Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis Response in Patients With Acne Vulgaris Treated With Clascoterone.

BACKGROUND: Clascoterone cream 1% is a topical androgen receptor inhibitor approved to treat acne vulgaris in patients =>12 years of age. This report provides details of patients who developed laboratory signs of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis suppression without clinical signs of adrenal suppression during the clascoterone development program. METHODS: Two open-label, multicenter, Phase 2 trials evaluated HPA axis suppression in patients with moderate-to-severe acne vulgaris. Study 1 (NCT01831960) enrolled cohorts of adults =>18 years of age and adolescents =>12 to <18 years of age. Study 2 (NCT02720627) enrolled adolescents 9 to <12 years of age. Patients applied clascoterone twice daily at maximum-exposure dosages for 14 days. Adrenal suppression was evaluated via cosyntropin stimulation test (CST) at baseline and day 14. Patients with an abnormal CST result (serum cortisol level =<18 µg/dL) had a follow-up CST approximately 4 weeks later. Blood was collected for pharmacokinetic analysis. Other safety assessments included adverse events (AEs), physical examination/vital signs, and electrocardiography. RESULTS: Overall, 5/69 clascoterone-treated patients had an abnormal CST result on day 14, including 1/20 adults, 2/22 patients aged =>12 to <18 years, and 2/27 patients aged 9 to <12 years. All patients had normal cortisol levels at follow-up testing approximately 4 weeks later. No relationship was observed between abnormal CST results and clascoterone plasma concentrations or the amount of study drug applied. No clinically relevant AEs or clinically significant changes in safety measures were observed in patients with adrenal suppression. CONCLUSION: Clascoterone induced laboratory evidence of mild, reversible HPA axis suppression under maximum-use exposure. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(6):433-437.     doi:10.36849/JDD.7997.

Androgen Deprivation Therapy/Androgen Receptor Signaling Inhibitor Treatments for Prostate Cancer: Pathophysiology and Review of Effects on Cardiovascular Disease.

Androgen deprivation therapy is the cornerstone of systemic management for prostate cancer but is associated with multiple adverse effects that must be considered during treatment. These effects occur because of the profound hypogonadism that is induced from lack of testosterone or due to the medications used in the treatment or in combination with androgen receptor signaling inhibitors. This article critically reviews the associations between androgen deprivation therapy, androgen receptor signaling inhibitors, and cardiovascular complications such as prolonged QT interval, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease, venous thromboembolism, and peripheral arterial occlusive disease. These unfavorable outcomes reinforce the need for regular cardiovascular screening of patients undergoing androgen deprivation for the management of prostate cancer.

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.

Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators-Transformative Drugs or Heralds of the Next Drug Epidemic?

This Viewpoint examines whether selective androgen receptor modulators have the potential to be transformative drugs or whether they herald the next drug epidemic.

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.

Extended Safety and Tolerability of Darolutamide for Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer and Adverse Event Time Course in ARAMIS.

BACKGROUND: Patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) are usually asymptomatic and seek treatments that improve survival but have a low risk of adverse events. Darolutamide, a structurally distinct androgen receptor inhibitor (ARi), significantly reduced the risk of metastasis and death versus placebo in ARAMIS. We assessed the extended safety and tolerability of darolutamide and the time-course profile of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) related to ARis and androgen-suppressive treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with nmCRPC were randomized 2:1 to darolutamide (n = 955) or placebo (n = 554). After trial unblinding, patients could receive open-label darolutamide. Tolerability and TEAEs were assessed every 16 weeks. Time interval-specific new and cumulative event rates were determined during the first 24 months of the double-blind period. RESULTS: Darolutamide remained well tolerated during the double-blind and open-label periods, with 98.8% of patients receiving the full planned dose. The incidence of TEAEs of interest in the darolutamide group was low and ≤2% different from that in the placebo group, except for fatigue. When incidences were adjusted for exposure time, there were minimal differences between the darolutamide double-blind and double-blind plus open-label periods. The rate of initial onset and cumulative incidence of grade 3/4 TEAEs and serious TEAEs were similar for darolutamide and placebo groups over 24 months. CONCLUSION: Extended treatment with darolutamide was well tolerated and no new safety signals were observed. Most ARi-associated and androgen-suppressive treatment-related TEAEs occurred at low incidences with darolutamide, were similar to placebo, and showed minimal increase over time with continued treatment. TRIAL NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02200614.

Risk Factors for Early Treatment Discontinuation Due to Toxicity Among Patients With Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Receiving Androgen Receptor-targeted Therapy.

