Outcomes of First-Line Abiraterone Acetate or Enzalutamide for Older Adults With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer According to Use of Upfront Docetaxel for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer in an International Multicenter Registry: A SPARTACUSS-Meet-URO 26 Study.

BACKGROUND: Managing metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in men aged ≥ 75 is challenging due to limited data. Regardless of age, in real-world clinical practice, most mCRPC still derive from failure of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without docetaxel (D) for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). As abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA) and enzalutamide (Enza) are common first-line treatments for mCRPC. The impact of prior use of D for mCSPC on the efficacy and safety of AA or Enza in this older population remains unclear. METHODS: A cohort of patients aged ≥ 75 years starting AA or Enza as first-line therapy for mCRPC from January 2015 to April 2019 was identified from the registries of 10 institutions. Patients were categorized into 2 groups based on previous use of D for mCSPC. Primary endpoints were cancer-specific survival (CSS) from AA or Enza start, CSS from ADT onset, and safety. We used Kaplan-Meier method to estimate the endpoints distribution, including median values with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Of the 337 patients identified, 24 (7.1%) received ADT+D and 313 (92.9%) received ADT alone for mCSPC. Median follow-up from AA/Enza start was 18.8 months. Median CSS from ADT or AA/Enza was not significantly different between ADT+D and ADT alone cohorts (71.9 vs. 52.7 months, P = .97; 25.4 vs. 27.2 months, P = .89, respectively). No statistically significant difference in adverse events (AEs) of any grade rate (58.3% vs. 52.1%, respectively; P = .67) or grade ≥ 3 (12.5% vs. 15.7%, respectively; P = 1.0) was found between ADT+D and ADT alone cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the innate limitations of a retrospective design and relatively small size of the ADT+D cohort, this analysis suggests that elderly men receiving AA or Enza as first-line therapy for mCRPC have similar survival outcomes and tolerability, regardless of previous D for mCSPC.

Efficacy and safety of androgen receptor inhibitors for treatment of advanced prostate cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

AIMS: Androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs) have become an effective treatment for advanced prostate cancer (PC). However, it is unknown which ARI is the most helpful and safe for men with advanced PC. Our aim is to help physicians make clinical decisions and provide medication guidelines for patients with advanced PC to avoid potential risks when using ARIs for treatment. METHODS: We systematically searched the following databases: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library, with a literature publication deadline of February 2023. The primary efficacy outcomes were 18-month overall survival (OS), treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), hypertension and fatigue. The network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed by Stata 15.1, and Revman 5.3 was used to assess the included studies' risk of bias. RESULTS: The analysis included 26 trials with 26 263 people. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) concluded that enzalutamide (86.8%) showed the best effect in prolonging the OS of patients. Flutamide led to the highest risk of TEAEs (29.9%) and AEs leading to discontinuation (12.8%). Apalutamide (13.4%) led to the highest risk of grade ≥3 TEAEs. Enzalutamide had the highest risk of hypertension (0.2%), grade ≥3 hypertension (4.5%) and fatigue (5.2%). CONCLUSIONS: This NMA indicates there is no one ARI to reach both the most effective and safe therapy aims for treating advanced PC and that there is a compromise between the efficacy and safety of ARIs in the treatment of advanced PC. Physicians should weigh the risks to safety against the anticipated benefits when prescribing these drugs to patients with PC.

Effectiveness and safety of enzalutamide and apalutamide in the treatment of patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC): a multicenter retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Phase III clinical trials demonstrated the efficacy of enzalutamide and apalutamide in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) and PSA doubling time ≤10 months. Although these drugs have been shown to vary in their adverse event (AE) profiles, the differences in their efficacy profiles remain to be evaluated. Therefore, this retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of these drugs in patients with nmCRPC. METHODS: This study evaluated 191 patients with nmCRPC treated with enzalutamide (n = 137) or apalutamide (n = 54) in the first-line setting at Jikei University Hospital or its affiliated hospitals between May 2014 and November 2022. Endpoints were defined as oncological outcomes (i.e., PSA response, PFS, PSA-PFS, MFS, CSS, and OS) and AEs. RESULTS: No significant differences were noted in patient backgrounds between the two groups. Patients exhibiting a maximum PSA response of >50% and >90% accounted for 74.5% and 48.9% of patients in the enzalutamide group, and 75.9% and 42.6% of patients in the apalutamide group, respectively, with no significant difference between the groups. The median PSA-PFS was 10 months in the enzalutamide group but not in the apalutamide group, with no significant difference between the groups (P = 0.48). No significant differences were observed in MFS, CSS, or OS between the groups. Patients reporting AEs of all grades and grade 3 or higher accounted for 56.2% and 4.3% of those in the enzalutamide group and 57.4% and 7.4% of those in the apalutamide group, respectively. The most common AE was fatigue (26.3%) in the enzalutamide group and skin rash (27.8%) in the apalutamide group. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study of their efficacy and safety, enzalutamide and apalutamide were shown to exhibit comparable oncological outcomes but quite different AE profiles, suggesting that their differential use may be warranted based on these findings.

