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.).

Cardiovascular Risk in Prostate Cancer Patients Using Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone Agonists or a Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Antagonist.

PURPOSE: Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists are believed to have higher cardiovascular risk relative to gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists. However, previous studies have not consistently demonstrated this. We used real-world clinical practice data to evaluate differences in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) risk between LHRH agonists compared to a GnRH antagonist following androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) initiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data in the Decision Resources Group (now Clarivate) Real World Evidence repository, which represents >300 million US patients from 1991 to 2020 across all US regions. Patients with prostate cancer who received at least 1 injection of ADT were included. The risks of MACE and all-cause mortality as independent endpoints were evaluated, Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed, and associations between MACE and all available confounding risk factors were evaluated by Cox regression analysis using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. RESULTS: A total of 45,059 men with prostate cancer treated with ADT were analyzed. Overall, the risks of MACE and all-cause mortality were slightly lower in the first year after ADT initiation compared to subsequent years. MACE risk was higher for the GnRH antagonist compared to LHRH agonists (HR=1.62; 95% CI 1.21-2.18, P = .001). The risk of all-cause mortality was also higher for the GnRH antagonist vs LHRH agonists (HR=1.87; 95% CI 1.39-2.51, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The adjusted incidence of MACE was higher for men treated with the GnRH antagonist compared to the LHRH agonists. The demographic and risk factors with the greatest impact on MACE risk were higher age, baseline metastasis, oncology (vs urology) setting, personal MACE history, antagonist (vs agonist), tobacco history, White (vs Black) race, and lower BMI.

Impact of Late Dosing on Testosterone Suppression with 2 Different Leuprolide Acetate Formulations: In Situ Gel and Microsphere. An Analysis of United States Clinical Data.

PURPOSE: Nonadherence to dosing schedules for androgen deprivation therapy increases the risk of testosterone escape for patients with prostate cancer. Two approved formulations of leuprolide acetate, the most commonly prescribed androgen deprivation therapy in the United States, use different extended release delivery technologies: an in situ gel and microspheres. We evaluated the prevalence and impact of late dosing on testosterone suppression for gel and microsphere formulations of leuprolide acetate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed records of patients with prostate cancer treated with gel or microsphere delivery of leuprolide acetate. Analyses used 2 definitions of "month," "28-day" (late dosing after day 28, 84, 112 or 168) and "extended" (late dosing after day 32, 97, 128 and 194). Frequencies of late dosing and associated testosterone values were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 2,038 patients received gel and 8,360 received microsphere formulations of leuprolide acetate. More than 80% and 27% of injections were late for 28-day and extended month, respectively. For 28-day month late injections 10% (gel delivery) and 14% (microsphere delivery) of testosterone values were above 50 ng/dl, and 25% (gel) vs 33% (microsphere) were above 20 ng/dl. For extended month 18% (gel) vs 25% (microsphere) were above 50 ng/dl, and 34% (gel) vs 44% (microsphere) were above 20 ng/dl. Microsphere leuprolide acetate was 1.5 times more likely to have testosterone above 50/20 ng/dl vs gel. Least square mean testosterone was 34 ng/dl (gel) vs 46 ng/dl (microsphere) for 28-day month, and 48 ng/dl (gel) vs 76 ng/dl (microsphere) for extended month. CONCLUSIONS: Leuprolide acetate therapies were frequently administered late. Gel formulation demonstrated higher rates of testosterone 50 ng/dl or less and 20 ng/dl or less than microsphere formulation. Optimal testosterone suppression can impact prostate cancer progression and patient survival, and differences in extended release technology for androgen deprivation therapy appear relevant.

Optimizing the role of androgen deprivation therapy in advanced prostate cancer: Challenges beyond the guidelines.