OBJECTIVES: Androgen receptor-targeted therapies (ARTs) improve survival outcomes in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC); however, a significant portion of patients discontinue treatment for various reasons including treatment-related toxicity. We aim to describe reasons for ART treatment discontinuation and identify predictors associated with increased risk of treatment discontinuation due to toxicity. METHODS: We performed a single-institution retrospective review of patients with mCRPC receiving ART between 2010 and 2021. Our primary aim was to identify risk factors for treatment discontinuation due to toxicity. Our secondary aim was to describe ART discontinuation patterns among patients with mCRPC. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three patients with mCRPC started and discontinued ARTs. Fourteen patients (10.5%) discontinued treatment due to toxicity. Common reasons for treatment discontinuation include Prostate Specific Antigen test progression, radiographic progression, toxicity, and death. Significant predictors of treatment discontinuation due to toxicity on bivariate analysis and multivariate analysis included patient-reported falls (odds ratio [OR]: 7.67, CI: [1.31-40.42]; P =0.016), rash (OR: 13.4, CI: [1.35-134.81]; P =0.026), and weakness (OR: 4.16, CI: [1.15-15.0]; P =0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Our work presents the first description of ART treatment discontinuation and its causes in the real-world setting, as well as patient-reported side effects. Most patients with mCRPC discontinued treatment due to the progression of disease and a minority of patients discontinued secondary to treatment toxicity. Initial multivariable analysis suggests that patient-reported weakness, falls, and rash were associated with a higher likelihood of treatment discontinuation due to toxicity. Early monitoring of this population can prolong the duration of treatment and prevent unnecessary treatment burden.

Changes in bone and mineral homeostasis after short-term androgen deprivation therapy with or without androgen receptor signalling inhibitor - substudy of a single-centre, double blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) have an increased fracture risk. Exploring biomarkers for early bone loss detection is of great interest. METHODS: Pre-planned substudy of the ARNEO-trial (NCT03080116): a double blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial performed in high-risk PCa patients without bone metastases between March 2019 and April 2021. Patients were 1:1 randomised to treatment with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (degarelix) + androgen receptor signalling inhibitor (ARSI; apalutamide) versus degarelix + matching placebo for 12 weeks prior to prostatectomy. Before and following ADT, serum and 24-h urinary samples were collected. Primary endpoints were changes in calcium-phosphate homeostasis and bone biomarkers. FINDINGS: Of the 89 randomised patients, 43 in the degarelix + apalutamide and 44 patients in the degarelix + placebo group were included in this substudy. Serum corrected calcium levels increased similarly in both treatment arms (mean difference +0.04 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval, 0.02; 0.06), and parathyroid hormone and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 levels decreased. Bone resorption markers increased, and stable calcium isotope ratios reflecting net bone mineral balance decreased in serum and urine similarly in both groups. INTERPRETATION: This exploratory substudy suggests that 12 weeks of ADT in non-metastatic PCa patients results in early bone loss. Additional treatment with ARSI does not seem to more negatively influence bone loss in the early phase. Future studies should address if these early biomarkers are able to predict fracture risk, and can be implemented in clinical practice for follow-up of bone health in PCa patients under ADT. FUNDING: Research Foundation Flanders; KU Leuven; University-Hospitals-Leuven.

Apalutamide-induced lichenoid reaction in a patient with non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Apalutamide is an oral selective androgen receptor inhibitor, approved by the FDA for the treatment of patients with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (M0 CRPC) at high risk of developing metastases and for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate (mHSPC) in association with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In the registration studies, skin reactions were reported among the most common side effects and as an adverse event of special interest. CASE REPORT: Apalutamide-induced rash includes a wide spectrum of different types of skin reactions, but few cases reports and case series have described this adverse event. Here, we report an M0 CRPC patient who experienced a rare skin adverse event, a lichenoid reaction. MANAGEMENT & OUTCOME: After 4 months of therapy with apalutamide, the patient reported dorsal pricking and dry skin. Lichenoid reaction was confirmed histologically and its correlation to the drug was demonstrated after pursuing a multidisciplinary approach. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is one of the first cases of Apalutamide-related lichenoid reaction and this clinical case showed the relevance of a multidisciplinary management when assessing drug-related adverse events. A broader knowledge of the spectrum of drug-related reactions would allow for a better diagnosis and therapy management by both physicians and patients.