Capivasertib in combination with enzalutamide for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer after docetaxel and abiraterone: Results from the randomized phase II RE-AKT trial.

BACKGROUND: PTEN loss and aberrations in PI3K/AKT signaling kinases associate with poorer response to abiraterone acetate (AA) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). In this study, we assessed antitumor activity of the AKT inhibitor capivasertib combined with enzalutamide in mCRPC with prior progression on AA and docetaxel. METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase 2 trial, recruited men ≥ 18 years with progressing mCRPC and performance status 0-2 from 15 UK centers. Randomized participants (1:1) received enzalutamide (160 mg orally, once daily) with capivasertib (400 mg)/ placebo orally, twice daily on an intermittent (4 days on, 3 days off) schedule. Primary endpoint was composite response rate (RR): RECIST 1.1 objective response, ≥ 50 % PSA decrease from baseline, or circulating tumor cell count conversion (from ≥ 5 at baseline to < 5 cells/7.5 mL). Subgroup analyses by PTENIHC status were pre-planned. RESULTS: Overall, 100 participants were randomized (50:50); 95 were evaluable for primary endpoint (47:48); median follow-up was 43 months. RR were 9/47 (19.1 %) enzalutamide/capivasertib and 9/48 (18.8 %) enzalutamide/placebo (absolute difference 0.4 % 90 %CI -12.8 to 13.6, p = 0.58), with similar results in the PTENIHC loss subgroup. Irrespective of treatment, OS was significantly worse for PTENIHC loss (10.1 months [95 %CI: 4.6-13.9] vs 14.8 months [95 %CI: 10.8-18]; p = 0.02). Most common treatment-emergent grade ≥ 3 adverse events for the combination were diarrhea (13 % vs 2 %) and fatigue (10 % vs 6 %). CONCLUSIONS: Combined capivasertib/enzalutamide was well tolerated but didn't significantly improve outcomes from abiraterone pre-treated mCRPC.

The rates of septicemia in older adults with prostate cancer treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide: A population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common non-cutaneous tumor among American men. Androgen receptor signaling inhibitors such as abiraterone and enzalutamide have been approved for similar disease states among patients with advanced PCa. Existing data suggest using steroids is associated with an increased risk of infection. Because abiraterone is usually prescribed with prednisone, we sought to compare the risk of septicemia in patients using abiraterone vs. enzalutamide. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We utilized the SEER-Medicare-linked data and used negative binomial regression models to compare the changes in the rates of septicemia-related hospitalizations six months pre- and post-abiraterone and enzalutamide initiation. RESULTS: We found that the incidence of septicemia-related hospitalizations increased 2.77 fold within six months of initiating abiraterone (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 2.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.17-3.53) 1.97 fold within six months of starting enzalutamide (IRR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.43-2.72). However, the difference in the changes did not reach statistical significance (interaction IRR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.48-1.06). DISCUSSION: The findings suggest that both abiraterone and enzalutamide are associated with an increased risk of septicemia-related hospitalizations. However, the difference in the increase of septicemia risk following the two treatments did not reach statistical significance. Further studies are warranted to understand the mechanisms at play.