BACKGROUND: For specific clinical indications, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) will induce disease prostate cancer (PC) regression, relieve symptoms and prolong survival; however, ADT has a well-described range of side effects, which may have a detrimental effect on the patient's quality of life, necessitating additional interventions or changes in PC treatment. The risk-benefit analysis for initiating ADT in PC patients throughout the PC disease continuum warrants review. METHODS: A 14-member panel comprised of urologic and medical oncologists were chosen for an expert review panel, to provide guidance on a more judicious use of ADT in advanced PC patients. Panel members were chosen based upon their academic and community experience and expertise in the management of PC patients. Four academic members of the panel served as group leaders; the remaining eight panel members were from Large Urology Group Practice Association practices with proven experience in leading their advanced PC clinics. The panel members were assigned to four separate working groups, and were tasked with addressing the role of ADT in specific PC settings. RESULTS: This article describes the practical recommendations of an expert panel for the use of ADT throughout the PC disease continuum, as well as an algorithm summarizing the key recommendations. The target for this publication is all providers (urologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, or advanced practice providers) who evaluate and manage advanced PC patients, regardless of their practice setting. CONCLUSION: The panel has provided recommendations for monitoring PC patients while on ADT, recognizing that PC patients will progress despite testosterone suppression and, therefore, early identification of conversion from castrate-sensitive to castration resistance is critical. Also, the requirement to both identify and mitigate side effects of ADT as well as the importance of quality of life maintenance are essential to the optimization of patient care, especially as more combinatorial therapeutic strategies with ADT continue to emerge.

The Impact of Late Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone Agonist Dosing on Testosterone Suppression in Patients with Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of United States Clinical Data.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the timeliness of androgen deprivation therapy dosing, the impact of dosing nonadherence on testosterone, and the frequency of testosterone and prostate specific antigen testing in patients with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the records of 22,860 patients with prostate cancer treated with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists. Analyses were done using 2 definitions of month, including a 28-day month (late dosing after day 28, 84, 112 or 168) and an extended month (late after day 32, 97, 128 or 194) for 1, 3, 4 and 6-month formulations, respectively. The prevalence of late dosing, associated testosterone values, and the frequency of testosterone and prostate specific antigen testing were assessed. Statistical significance was assessed with the unpaired t-test. RESULTS: Of the injections 84% and 27% were late for the 28-day and extended month analyses, respectively. For the 28-day month 60% and 29% of injections were late by more than 1 and more than 2 weeks, respectively. Of testosterone values 4% were greater than 50 ng/dl for early/on time injections using both definitions, and 15% and 27% were greater than 50 ng/dl when late, and for the 28-day month and the extended month, respectively. For early/on time vs late injections 22% vs 31% of testosterone values were greater than 20 ng/dl for the 28-day month and 21% vs 43% for the extended month. Mean testosterone was higher when late (49 ng/dl for 28-day month, 79 ng/dl for extended month) vs early/on time (both 21 ng/dl). Of the injections prostate specific antigen measurements were performed in 83% and testosterone assessment was done in only 13%. CONCLUSIONS: Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists were frequently (84%) administered later than the schedules used in pivotal trials. Nearly half of the late testosterone values for the extended month were greater than 20 ng/dl and mean testosterone was almost double the castration level. Elevated testosterone remained unidentified with infrequent testing.

69-Year-Old Man With Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Progressing After Docetaxel and Androgen Receptor-Targeting Agent.

KEY POINTS • The prognosis for patients with mCRPC has improved over the last few years due to the introduction of novel agents. • The optimal sequence of administering these therapeutic agents remains as a moving target and is not well established. Decisions are usually made according to patients' clinical conditions and disease characteristics, and the safety profile and availability of new drugs. • Recently, cabazitaxel improved outcomes in the third-line setting after docetaxel and an ARTA. Olaparib is an additional option for second- and third-line treatment in those with alterations in BRCA1, BRCA2, and ATM. • Understanding the mechanisms of resistance may provide a rationale for suggesting specific strategies. • A subset of patients may benefit from molecularly targeted therapies, which highlights the importance of genomic testing in the castration-resistant setting. • Immunotherapy may provide benefit to some subsets of patients, such as those with MSI-high tumors. Studies regarding combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors are ongoing.

The role of FSH and LH in prostate cancer and cardiometabolic comorbidities.

INTRODUCTION: In this article we advance a potential explanation for the incidence of cardiovascular (CV) and cardiometabolic risk in patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer. Our conceptual model involves the differential impact of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists and antagonists on the follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Authors searched online repositories and meeting abstract databases for relevant materials. RESULTS: Mounting evidence links FSH with development and progression of prostate cancer. What is also becoming clear is that the differential effects of GnRH agonists and antagonists on FSH may at least partially explain the differing effects these agents have on CV risk during ADT. While GnRH antagonists immediately suppress FSH, GnRH agonists provoke a transient surge in FSH that may contribute to the higher CV risk observed with these agents. Additionally, recent studies suggest that GnRH antagonists may significantly reduce CV risk compared to GnRH agonists, particularly in men with pre-existing CV disease. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cardiovascular risk factors who require ADT may benefit from the better control of FSH provided by GnRH antagonists. ADT itself appears to heighten CV risk, and data suggest that FSH may at least partly drive this risk by promoting inflammation, atherosclerosis, insulin resistance, adipocyte rearrangement and plaque instability.

