC QLQ-PR25], the EuroQoL 5-Dimensions 5-Levels health questionnaire visual analogue scale [EQ-5D-FL, EQ-VAS], and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate [FACT-P] questionnaires). Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, week 17, and every 16 weeks thereafter until treatment discontinuation. We used predefined questionnaire thresholds to identify clinically meaningful changes. Enrolment for PROSPER is complete and follow-up continues. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02003924. FINDINGS: Between Nov 26, 2013, and June 28, 2017, 1401 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive enzalutamide (n=933) or placebo (n=468). Median follow-up was 18·5 months (IQR 10·7-29·2) in the enzalutamide group and 15·1 months (7·4-25·9) in the placebo group. Patient-reported outcome scores at baseline were similar between groups. Changes in least squares mean from baseline to week 97 favoured enzalutamide versus placebo for FACT-P social and family wellbeing (0·30 [95% CI -0·25 to 0·85] vs -0·64 [-1·51 to 0·24]; difference 0·94 [95% CI 0·02 to 1·85]; p=0·045) and disfavoured enzalutamide versus placebo for EORTC QLQ-PR25 hormonal treatment-related symptoms (1·55 [0·26 to 2·83) vs -1·83 [-3·86 to 0·20]; difference 3·38 [1·24 to 5·51]; p=0·0020); neither of these changes were clinically meaningful. No significant differences were observed between treatments for changes from baseline to week 97 in any other patient-reported outcome score. Time to clinically meaningful pain progression as assessed by BPI-SF pain severity was longer with enzalutamide than with placebo (median 36·83 months, [95% CI 34·69 to not reached [NR] vs NR; hazard ratio [HR] 0·75 [95% CI 0·57 to 0·97]; p=0·028); there was no significant difference for BPI-SF item 3 or pain interference. Time to clinically meaningful symptom worsening was longer with enzalutamide than with placebo for EORTC QLQ-PR25 urinary symptoms (median 36·86 months [95% CI 33·35 to NR] vs 25·86 [18·53 to 29·47]; HR 0·58 [95% CI 0·46 to 0·72]; p<0·0001) and bowel symptoms (33·15 [29·50 to NR] vs 25·89 [18·43 to 29·67]; 0·72 [0·59 to 0·89]; p=0·0018), and clinically meaningful health-related quality of life as assessed by FACT-P total score (22·11 [18·63 to 25·86] vs 18·43 [14·85-19·35]; 0·83 [0·69 to 0·99]; p=0·037), emotional wellbeing (36·73 [33·12 to 38·21] vs 29·47 [22·18 to 33·15]; 0·69 [0·55 to 0·86]; p=0·0008), and prostate cancer subscale (18·43 [14·85 to 18·66] vs 14·69 [11·07 to 16·20]; 0·79 [0·67 to 0·93]; p=0·0042), although there was no significant difference for other FACT-P scores. Time to clinically meaningful deterioration in EORTC QLQ-PR25 hormonal treatment-related symptoms was shorter with enzalutamide than with placebo (median 33·15 months [95% CI 29·60 to NR] vs 36·83 [29·47 to NR]; HR 1·29 [95% CI 1·02 to 1·63]; p=0·035). Time to deterioration of EQ-VAS was significantly longer for enzalutamide than for placebo (median 22·11 months [95% CI 18·46 to 25·66] vs 14·75 [11·07 to 18·17]; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·63 to 0·90]; p=0·0013). INTERPRETATION: Patients with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving enzalutamide had longer metastasis-free survival than did those who received placebo, while maintaining low pain levels and prostate cancer symptom burden and high health-related quality of life. Enzalutamide showed a clinical benefit by delaying pain progression, symptom worsening, and decrease in functional status, compared with placebo. These findings suggest that enzalutamide is a treatment option that should be discussed with patients presenting with high-risk, non- metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. FUNDING: Astellas Pharma Inc, Medivation LLC (a Pfizer Company).