Health-related quality of life and pain outcomes with [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 plus standard of care versus standard of care in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (VISION): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In VISION, the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted radioligand therapy lutetium-177 [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (vipivotide tetraxetan) improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival when added to protocol-permitted standard of care in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Here, we report additional health-related quality of life (HRQOL), pain, and symptomatic skeletal event results. METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial was conducted at 84 cancer centres in nine countries in North America and Europe. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older; had progressive PSMA-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score of 0-2; and had previously received of at least one androgen receptor pathway inhibitor and one or two taxane-containing regimens. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 plus protocol-permitted standard of care ([177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group) or standard of care alone (control group) using permuted blocks. Randomisation was stratified by baseline lactate dehydrogenase concentration, liver metastases, ECOG performance status, and androgen receptor pathway inhibitor inclusion in standard of care. Patients in the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group received intravenous infusions of 7·4 gigabecquerel (GBq; 200 millicurie [mCi]) [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 every 6 weeks for four cycles plus two optional additional cycles. Standard of care included approved hormonal treatments, bisphosphonates, and radiotherapy. The alternate primary endpoints were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival, which have been reported. Here we report the key secondary endpoint of time to first symptomatic skeletal event, and other secondary endpoints of HRQOL assessed with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) and EQ-5D-5L, and pain assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF). Patient-reported outcomes and symptomatic skeletal events were analysed in all patients who were randomly assigned after implementation of measures designed to reduce the dropout rate in the control group (on or after March 5, 2019), and safety was analysed according to treatment received in all patients who received at least one dose of treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03511664, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between June 4, 2018, and Oct 23, 2019, 831 patients were enrolled, of whom 581 were randomly assigned to the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group (n=385) or control group (n=196) on or after March 5, 2019, and were included in analyses of HRQOL, pain, and time to first symptomatic skeletal event. The median age of patients was 71 years (IQR 65-75) in the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 72·0 years (66-76) in the control group. Median time to first symptomatic skeletal event or death was 11·5 months (95% CI 10·3-13·2) in the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 6·8 months (5·2-8·5) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·50, 95% CI 0·40-0·62). Time to worsening was delayed in the [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group versus the control group for FACT-P score (HR 0·54, 0·45-0·66) and subdomains, BPI-SF pain intensity score (0·52, 0·42-0·63), and EQ-5D-5L utility score (0·65, 0·54-0·78). Grade 3 or 4 haematological adverse events included decreased haemoglobin (80 [15%] of 529 assessable patients who received [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 plus standard of care vs 13 [6%] of 205 who received standard of care only), lymphocyte concentrations (269 [51%] vs 39 [19%]), and platelet counts (49 [9%] vs five [2%]). Treatment-related adverse events leading to death occurred in five (1%) patients who received [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 plus standard of care (pancytopenia [n=2], bone marrow failure [n=1], subdural haematoma [n=1], and intracranial haemorrhage [n=1]) and no patients who received standard of care only. INTERPRETATION: [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 plus standard of care delayed time to worsening in HRQOL and time to skeletal events compared with standard of care alone. These findings support the use of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who received previous androgen receptor pathway inhibitor and taxane treatment. FUNDING: Advanced Accelerator Applications (Novartis).

Darolutamide in Spanish patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: ARAMIS subgroup analysis.

Aim: Darolutamide significantly prolonged metastasis-free survival (MFS) versus placebo in the Phase III ARAMIS study. We analyzed outcomes in Spanish participants in ARAMIS. Patients & methods: Patients with high-risk nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomized 2:1 to darolutamide 600 mg twice daily or placebo, plus androgen-deprivation therapy. The primary end point was MFS. Descriptive statistics are reported for this post hoc analysis. Results: In Spanish participants, darolutamide (n = 75) prolonged MFS versus placebo (n = 42): hazard ratio 0.345, 95% confidence interval 0.175-0.681. The incidence and type of treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable between treatment arms. Conclusion: For Spanish participants in ARAMIS, efficacy outcomes favored darolutamide versus placebo, with a similar safety profile, consistent with the overall ARAMIS population. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02200614 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Darolutamide is an oral treatment for a type of prostate cancer that has stopped responding to other treatments and is at risk of spreading to other parts of the body (termed "nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer" or "nmCRPC"). In the international ARAMIS study, patients treated with darolutamide lived longer without their cancer spreading than patients who were given placebo (sugar) pills. We wanted to know whether Spanish patients in ARAMIS had similar characteristics and treatment outcomes to other patients in the study. We found that the 75 Spanish patients who were treated with darolutamide had a significantly lower risk of their cancer spreading than the 42 Spanish patients who received placebo. The two groups of Spanish patients had similar side effects.