Assessment of high-grade prostate cancer risk using prostate cancer biomarkers.

INTRODUCTION: To identify patients at risk of high-grade prostate cancer using prostate cancer biomarkers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 601 men were screened for prostate cancer in 2012, 2015, and 2016 using prostate cancer biomarkers: prostate health index (phi), 4KScore, and SelectMDx. The first two are blood tests that incorporate several PSA isoforms; SelectMDx measures mRNA levels of homeobox C6 and distal-less homeobox 1 in post-digital rectal examination urine samples. The performance of each biomarker was evaluated using cut off values based on published literature. Gleason Grade Group (GG) ≥ 2 is considered as high-grade prostate cancer. RESULTS: For patients with PSA < 1.5 ng/mL, none were at risk for GG ≥ 2 cancer based on SelectMDx > 0%, whereas 17.1% were at intermediate to high risk of finding GG ≥ 2 cancer with 4KScore ≥ 7.5%, and 3.5% were at risk of finding any prostate cancer with phi ≥ 36 at biopsy. For cut offs revised for finding men at high risk for GG ≥ 2 cancer at biopsy, only one patient with PSA < 1.5 ng/mL would be at risk with 4KScore ≥ 20% and none with phi ≥ 52.7. For patients with PSA 1.5 to 3.99 ng/mL, 2%, 8%, and 1% were at high risk for finding GG ≥ 2 cancer at biopsy based on phi, 4KScore, and SelectMDx, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Men with PSA < 1.5 ng/mL are at very low risk of finding high-grade prostate cancer at biopsy. However, some men with PSA between 1.5 to 3.99 ng/mL may be at intermediate to high risk for high-grade prostate cancer. Thus, primary care physicians could run biomarkers test and refer those with positive biomarker results to a specialist for further evaluation.

Evolving understanding and categorization of prostate cancer: preventing progression to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: RADAR IV.

INTRODUCTION To interpret data and update the traditional categorization of prostate cancer in order to help treating clinicians make more informed decisions. These updates include guidance regarding how to best use next generation imaging (NGI) with the caveat that the new imaging technologies are still a work in progress. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Literature review. RESULTS: Critical goals in prostate cancer management include preventing or delaying emergence of distant metastases and progression to castration-resistant disease. Pathways for progression to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) involve transitional states: nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), and oligometastatic disease. Determination of clinical state depends in part on available imaging modalities. Currently, fluciclovine and gallium-68 (68Ga) prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) are the NGI approaches with the most favorable combination of availability, specificity, and sensitivity. PET imaging can be used to help guide treatment selection in most patients. NGI can help determine patients who are candidates for new treatments, most notably (next-generation androgen antagonists, eg, apalutamide, enzalutamide, darolutamide), that can delay progression to advanced disease. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to achieve a consensus on new and more easily understood terminology to clearly and effectively describe prostate cancer and its progression to health care professionals and patients. It is also important that description of disease states make clear the need to initiate appropriate treatment. This may be particularly important for disease in transition to mCRPC.

The Ratio of the Number of Biopsy Specimens to Prostate Volume (Biopsy Density) Greater Than 1.5 Improves the Prostate Cancer Detection Rate in Men Undergoing Transperineal Biopsy of the Prostate.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the minimum number of transperineal prostate mapping biopsies needed to optimize the prostate cancer detection rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 436 men underwent transperineal prostate mapping biopsy at 2 institutions. Biopsy density was calculated as the ratio of the total number of specimens retrieved (mean 59.4) to prostate volume (mean 44.9 cc). Associations of biopsy density with prostate specific antigen, prostate specific antigen density, cancer diagnosis and the Gleason score were tested by ANOVA and the chi-square test. Regression analysis was done to determine factors associated with a positive transperineal prostate mapping biopsy and Gleason score 7 or higher cancer. RESULTS: Transperineal prostate mapping biopsy was positive in 299 of 436 men (68.6%). The mean number of positive cores was 7.1 (range 1 to 41) and mean biopsy density was 1.46 (range 0.39 to 3.67). The mean number of cores in positive vs negative transperineal prostate mapping biopsies was 1.61 vs 1.14 (p <0.001). Biopsy density cut points of 0.5 or less, greater than 0.5 to 1.0, greater than 1.0 to 1.5 and greater than 1.5 were associated with positive biopsy in 25%, 37.4%, 70.7% and 84.9% of patients (p <0.001). Dichotomizing biopsy density to 1.5 or less vs greater than 1.5 resulted in a positive biopsy rate of 56.4% vs 84.9% (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3-1.7, p <0.001). More Gleason score 6 cancers were diagnosed with higher biopsy density (94 of 158 or 59.5% vs 62 of 141 or 44.9%, p = 0.007). However, the number of positive cores with Gleason score 6 was greater in men with higher biopsy density at 4.9 vs 3.6 (p = 0.036). Prostate specific antigen (p = 0.053) and biopsy density (p = 0.012) were significant on regression analysis for positive transperineal prostate mapping biopsy and Gleason score 7+ disease. CONCLUSIONS: Biopsy density greater than 1.5 increases the diagnosis of prostate cancer by 1.5 times, detects higher volume Gleason score 6 disease and should be considered the optimal sampling approach when performing transperineal prostate mapping biopsy.