Cardiovascular Toxicity Associated With Androgen Receptor Axis-Targeted Agents in Patients With Prostate Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Second-generation androgen receptor axis-targeting (ARAT) agents have become a standard treatment for patients with advanced prostate cancer (PC), however much remains unknown about the potential cardiovascular toxicities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library for randomized controlled trials of patients receiving ARAT agents for PC from inception to March 2023. The odds ratios (ORs) of all-grade and high-grade cardiovascular adverse events (CVAEs) for patients treated with and without ARAT agents were pooled for meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses based on PC type and treatment regimen were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 15 double-blind placebo-controlled phase 3 trials comprising 15,842 patients were included. In addition to hot flush and hypertension of any degree of severity, inclusion of ARAT agents was associated with a significantly higher risk of acute myocardial infarction (OR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.05-3.68, P = .04), myocardial infarction (OR: 2.44, 95% CI: 1.27-4.66, P = .007) and angina pectoris (OR: 2.00, 95% CI: 1.00-4.02, P = .05). With regard to individual ARAT agents, enzalutamide was associated with a significantly higher risk of acute myocardial infarction (OR: 3.11, 95% CI: 1.17-8.28, P = .02), coronary artery disease (OR: 8.33, 95% CI: 1.54-44.95, P = .01), and high-grade hypertension (OR: 4.94, 95% CI: 1.11-22.06, P = .04), while abiraterone and apalutamide were associated with a significantly higher risk of angina pectoris (OR: 5.48, 95% CI: 1.23-24.33, P = .03) and myocardial infarction (OR: 7.00, 95% CI: 1.60-30.62, P = .01), respectively. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of ARAT agents was associated with a significantly higher risk of several CVAEs. Clinicians should remain vigilant, both in pre-treatment screening and monitoring for clinical symptoms and signs, when considering ARAT agent particularly for patients with pre-existing risk factors.

Enzalutamide: Understanding and Managing Drug Interactions to Improve Patient Safety and Drug Efficacy.

Enzalutamide is an oral androgen receptor signaling inhibitor utilized in the treatment of men with prostate cancer. It is a moderate inducer of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes CYP2C9 and CYP2C19, and a strong inducer of CYP3A4. It was also shown to be a mild inhibitor of the efflux transporter P-glycoprotein in patients with prostate cancer. Enzalutamide is primarily metabolized by CYP3A4 and CYP2C8. The risk of enzalutamide drug interactions arises primarily when it is coadministered with other drugs that interact with these CYPs, including CYP3A4. In this review, we begin by providing an overview of enzalutamide including its dosing, use in special populations, pharmacokinetics, changes to its prescribing information, and potential for interaction with coadministered drugs. Enzalutamide interactions with drugs from a wide range of medication classes commonly prescribed to patients with prostate cancer are described, including oral androgen deprivation therapy, agents used to treat a range of cardiovascular diseases, antidiabetic drugs, antidepressants, anti-seizure medications, common urology medications, analgesics, proton pump inhibitors, immunosuppressants, and antigout drugs. Enzalutamide interactions with common vitamins and supplements are also briefly discussed. This review provides a resource for healthcare practitioners and patients that will help provide a basis for the understanding and management of enzalutamide drug-drug interactions to inform decision making, improve patient safety, and optimize drug efficacy.

Enzalutamide is a drug that is used to treat various stages of advanced prostate cancer, a type of cancer that begins in the prostate and may spread beyond the prostate. Enzalutamide stops testosterone from stimulating prostate cancer growth. Like other drugs, enzalutamide enters the bloodstream, and then is processed and removed from the body. Sometimes, when a person takes multiple drugs, one drug can make it difficult for the body to process and remove one or more of the other drugs. This is referred to as a drug interaction. Enzalutamide drug interactions can cause the level of other drugs in the body to increase or decrease in an abnormal way. It is also possible for certain other drugs to alter the levels of enzalutamide. Drug interactions that cause the level of a drug to get too low can prevent that drug from working effectively, whereas drug interactions that cause the level of a drug to get too high can lead to side effects of that drug. People with prostate cancer are mostly aged 65 years or older and often take medications to treat a variety of diseases. Examples include medications to treat heart conditions, diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and many other conditions. Here, we describe enzalutamide drug interactions with these types of medications. Our goal is to provide a resource to help healthcare providers and patients better understand enzalutamide drug interactions and how to manage them to improve patient safety and drug effectiveness.