Based on ARASENS trial: efficacy and safety of darolutamide as an emerging option of endocrinotherapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer-an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The newly published ARASENS trial has demonstrated the clinical efficacy of darolutamide for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). However, the use of darolutamide as the latest first-line androgen receptor pathway inhibitor for mHSPC has not been compared with other androgen receptor targeted agents (ARTAs). Given the lack of head-to-head randomized trials, we performed this updated meta-analysis to conduct indirect comparison for the efficacy and safety of darolutamide with other new-generation ARTAs. METHODS: By searching the databases of PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Embase, 9 large randomized controlled trials evaluating ARTAs for mHSPC patients were eventually screened according to PRISMA. We extracted data from overall survival, castration-resistant progression, and adverse events for network meta-analysis using the Bayesian and standard frequentist models. RESULTS: Darolutamide combination emerged with superiority (HR = 0.68, 95%CrI = 0.57-0.81) among four androgen receptor inhibitors for patients with high Gleason score (HR = 0.71, 95%CrI = 0.59-0.86). Darolutamide was best tolerated in several androgen suppression-related adverse events (AEs). CONCLUSION: Darolutamide appears to be an optional androgen receptor inhibitor for mHSPC patients, especially for patients with Gleason score ≥ 8. Its well-tolerated characteristic may provide a preferred drug option for patients with poor cardiovascular function and bone health.

Role of apalutamide in the treatment landscape for patients with advanced prostate cancer: an expert opinion statement of European clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced prostate cancer have a poor prognosis, and well-tolerated new treatment strategies are required to improve survival outcomes. Apalutamide is a novel androgen signalling inhibitor developed to be used in combination with continuous androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for the treatment of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Based on evidence from two phase 3 pivotal clinical trials in non-metastatic castration-resistant (nmCRPC; SPARTAN) and metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC; TITAN), ADT plus apalutamide significantly extends overall survival compared with the standard of care. AIMS: To provide practical recommendations to guide optimal use in the real-world setting as the use of apalutamide in clinical practice increases. METHODS: Expert opinion from a group of European physicians is presented here to educate on the use of apalutamide in combination with ADT in patients with mHSPC and patients with nmCRPC who are at risk of developing metastatic disease, focusing on practical considerations such as patient selection, monitoring, and management of side effects. RESULTS: In clinical practice, apalutamide in combination with ADT can be used in a broad patient population including patients with high and low volume/risk mHSPC, patients with de novo metastatic disease or metastases following treatment for localised disease, as well as older patients. Apalutamide in combination with ADT is well tolerated, with manageable side effects which do not impact health-related quality of life compared to ADT alone. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world experience with apalutamide supports the efficacy and safety findings reported by the SPARTAN and TITAN clinical trials.

Updates in the Treatment of Non-Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer: The Benefit of Second-Generation Androgen Receptor Antagonists.

OBJECTIVE: To review pharmacology, efficacy, safety, and considerations for use, of second-generation androgen receptor (AR) antagonists in treatment of nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (M0CRPC). DATA SOURCES: Conducted search in PubMed and Google scholar (January, 1, 2002-December 31, 2022), using relevant terms. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant English-language studies, conducted in humans evaluating second-generation AR antagonists for M0CRPC, and additional articles and package inserts were considered. DATA SYNTHESIS: Apalutamide, darolutamide, and enzalutamide are effective in delaying the time to development of metastatic prostate cancer in men with M0CRPC with a rapid prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time (<10 months). No head-to-head, randomized, clinical trials have been conducted. The most common adverse effects include fatigue and hypertension, and quality of life is maintained in most patients. Cost is similar among the agents (~$15,000/month). Drug-drug interactions vary among these agents and should be considered, when selecting therapy as well as likely adherence. Darolutamide is administered twice daily with the others once daily. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: Second-generation AR antagonists are effective in reducing time to development of metastatic disease and prolonging overall survival in patients with M0CRPC and a PSA doubling time of <10 months. Recent imaging advances may alter how we evaluate outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Second-generation AR antagonists improve disease control and overall survival. Generally, they are well tolerated and QOL is maintained. Selection of the best agent is based on the adverse effect profile, potential for drug- and disease-interactions, administration, cost, and patient preference.

The efficacy and adverse events of conventional and second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors for castration-resistant prostate cancer: A network meta-analysis.

