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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Adverse Events and Androgen Receptor Signaling Inhibitors in the Treatment of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Multivariate Network Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSi) agents are emerging as standard treatments for prostate cancer across the disease spectrum, but much remains unknown regarding how their side-effect profiles compare. OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the literature regarding adverse events (AEs) between the ARSi drugs abiraterone, apalutamide, darolutamide, and enzalutamide in the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), nonmetastatic CRPC (nmCRPC), and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were queried for double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ARSi therapy up to September 2022 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Two teams reviewed titles and abstracts, and 14 RCTs were included for analysis. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Forest plots were used to summarize risk ratios for the most common AEs. According to surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values, enzalutamide was ranked as the most toxic treatment regarding hypertension outcomes (SUCRA 0%, most likely to be the bottom-ranked treatment) in both mCRPC and nmCRPC (SUCRA 0%). Enzalutamide was also ranked as the most toxic regarding headache across all prostate cancer entities (SUCRA 0%, for mCRPC, 1% for nmCRPC, and 3% for mCSPC). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the ARSi side-effect profiles do not significantly differ, except that enzalutamide was ranked the most toxic regarding hypertension in mCRPC and nmCRPC, and the most toxic regarding headache across all prostate cancer settings. These results highlight the importance of close blood-pressure monitoring for enzalutamide, and future research should explore possible connections between cardiovascular and neurological risk with ARSi therapy. In addition, these comparisons rely on the validity of cross-trial comparisons. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the side-effect profiles of second-generation antiandrogen drugs for the treatment of prostate cancer. Side effects were similar, apart from higher risk of high blood pressure and headache risk with enzalutamide.

Pathological Effects of Apalutamide in Lower-risk Prostate Cancer: Results From a Phase II Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Active surveillance is a safe and effective strategy for men with lower-risk prostate cancer who want to avoid local therapy; however, many patients on active surveillance progress to active treatment (eg, prostatectomy or radiation). We hypothesized that apalutamide would decrease active surveillance attrition rates through downstaging low-grade tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an open-label, single-arm, phase II study testing 90 days of oral apalutamide 240 mg daily in men with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance. The primary objective was to determine the percentage of patients with a negative biopsy immediately following treatment. Secondary objectives were to assess long-term clinical outcomes, quality of life, safety, and biomarkers of response/resistance. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients enrolled and 22 completed 90 days of apalutamide with post-treatment biopsy. Fifteen (65%) had Grade Group 1 disease, and all others had Grade Group 2 disease. Seven (30%) had favorable- to intermediate-risk disease. Of 22 evaluable patients, 13 (59%) had no residual cancer on post-treatment biopsy. The median time to first positive biopsy was 364 days (95% CI: 91-742 days). The impact of apalutamide on quality of life was minimal and transient. Decipher risk classifier revealed a greater number of negative post-treatment biopsies in those with higher baseline genomic risk score (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: The negative repeat biopsy rate following 90 days of apalutamide was high in men with prostate cancer followed on active surveillance. Apalutamide was safe, well tolerated, and had minimal impact on quality of life. Randomized studies evaluating the effects of apalutamide in men enrolled on active surveillance are warranted.

Clinical characteristics associated with falls in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with apalutamide.

BACKGROUND: The phase III SPARTAN study demonstrated that apalutamide significantly improves metastasis-free survival and overall survival vs. placebo in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). However, patients receiving apalutamide experienced falls more frequently vs. those receiving placebo (15.6% vs. 9.0%). METHODS: 806 patients with nmCRPC randomized to apalutamide in SPARTAN and treated with apalutamide in addition to ongoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were included in this post-hoc analysis investigating clinical variables associated with a subsequent fall. Time to a fall was assessed with Cox proportional-hazards models adjusted for baseline characteristics and time-varying factors. Statistical inference was based on final multivariable models. RESULTS: Falls were reported for 125/803 (15.6%) patients treated with apalutamide and ADT. Most falls were grade 1 or 2 and did not require hospitalization. Median time from randomization to first fall was 9.2 months (range 0.1-25.3 months). In the final multivariable model of both baseline and after-baseline covariates, baseline patient characteristics (older age, poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, history of neuropathy, and α-blocker use before study treatment) remained significantly associated with fall; after-baseline clinical characteristics significantly associated with time to fall were development of neuropathy, arthralgia, and weight loss before fall. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis identified risk factors for fall among nmCRPC patients treated with apalutamide. Clinical management can minimize these identified risks while enhancing patient outcomes. Preventive interventions should be considered when the identified baseline conditions and post-treatment neuropathy, arthralgia, or weight decrease are present, to reduce risk of fall. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01946204.

Treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: facing age-related comorbidities and drug-drug interactions.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) are frequently poly-medicated due to age-related and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)-derived comorbidities. In high-risk patients, androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs) have shown to delay disease progression; however, drug-drug interactions (DDIs) with preexisting medications may impact the therapeutic effect and safety of these and of the ARIs themselves. AREAS COVERED: We review the potential comorbidity burden of nmCRPC patients on the basis of epidemiologic studies on age-related comorbidities, the impact of ADT and specific studies analyzing this topic. Using the DDIs compendia Lexicomp® and Drugs.com®, we provide a scenario of the potential DDIs between common mediations used to treat these comorbidities and the three currently available ARIs: apalutamide, enzalutamide and darolutamide. EXPERT OPINION: In high-risk nmCRPC patients to be treated with an ARI, careful multidisciplinary evaluation of potential DDIs is a fundamental component in the clinical-decision making. The lower potential for DDIs, the lower need for dose adjustment or change of current comedications and of patient monitoring, and safer introduction of new comedications. To optimize this step, an effort is still needed to determine the clinical relevance of DDIs and to harmonize their definition and classification among the different compendia.

Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in men. It is normally diagnosed at age 60 or above, so these men are usually taking medications to treat age-related conditions (e.g. hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, etc.).One of the main treatments for prostate cancer is 'androgen deprivation therapy' (ADT), a hormone treatment that reduces androgens level. This is because the growth of prostate cancer cells is dependent on male sex hormones called androgens. Despite ADT helping keep the cancer controlled for a time, it increases the risk for adverse events that may need new medications. Consequently, men with prostate cancer usually take multiple medications.After some years, ADT may not be enough to control the prostate cancer. A type of medication called 'androgen receptor inhibitors' (ARIs), which prevent the androgen entering the cell, are helpful at this stage, especially the second-generation ones: apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide. The problem is that these ARIs usually interact with other medications already taken by patients, an effect called 'drug­drug interaction.' When this happens, the ARI (the interaction 'perpetrator') may modify the effectiveness of other medications (the 'victims') and/or cause unexpected effects. Consequently, the conditions being treated by these medications may not be properly controlled, which may pose a risk to the patient's health. Thus, when starting treatment with a second-generation ARI, it is crucial to consider all possible interactions with the medications taken. The fewer potential interactions the ARI has, the easier it is to properly control other common conditions in prostate cancer patients.

Novel androgen therapies including selective androgen receptor modulators.

Male hypogonadism is associated with reduced quality of life and the development of co-morbidities including obesity, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidaemia. The mainstay of treatment for male hypogonadism is testosterone replacement therapy (TRT). However, TRT has recognised side effects including impaired spermatogenesis and there are concerns regarding its use in men with concurrent cardiovascular disease. Thus, there has been an impetus to develop novel androgen therapies for treating male hypogonadism to mitigate the side effects of TRT. This review will discuss the benefits and adverse effects of TRT, and novel therapies including nasal testosterone, aromatase inhibitors, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, and selective androgen receptor modulators.