Addition of radium-223 to abiraterone acetate and prednisone or prednisolone in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases (ERA 223): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone improves progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Radium-223 improves overall survival and delays the onset of symptomatic skeletal events in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases. We assessed concurrent treatment with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone and radium-223 in such patients. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial at 165 oncology and urology centres in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, and had histologically confirmed, progressive, chemotherapy-naive, asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, life expectancy of at least 6 months, and adequate haematological, renal, and liver function. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) according to a permuted block design (block size 4) via interactive response technology to receive up to six intravenous injections of radium-223 (55 kBq/kg) or matching placebo once every 4 weeks. All patients were also scheduled to receive oral abiraterone acetate 1000 mg once daily plus oral prednisone or prednisolone 5 mg twice daily during and after radium-223 or placebo treatment. The primary endpoint was symptomatic skeletal event-free survival, which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02043678. Enrolment has been completed, and follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between March 30, 2014, and Aug 12, 2016, 806 patients were randomly assigned to receive radium-223 (n=401) or placebo (n=405) in addition to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone. The study was unblinded prematurely, on Nov 17, 2017, after more fractures and deaths were noted in the radium-223 group than in the placebo group (in an unplanned ad-hoc analysis), but all patients had completed radium-223 or placebo before this date. At the primary analysis (data cutoff Feb 15, 2018), 196 (49%) of 401 patients in radium-223 group had had at least one symptomatic skeletal event or died, compared with 190 (47%) of 405 patients in the placebo group (median follow-up 21·2 months [IQR 17·0-25·8]). Median symptomatic skeletal event-free survival was 22·3 months (95% CI 20·4-24·8) in the radium-223 group and 26·0 months (21·8-28·3) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·122 [95% CI 0·917-1·374]; p=0·2636). Fractures (any grade) occurred in 112 (29%) of 392 patients in the radium-223 group and 45 (11%) of 394 patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were hypertension (43 [11%] patients in the radium-223 group vs 52 [13%] patients in the placebo group), fractures (36 [9%] vs 12 [3%]) and increased alanine aminotransferase concentrations (34 [9%] vs 28 [7%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 160 (41%) patients in the radium-223 group and 155 (39%) in the placebo group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in two (1%) patients in the radium-223 group (acute myocardial infarction and interstitial lung disease) and one (<1%) in the placebo group (arrhythmia). INTERPRETATION: The addition of radium-223 to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone did not improve symptomatic skeletal event-free survival in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases, and was associated with an increased frequency of bone fractures compared with placebo. Thus, we do not recommend use of this combination. FUNDING: Bayer.

Prospective comparison of a fast 1.5-T biparametric with the 3.0-T multiparametric ESUR magnetic resonance imaging protocol as a triage test for men at risk of prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare prospectively the diagnostic performance of a biparametric (T2-weighted imaging [T2WI] and diffusion-weighted imaging [DWI]) 1.5-T fast magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) protocol with the standard 3.0-T multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) protocol of the European Society of Urological Imaging (ESUR) in men referred for a prostate biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety patients with a prostate cancer (PCa) risk of ≥10% according to the SWOP calculator 4 underwent first fMRI and then the reference mpMRI. Patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v.2 lesions ≥3/5 on the mpMRI were scheduled for MRI/ultrasonography (US) fusion-guided prostate biopsy. Performance of fMRI was assessed using receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis and mpMRI as reference. Calculation of inter-technique agreement on PI-RADS v.2 score by Cohen's κ. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy of fMRI shown by the lesion-based analysis was excellent: area under the curve (AUC) 0.961 (P < 0.001), sensitivity 95%, specificity 97%, positive predictive value (PPV) 99%, negative predictive value (NPV) 89%. The patient-based analysis showed an AUC for fMRI of 0.975 (P < 0.001), a sensitivity of 98%, a specificity of 97%, a PPV of 98% and an NPV of 97%. Agreement on the PI-RADS score between both protocols was found to be good (κ = 0.78 [0.57; 0.99]); fMRI missing PI-RADS 4 lesions in three patients. Biopsy results showed no cancer in two patients (two cores per nodule) and Gleason 6 cancer in one patient. There was only one false-positive fMRI, with a PI-RADS score of 4, whose biopsy was negative. CONCLUSION: In the triage of men with a high risk of PCa for prostate biopsy, an f MRI protocol (1.5-T magnet, T2WI + DWI, <15 min) may safely replace the traditional ESUR 3.0-T mpMRI protocol, saving time and contrast injection.