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.).

Increased survival with enzalutamide in prostate cancer after chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide (formerly called MDV3100) targets multiple steps in the androgen-receptor-signaling pathway, the major driver of prostate-cancer growth. We aimed to evaluate whether enzalutamide prolongs survival in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy. METHODS: In our phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we stratified 1199 men with castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy according to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance-status score and pain intensity. We randomly assigned them, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive oral enzalutamide at a dose of 160 mg per day (800 patients) or placebo (399 patients). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: The study was stopped after a planned interim analysis at the time of 520 deaths. The median overall survival was 18.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.3 to not yet reached) in the enzalutamide group versus 13.6 months (95% CI, 11.3 to 15.8) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death in the enzalutamide group, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.75; P<0.001). The superiority of enzalutamide over placebo was shown with respect to all secondary end points: the proportion of patients with a reduction in the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level by 50% or more (54% vs. 2%, P<0.001), the soft-tissue response rate (29% vs. 4%, P<0.001), the quality-of-life response rate (43% vs. 18%, P<0.001), the time to PSA progression (8.3 vs. 3.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.25; P<0.001), radiographic progression-free survival (8.3 vs. 2.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.40; P<0.001), and the time to the first skeletal-related event (16.7 vs. 13.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.69; P<0.001). Rates of fatigue, diarrhea, and hot flashes were higher in the enzalutamide group. Seizures were reported in five patients (0.6%) receiving enzalutamide. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide significantly prolonged the survival of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy. (Funded by Medivation and Astellas Pharma Global Development; AFFIRM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00974311.).

Relugolix vs. Leuprolide Effects on Castration Resistance-Free Survival from the Phase 3 HERO Study in Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer.

Background: Relugolix is an oral GnRH receptor antagonist approved for men with advanced prostate cancer. Relugolix treatment has demonstrated an ability to lower testosterone to sustained castration levels in the phase 4 HERO study. Herein, we describe the results of a secondary endpoint of castration resistance-free survival (CRFS) during 48 weeks of treatment and profile patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Methods: Subjects were 2:1 randomized to either relugolix 120 mg orally once daily (after a single 360 mg loading dose) or 3-monthly injections of leuprolide for 48 weeks. CRFS, defined as the time from the date of first dose to the date of confirmed prostate-specific antigen progression while castrated or death due to any reason was conducted in the metastatic disease population and the overall modified intention-to-treat (mITT) populations. Results: The CRFS analysis (mITT population) included 1074 men (relugolix: n = 717; leuprolide: n = 357) with advanced prostate cancer as well as 434 men (relugolix: n = 290; leuprolide: n = 144) with metastatic prostate cancer. In the metastatic disease populations, CRFS rates were 74.3% (95% CI: 68.6%, 79.2%) and 75.3% (95% CI: 66.7%, 81.9%) in the relugolix and leuprolide groups, respectively (hazard ratio: 1.03 [0.68, 1.57]; p = 0.84) at week 48. Results in the overall mITT population were similar to the metastatic population. No new safety findings were identified. Conclusions: In men with metastatic disease or in the overall population of the HERO study, CRFS assessed during the 48-week treatment with relugolix was not significantly different than standard-of-care leuprolide. Relugolix had similar efficacy for men with/without CRFS progression events.

Impact of Concomitant Prostate Cancer Medications on Efficacy and Safety of Relugolix Versus Leuprolide in Men With Advanced Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: To characterize the impact of concomitant prostate cancer treatments with the use of relugolix, the oral GnRH receptor antagonist, in advanced prostate cancer, a subgroup and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses of the HERO study was undertaken. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Overall, 934 patients were randomized 2:1 to receive relugolix 120 mg orally once daily or leuprolide injections every 12 weeks for 48 weeks. In the setting of rising PSA, patients could receive enzalutamide or docetaxel 2 months after study initiation. Assessments included sustained testosterone suppression to castrate levels (<50 ng/dL) through 48 weeks and safety parameters. Subgroups analyzed included patients with or without concomitant enzalutamide or docetaxel. A sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint was performed excluding patients who received concomitant therapies that may affect testosterone. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses of 20 participants in the relugolix treatment group assessed the net effect of enzalutamide on exposure to relugolix. RESULTS: Overall, 125 patients (13.4%) took concomitant therapies that could impact testosterone levels. Enzalutamide (n = 23) was the most frequently used therapy in the relugolix (2.7%) and leuprolide groups (1.9%). Docetaxel (n = 13) was used by 1.3% and 1.6% of patients in the relugolix and leuprolide groups, respectively. All other relevant concomitant therapy were used in <1% of population. Sensitivity analysis showed concomitant therapy did not impact the testosterone levels. Castration rates were similar with and without concomitant use of enzalutamide or docetaxel. No clinically relevant differences in adverse events were observed between subgroups in either treatment group. No differences in relugolix Ctrough or testosterone concentrations were observed, suggesting that any induction or inhibition properties of enzalutamide on relugolix metabolism result in a neutral net effect on relugolix exposure and testosterone suppression. CONCLUSION: Treatment with relugolix was associated with similar efficacy and safety profiles with and without concomitant enzalutamide or docetaxel. Standard-of-care use of relugolix in combination with these agents is supported by these data.