A Clinician's Guide to Next Generation Imaging in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer (RADAR III).

PURPOSE: The advanced prostate cancer therapeutic landscape has changed dramatically in the last several years, resulting in improved overall survival of patients with castration naïve and castration resistant disease. The evolution and development of novel next generation imaging techniques will affect diagnostic and therapeutic decision making. Clinicians must navigate when and which next generation imaging techniques to use and how to adjust treatment strategies based on the results, often in the absence of correlative therapeutic data. Therefore, guidance is needed based on best available information and current clinical experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The RADAR (Radiographic Assessments for Detection of Advanced Recurrence) III Group convened to offer guidance on the use of next generation imaging to stage prostate cancer based on available data and clinical experience. The group also discussed the potential impact of next generation imaging on treatment options based on earlier detection of disease. RESULTS: The group unanimously agreed that progression to metastatic disease is a seminal event for patient treatment. Next generation imaging techniques are able to detect previously undetectable metastases, which could redefine the phases of prostate cancer progression. Thus, earlier systemic or locally directed treatment may positively alter patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The RADAR III Group recommends next generation imaging techniques in select patients in whom disease progression is suspected based on laboratory (biomarker) values, comorbidities and symptoms. Currently 18F-fluciclovine and 68Ga prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computerized tomography are the next generation imaging agents with a favorable combination of availability, specificity and sensitivity. There is ongoing research of additional next generation imaging technologies, which may offer improved diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic options. As next generation imaging techniques evolve and presumably result in improved global accessibility, clinician ability to detect micrometastases may be enhanced for decision making and patient outcomes.

Extended follow-up for prostate cancer incidence and mortality among participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian randomized cancer screening trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine prostate cancer (PCa) incidence and mortality by arm in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged 55-74 years at 10 screening centres were randomized between 1993 and 2001 to an intervention or usual care arm. Patients in the intervention arm received six annual prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests and four annual digital rectal examinations. The patients were followed for PCa incidence and for mortality via active follow-up processes and by linkage to state cancer registries and the National Death Index. For cancers identified through active follow-up, trial abstractors recorded the mode of diagnosis (screen-detected, symptomatic, other). RESULTS: A total of 38 340 patients were randomized to the intervention arm and 38 343 to a usual care arm. The median follow-up for mortality was 16.9 (intervention) and 16.7 years (usual care). There were 333 (intervention) and 352 (usual care) PCa cancer deaths, giving rates (per 10 000 person-years) of 5.5 and 5.9, respectively, and a rate ratio (RR) of 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.08; P = 0.38). The RR for overall PCa incidence was 1.05 (95% CI 1.01-1.09). The RRs by Gleason category were 1.17 (95% CI 1.11-1.23) for Gleason 2-6, 1.00 (95% CI 0.93-1.07) for Gleason 7 and 0.89 (95% CI 0.80-0.99) for Gleason 8-10 disease. By mode of detection, during the trial's screening phase, 13% of intervention arm vs 27% of usual care arm cases were symptomatic; post-screening, these percentages were 18% in each arm. CONCLUSION: After almost 17 years of median follow-up, there was no significant reduction in PCa mortality in the intervention compared with the usual care arm. There was a significant increase in Gleason 2-6 disease and a significant reduction in Gleason 8-10 disease in the intervention compared with the usual care arm.

The efficacy of prostate-specific antigen screening: Impact of key components in the ERSPC and PLCO trials.