A Phase I Trial of Enzalutamide Plus Selective Glucocorticoid Receptor Modulator Relacorilant in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The majority of patients with metastatic prostate cancer who receive androgen-deprivation therapy and androgen receptor (AR) signaling inhibitors (ARSI) progress. Activation of the glucocorticoid receptor (GR) is associated with ARSI resistance. This single-arm phase I trial assessed safety and pharmacokinetic (PK) feasibility of a combined AR antagonist (enzalutamide) and selective GR modulator (relacorilant) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a phase I trial (NCT03674814) of relacorilant and enzalutamide in patients with refractory mCRPC enrolled using a 6+3 design. The enzalutamide dose was kept constant at 120 mg/d with escalating doses of relacorilant based on safety and PK measures in cohorts of ≥6 patients. The primary objective was safety and establishment of pharmacologically active doses. Secondary objectives were related to antitumor activity. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients with mCRPC were enrolled. Twenty-three were accrued across three dose cohorts in the dose-escalation phase, and 12 enrolled at the recommended phase II dose. The combination was generally well tolerated, safe, and achieved desirable enzalutamide PK. RP2D of 120 + 150 mg/d, respectively, was established. Median time on study was 2.2 months with four patients remaining on study for longer than 11 months. Four of 12 evaluable patients had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) partial response. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective trial combining an AR antagonist and a nonsteroidal selective GR modulator. The combination was safe and well tolerated with PSA response and prolonged disease control observed in a limited subset of patients. Further prospective trials are justified to evaluate efficacy and identify predictive biomarkers of response.

Drug-drug interaction potential among patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) treated with novel androgen receptor inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) patients are often older and use concurrent medications that increase the potential for drug-drug interactions (pDDIs). This study assessed pDDI prevalence in real-world nmCRPC patients treated with apalutamide, darolutamide, or enzalutamide. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Castrated prostate cancer patients without metastases prior to androgen receptor inhibitor initiation were identified retrospectively via Optum Clinformatics Data Mart claims data (8/2019-3/2021). The top 100 concomitant medications were assessed for pDDIs. RESULTS: Among 1,515 patients (mean age: 77 ± 8 years; mean Charlson Comorbidity Index: 3 ± 3), 340 initiated apalutamide, 112 darolutamide, and 1,063 enzalutamide. Common concomitant medication classes were cardiovascular (80%) and central nervous system (52%). Two-thirds of the patients received ≥5 concomitant medications; 30 (30/100 medications) pDDIs were identified for apalutamide and enzalutamide each and 2 (2/100 medications) for darolutamide. Most pDDIs had risk ratings of C or D, but four for apalutamide were rated X. Approximately 58% of the patients on apalutamide, 5% on darolutamide, and 54% on enzalutamide had ≥1 identified pDDI. CONCLUSIONS: Results showed a higher frequency of pDDIs in patients receiving apalutamide and enzalutamide vs darolutamide. The impact of these could not be determined retrospectively. DDI risk should be carefully evaluated when discussing optimal therapy for patients with nmCRPC.

Determination of enzalutamide long-term safety and efficacy for castration-resistant prostate cancer patients after combined anti-androgen blockade followed by alternative anti-androgen therapy: a multicenter prospective DELC study.

BACKGROUND: Alternative anti-androgen therapy has been widely used as a first-line treatment for castration-resistant prostate cancer, and it may affect treatment outcome of subsequent agents targeting the androgen receptor axis. We conducted the prospective observational DELC (Determination of Enzalutamide Long-term safety and efficacy for Castration-resistant prostate cancer patients after combined anti-androgen blockade followed by alternative anti-androgen therapy) study to evaluate the efficacy of enzalutamide in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer who underwent prior combined androgen blockade with bicalutamide and then alternative anti-androgen therapy with flutamide. METHODS: The DELC study enrolled 163 Japanese patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer who underwent alternative anti-androgen therapy with flutamide following failure of initial combined androgen blockade with bicalutamide in multiple institutions between January 2016 and March 2019. Primary endpoint was overall survival. Administration of enzalutamide was started at 160 mg orally once daily in all patients. RESULTS: The rate of decline of prostate-specific antigen by 50% or more was 72.2%, and median overall survival was 42.05 months. Multivariate analysis revealed that higher pretreatment serum levels of prostate-specific antigen (≥11.3 ng/mL; P = 0.004), neuron-specific enolase (P = 0.014) and interleukin-6 (≥2.15 pg/mL; P = 0.004) were independent risk factors for overall survival. Fatigue (30.0%), constipation (19.6%) and appetite loss (17.8%) were the most common clinically relevant adverse events. The enzalutamide dose was not reduced in any patient under the age of 70, but adherence was decreased in those over 70. CONCLUSIONS: In the DELC study, the safety of enzalutamide was comparable to that in previous reports. Serum levels of neuron-specific enolase and interleukin-6 were suggested as prognostic factors for castration-resistant prostate cancer with potential clinical utility.

Oncological Outcomes in Men with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treated with Enzalutamide with versus without Confirmatory Bone Scan.