Background: Second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs) have been developed and approved for treating castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). There is a lack of direct comparison of the therapeutic effects and adverse events between the conventional ARI (bicalutamide) and three second-generation ARIs (enzalutamide, apalutamide and darolutamide). Methods: Our network meta-analysis evaluated therapeutic effects and adverse events of the conventional ARI (bicalutamide) and the second-generation ARIs in treating CRPC. We systematically searched the Pubmed, Cochrane library and Embase databases for studies published until October 2022 and only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. The progression-free survival, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival, overall survival (PFS/PSA-PFS/OS), PSA response rate and relative adverse events (AEs) of CRPC patients were collected and synthesized. We then performed subgroup analysis. The non-metastatic and metastatic CRPC (nm/mCRPC) observations were analyzed separately. Data analyses were performed using R software (4.2.1) based on Bayesian framework. Results: 6,993 subjects from seven eligible RCTs were analyzed. Enzalutamide, apalutamide and darolutamide were more effective than bicalutamide in treating CRPC, and the performance of darolutamide was slightly worse than the other two second-generation ARIs. Similar adverse events rate were observed among the second-generation ARIs and bicalutamide. Apalutamide showed a slightly higher rate of Grade 3+ AEs, percentages of AE-related drug withdrawals and AE-related mortality. Patients receiving enzalutamide had significantly higher rate of hypertension and fatigue. In subgroup analysis, enzalutamide showed better therapeutic effects compared with bicalutamide in both nmCRPC and mCRPC groups. In nmCRPC group, enzalutamide and apalutamide had more benefits on PFS and PSA-PFS compared with darolutamide. We displayed the probability ranking map of PFS, PSA-PFS, OS, time to cytotoxic chemotherapy, PSA response rate and relative AE outcomes. Conclusion: The current network meta-analysis indicated that the second-generation ARIs were superior to the conventional ARI, bicalutamide. The three second-generation ARIs showed incomplete equivalence on CRPC treatment. The darolutamide was slightly less effective compared with enzalutamide and apalutamide. The adverse events of apalutamide were worse than the others, but no statistical significance was observed among these vital AEs. All ARIs were generally well-tolerated. These results may provide reference to clinical decision and further direct comparison trials. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022370842.

Darolutamide for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Efficacy, safety, and clinical perspectives of use.

Darolutamide, a second-generation androgen receptor inhibitor (SGARI), has been shown to increase metastasis-free survival and overall survival among men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). Its unique chemical structure potentially provides efficacy and safety advantages over the SGARIs apalutamide and enzalutamide, which are also indicated for nmCRPC. Despite a lack of direct comparisons, the SGARIs appear to have similar efficacy, safety, and quality of life (QoL) results. Indirect evidence suggests that darolutamide is preferred for its good adverse event profile, an attribute valued by physicians, patients, and their caregivers for maintaining QoL. Darolutamide and others in its class are costly; access may be a challenge for many patients and may lead to modifications to guideline-recommended regimens.

Safety differences across androgen receptor inhibitors in nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Approval of apalutamide, enzalutamide and darolutamide has transformed the treatment landscape and guideline recommendations for patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer but now raises the issue of decision-making regarding treatment selection. In this perspective, we discuss the efficacy and safety of these second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors and propose that for patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, safety considerations for these treatments are especially important. We examine these considerations in the context of patient and caregiver preferences as well as patient clinical characteristics. We further posit that consideration of treatments' safety profiles should include not only the initial direct impacts from potential treatment-emergent adverse events and drug-drug interaction events, but also the full cascade of potentially avoidable healthcare complications.

Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in men. Because male hormones fuel the growth of prostate cancer cells, initial treatments generally focus on reducing these hormones to very low levels. Although these treatments are usually effective in controlling the cancer in the short term, over time, patients often stop responding to them. These patients need more advanced treatments to control their prostate cancer. For patients whose cancer has not spread to other body parts ('nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer'), more advanced treatment options were unavailable until recently, but during 2018­2019, three novel therapies became available. These new therapies have raised the question of how to choose a particular therapy when deciding on a patient's treatment regimen. Here we contend that patient safety is critical when deciding among these treatments, which are all similarly effective in terms of helping patients to live longer. We review the key differences of each drug's safety profile among these treatments. We assert that treatment selection should consider patients' preferences and clinical characteristics, as the latter can influence the potential for serious harm when treatment-related complications arise. Finally, treatment selection should consider the multiple after-effects that can occur following a treatment-related safety event.