BACKGROUND: The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) demonstrated that prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening significantly reduced prostate cancer mortality (rate ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.91). The US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) trial indicated no such reduction but had a wide 95% CI (rate ratio for prostate cancer mortality, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.87-1.36). Standard meta-analyses are unable to account for key differences between the trials that can impact the estimated effects of screening and the trials' point estimates. METHODS: The authors calibrated 2 microsimulation models to individual-level incidence and mortality data from 238,936 men participating in the ERSPC and PLCO trials. A cure parameter for the underlying efficacy of screening was estimated by the models separately for each trial. The authors changed step-by-step major known differences in trial settings, including enrollment and attendance patterns, screening intervals, PSA thresholds, biopsy receipt, control arm contamination, and primary treatment, to reflect a more ideal protocol situation and differences between the trials. RESULTS: Using the cure parameter estimated for the ERSPC, the models projected 19% to 21% and 6% to 8%, respectively, prostate cancer mortality reductions in the ERSPC and PLCO settings. Using this cure parameter, the models projected a reduction of 37% to 43% under annual screening with 100% attendance and biopsy compliance and no contamination. The cure parameter estimated for the PLCO trial was 0. CONCLUSIONS: The observed cancer mortality reduction in screening trials appears to be highly sensitive to trial protocol and practice settings. Accounting for these differences, the efficacy of PSA screening in the PLCO setting is not necessarily inconsistent with ERSPC results. Cancer 2018;124:1197-206. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

The IMAAGEN Study: Effect of Abiraterone Acetate and Prednisone on Prostate Specific Antigen and Radiographic Disease Progression in Patients with Nonmetastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the use of abiraterone acetate (1,000 mg) plus prednisone (5 mg) in patients with high risk, nonmetastatic, castration resistant prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients considered at high risk for progression to metastatic disease (prostate specific antigen 10 ng/ml or greater, or prostate specific antigen doubling time 10 months or less) received abiraterone acetate plus prednisone daily in 28-day cycles. The primary study end point was the proportion of patients in whom a 50% or greater prostate specific antigen reduction was achieved during cycles 1 to 6. Secondary end points included time to prostate specific antigen progression, time to radiographic evidence of disease progression and safety. RESULTS: Of the 131 enrolled patients 44 (34%) remained on treatment with a median followup of 40.0 months. Median age was 72 years (range 48 to 90). Of the patients 82.4% were white and 14.5% were black. Median screening prostate specific antigen was 11.9 ng/dl and median prostate specific antigen doubling time was 3.4 months. Prostate specific antigen was significantly reduced (p <0.0001) with a 50% or greater prostate specific antigen reduction in 86.9% of cases and a 90% or greater reduction in 59.8%. Median time to prostate specific antigen progression was 28.7 months (95% CI 21.2-38.2). Median time to radiographic evidence of disease progression was not reached but on sensitivity analysis in 15 patients it was estimated to be 41.4 months (95% CI 27.6-not estimable). Baseline testosterone 12.5 ng/dl or greater and a 90% or greater prostate specific antigen reduction at cycle 3 were associated with longer time to prostate specific antigen progression and radiographic evidence of disease progression. Outcomes in black patients were similar to those in other patients. Adverse events, grade 3 or greater adverse events and serious adverse events were reported in 96.2%, 61.1% and 43.5% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with high risk, nonmetastatic, castration resistant prostate cancer treatment with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone demonstrated a significant 50% or greater prostate specific antigen reduction with encouraging results for the secondary end points, including the safety of 5 mg prednisone.

Androgen Receptor Targeted Treatments of Prostate Cancer: 35 Years of Progress with Antiandrogens.