PURPOSE: In men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), new bone lesions are sometimes not properly categorized through a confirmatory bone scan, and clinical significance of the test itself remains unclear. This study aimed to demonstrate the performance rate of confirmatory bone scans in a real-world setting and their prognostic impact in enzalutamide-treated mCRPC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who received oral enzalutamide for mCRPC during 2014-2017 at 14 tertiary centers in Korea were included. Patients lacking imaging assessment data or insufficient drug exposure were excluded. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included performance rate of confirmatory bone scans in a real-world setting. Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate Cox regression analysis were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 520 patients with mCRPC were enrolled (240 [26.2%] chemotherapy-naïve and 280 [53.2%] after chemotherapy). Among 352 responders, 92 patients (26.1%) showed new bone lesions in their early bone scan. Confirmatory bone scan was performed in 41 patients (44.6%), and it was associated with prolonged OS in the entire population (median, 30.9 vs. 19.7 months; p < 0.001), as well as in the chemotherapy-naïve (median, 47.2 vs. 20.5 months; p=0.011) and post-chemotherapy sub-groups (median, 25.5 vs. 18.0 months; p=0.006). Multivariate Cox regression showed that confirmatory bone scan performance was an independent prognostic factor for OS (hazard ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval, 0.18 to 0.69; p=0.002). CONCLUSION: Confirmatory bone scan performance was associated with prolonged OS. Thus, the premature discontinuation of enzalutamide without confirmatory bone scans should be discouraged.

Adverse Events of Abiraterone Acetate vs Enzalutamide.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to highlight the comprehensive differences in adverse events between abiraterone and enzalutamide based on a big data data set. METHODS: We downloaded adverse event data sets of abiraterone and enzalutamide from the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System database. We used the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities to treat each adverse event as a preferred term and grouped it into the System Organ Class. Logistic regression analyses were performed to compare abiraterone and enzalutamide. RESULTS: In total, we extracted 59,680 data sets. After exclusion by criteria, we included 26,015 reports on enzalutamide and 7,507 on abiraterone. Enzalutamide and abiraterone presented different toxicity profiles in most System Organ Classes. Overall, the reporting odds ratio indicated a higher incidence rate of serious adverse events for abiraterone than enzalutamide. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our findings suggest that both drugs present a discrete and nonoverlapping toxicity profile that varies by System Organ Class and patient age. This data set confirms, for the most part, what has been reported in clinical trials as well as true real-world reports.

Enzalutamide and Quality of Life in Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: EMBARK, a controlled trial reported elsewhere, showed enzalutamide plus leuprolide (combination) and enzalutamide monotherapy prolonged metastasis-free survival versus placebo plus leuprolide (alone) in patients with high-risk biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Health-related quality of life was also analyzed but not reported. METHODS: In EMBARK, patients with biochemical recurrence (prostate-specific antigen doubling time of ≤9 months) were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to combination (n=355), leuprolide-alone (n=358), or enzalutamide monotherapy (n=355). In this article we provide the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from EMBARK at baseline and every 12 weeks until metastasis or death. The key end point was time to first and confirmed clinically meaningful deterioration (TTFD/TTCD) in pain and health-related quality of life using four PRO measures and predefined thresholds. RESULTS: At baseline, all groups had high health-related quality of life. For worst pain, the median TTFD was 19.35 months with leuprolide alone, 13.93 months with combination (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 to 1.30) and 16.59 months with monotherapy (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.31). The median TTCD was 66.27 months with leuprolide alone, 80.00 months with combination (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.04), and 60.91 months with monotherapy (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.28). For Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy­Prostate total score, the median TTFD was 11.10 months with leuprolide alone, 8.31 months with combination (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.36), and 8.38 months with monotherapy (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.39). The median TTCD was 36.53 months with leuprolide alone, 38.77 months with combination (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.28), and 30.55 months with monotherapy (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.41). CONCLUSIONS: The PROs from EMBARK show that both enzalutamide combination and monotherapy versus leuprolide alone, with oncologic benefits noted above, preserved high health-related quality of life in patients with high-risk biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. (Funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02319837.)