PURPOSE: Antiandrogens inhibit the androgen receptor and have an important role in the treatment of prostate cancer. This review provides a historical perspective on the development and clinical benefit of antiandrogens in the treatment of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed® for clinical trials with the search terms antiandrogens and prostate cancer combined with drug names for antiandrogens. This article represents a collaboration of clinical investigators who have made critical scientific contributions leading to the approval of antiandrogens for treating patients with prostate cancer. RESULTS: Antiandrogens differ in chemical structure and exert varying efficacy and safety profiles. The unfavorable therapeutic index of steroidal antiandrogens led to replacement by safer nonsteroidal agents. Flutamide, nilutamide and bicalutamide, which were designed to target the androgen receptor, were developed primarily for use in combination with castration to provide combined androgen blockade. Modest clinical benefits were observed with the combination of first generation antiandrogens and castration vs castration alone. With increased knowledge of androgen receptor structure and its biological functions a new generation of antiandrogens without agonist activity was designed to provide more potent inhibition of the androgen receptor. Randomized clinical trials in patients with metastatic, castration resistant prostate cancer showed significant survival benefits, which led to the approval of enzalutamide in August 2012. Apalutamide was recently approved while darolutamide is not yet approved in the United States. These next generation antiandrogens are being actively tested in earlier disease states such as nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Evolving knowledge of resistance mechanisms to androgen receptor targeted treatments will stimulate research and drug discovery for additional compounds. Further testing in nonmetastatic castration resistant prostate cancer as well as castration sensitive disease states will hopefully augment our ability to treat a broader spectrum of patients with prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Antiandrogens have already provided important benefits for prostate cancer treatment. Greater knowledge about the structural and functional biology of the androgen receptor in prostate cancer will facilitate further discovery and development of further improved antiandrogens with enhanced clinical activity in patients with advanced metastatic disease. Testing these new agents earlier in the course of prostate cancer may further improve the survival and quality of life of patients with current local and/or systemic treatment modalities.

Reconciling the Effects of Screening on Prostate Cancer Mortality in the ERSPC and PLCO Trials.

BACKGROUND: The ERSPC (European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer) found that screening reduced prostate cancer mortality, but the PLCO (Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial) found no reduction. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether effects of screening on prostate cancer mortality relative to no screening differed between the ERSPC and PLCO. DESIGN: Cox regression of prostate cancer death in each trial group, adjusted for age and trial. Extended analyses accounted for increased incidence due to screening and diagnostic work-up in each group via mean lead times (MLTs), which were estimated empirically and using analytic or microsimulation models. SETTING: Randomized controlled trials in Europe and the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Men aged 55 to 69 (ERSPC) or 55 to 74 (PLCO) years at randomization. INTERVENTION: Prostate cancer screening. MEASUREMENTS: Prostate cancer incidence and survival from randomization; prostate cancer incidence in the United States before screening began. RESULTS: Estimated MLTs were similar in the ERSPC and PLCO intervention groups but were longer in the PLCO control group than the ERSPC control group. Extended analyses found no evidence that effects of screening differed between trials (P = 0.37 to 0.47 [range across MLT estimation approaches]) but strong evidence that benefit increased with MLT (P = 0.0027 to 0.0032). Screening was estimated to confer a 7% to 9% reduction in the risk for prostate cancer death per year of MLT. This translated into estimates of 25% to 31% and 27% to 32% lower risk for prostate cancer death with screening as performed in the ERSPC and PLCO intervention groups, respectively, compared with no screening. LIMITATION: The MLT is a simple metric of screening and diagnostic work-up. CONCLUSION: After differences in implementation and settings are accounted for, the ERSPC and PLCO provide compatible evidence that screening reduces prostate cancer mortality. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Extended mortality results for prostate cancer screening in the PLCO trial with median follow-up of 15 years.

BACKGROUND: Two large-scale prostate cancer screening trials using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) have given conflicting results in terms of the efficacy of such screening. One of those trials, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial, previously reported outcomes with 13 years of follow-up. This study presents updated findings from the PLCO trial. METHODS: The PLCO trial randomized subjects from 1993 to 2001 to an intervention or control arm. Intervention-arm men received annual PSA tests for 6 years and digital rectal examinations for 4 years. This study used a linkage with the National Death Index to extend mortality follow-up to a maximum of 19 years after randomization. RESULTS: Men were randomized to the intervention arm (n = 38,340) or the control arm (n = 38,343). The median follow-up time was 14.8 years (25th/75th, 12.7/16.5 years) in the intervention arm and 14.7 years (25th/75th, 12.6/16.4 years) in the control arm. There were 255 deaths from prostate cancer in the intervention arm and 244 deaths from prostate cancer in the control arm; this meant a rate ratio (RR) of 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-1.24). The RR for all-cause mortality was 0.977 (95% CI, 0.950-1.004). It was estimated that 86% of the men in the control arm and 99% of the men in the intervention arm received any PSA testing during the trial, and the estimated yearly screening-phase PSA testing rates were 46% and 84%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Extended follow-up of the PLCO trial over a median of 15 years continues to indicate no reduction in prostate cancer mortality for the intervention arm versus the control arm. Because of the high rate of control-arm PSA testing, this finding can be viewed as showing no benefit of organized screening versus opportunistic screening. Cancer 2017;123:592-599. © 2016 American Cancer Society.