Adjuvant enzalutamide for the treatment of early-stage androgen-receptor positive, triple-negative breast cancer: a feasibility study.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy with or without immunotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). A subset of TNBCs express the androgen receptor (AR), representing a potential new therapeutic target. This study assessed the feasibility of adjuvant enzalutamide, an AR antagonist, in early-stage, AR-positive (AR +) TNBC. METHODS: This study was a single-arm, open-label, multicenter trial in which patients with stage I-III, AR ≥ 1% TNBC who had completed standard-of-care therapy were treated with enzalutamide 160 mg/day orally for 1 year. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of 1 year of adjuvant enzalutamide, defined as the treatment discontinuation rate of enzalutamide due to toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or other events related to tolerability. Secondary endpoints included disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and genomic features of recurrent tumors. RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled in this study. Thirty-five patients completed 1 year of therapy, thereby meeting the prespecified trial endpoint for feasibility. Thirty-two patients elected to continue with an optional second year of treatment. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events were uncommon. The 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year DFS were 94%, 92% , and 80%, respectively. Median OS has not been reached. CONCLUSION: This clinical trial demonstrates that adjuvant enzalutamide is a feasible and well-tolerated regimen in patients with an early-stage AR + TNBC. Randomized trials in the metastatic setting may inform patient selection through biomarker development; longer follow-up is needed to determine the effect of anti-androgens on DFS and OS in this patient population.

A scoping review protocol to elucidate outcomes following abiraterone versus enzalutamide for prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide are commonly employed in prostate cancer therapy in an interchangeable manner. These drugs are highly efficacious in androgen antagonism to improve patient outcomes, but they also carry noteworthy risk of adverse effects. Common toxicities vary amongst the two drugs and may have differential interactions with patient co-morbidities, but these patterns are unclear as co-morbidities typically serve as exclusion criteria in clinical trials. Hence, there is no existing guidance on how clinicians may tailor treatment based on patient-specific factors. Analysis of differential patient outcomes between these two drugs can inform future systematic reviews, new clinical studies, and clinical decision making. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: The framework for this methodology was informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. Title and abstract screening will be performed by two independent researchers to create an initial study inventory. This will be followed by full-text screening for study inclusion. Population-based studies describing patient outcomes, common toxicities, and associations with patient co-morbidities following abiraterone or enzalutamide therapy will be included. After data is extracted, it will be summarized for presentation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The findings of this scoping review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results will be used to inform future studies on patient-specific factors informing treatment choice between abiraterone and enzalutamide for castration-resistant prostate cancer. All data are from published openly accessible sources, and therefore, no ethical clearance is necessary. The protocol is also registered at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19149227.

Androgen annihilation versus advanced androgen blockage as first line treatment for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent advances in the treatments of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), patients' prognosis remains suboptimal and novel treatment combinations are under scrutiny. On this matter, the recent ACIS trial tested the role of abiraterone plus apalutamide (androgen annihilation) in addition to androgen deprivation therapy, versus abiraterone plus androgen deprivation therapy. Herein, we performed a meta-analysis to compare overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) among patients who received androgen annihilation versus advanced androgen blockage (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in addition to conventional androgen deprivation therapy. METHODS: A comprehensive search for all published phase III randomized control trials on first line mCRPC that evaluated advanced androgen blockage (COU-AA-302, PREVAIL) or androgen annihilation (ACIS) was conducted PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases up to 31/12/2021. We reconstructed survival data from published Kaplan-Meier curves on overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) and meta-analyzed androgen annihilation versus advanced androgen blockage (grouping together abiraterone and enzalutamide) versus androgen deprivation therapy. The outcomes of interest were assessed using difference in restricted mean survival time (ΔRMST) at different time points. RESULTS: Three trials were included involving 3787 patients. Overall, patients receiving androgen annihilation exhibited similar OS compared to advanced androgen blockage: ΔRMST at 36 months of - 0.2 (95%CI: -1.1, 0.8, p = 0.8). At 36 months, relatively to ADT alone, patients receiving androgen annihilation or advanced androgen blockage exhibited longer OS: ΔRMST of 1.6 (95%CI: 0.6, 2.7, p = 0.002) and 1.8 months (95%CI: 1.1, 2.5, p < 0.001), respectively. Patients receiving androgen annihilation exhibited better PFS compared to advanced androgen blockage: ΔRMST at 36 months of 2.4 months (95%CI: 1.0, 3.8, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: We found no OS benefit for patients with mCRPC treated with androgen annihilation compared to advanced androgen blockage. This might be ascribed to an increased rate of other cause mortality that might determine the absence of an OS benefit or to the efficacy of second line therapies. Optimal treatment sequence and patient selection for androgen annihilation remain open points. However, a PFS benefit was found in case of combination therapy, whose clinical meaning is not yet clear.