A practical guide for the use of apalutamide for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in Australia.

Studies of patients with castrate-resistant prostate cancer at high risk of developing overt metastases but with no current evidence of evaluable disease on computed tomography or bone scan non-metastatic castrate-resistant prostrate cancer have demonstrated increased metastasis-free survival and overall survival following treatment with the next-generation oral anti-androgen apalutamide (in addition to therapies that aim to lower testosterone to castrate levels) or luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone antagonist or surgical castration. Patients receiving apalutamide can be managed by medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, or urologists, preferably as part of a multidisciplinary team. However, the importance of additional safety monitoring for significant adverse effects and drug interactions should not be underestimated. The toxicities of apalutamide are manageable with experience and should be managed proactively to minimize their impact on patients. Monitoring of patients for apalutamide-specific toxicities, including skin rash, hypothyroidism, and QT prolongation should be carried out regularly, particularly in the first few months following initiation. Monitoring should continue alongside monitoring for toxicities of androgen deprivation, including cardiovascular risk, hot flashes, weight gain, bone health, muscle wasting, and diabetic risk. This review is a practical guide to the use of apalutamide describing the management of patients including dosing and administration, toxicities, potential drug interactions, and safety monitoring requirements.

Apalutamide efficacy, safety and wellbeing in older patients with advanced prostate cancer from Phase 3 randomised clinical studies TITAN and SPARTAN.

BACKGROUND: Apalutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improved outcomes in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and non-metastatic castration-resistant PC (nmCRPC) in the Phase 3 randomised TITAN and SPARTAN studies, respectively, and maintained health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Apalutamide treatment effect by patient age requires assessment. METHODS: Post-hoc analysis assessed patients receiving 240 mg/day apalutamide (525 TITAN and 806 SPARTAN) or placebo (527 TITAN and 401 SPARTAN) with ongoing ADT, stratified by age groups. Prostate-specific antigen declines, radiographic progression-free survival, metastasis-free survival, overall survival (OS), HRQoL and safety were assessed using descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier method, Cox proportional-hazards model and mixed-effects model for repeated measures. RESULTS: Hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) generally favoured apalutamide plus ADT versus ADT alone across all endpoints regardless of age; e.g., OS values were 0.57 (0.40-0.80), 0.70 (0.54-0.91) and 0.74 (0.40-1.39) (TITAN) and 0.39 (0.19-0.78), 0.89 (0.69-1.16) and 0.81 (0.58-1.15) (SPARTAN) in patients aged <65, 65-79 and ≥80 years. Regardless of age, apalutamide also maintained HRQoL and was tolerated well with a potential trend in rates of adverse events increasing with age. Limitations include post-hoc nature and variability in sample size of age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Apalutamide plus ADT was an effective and well-tolerated option maintaining HRQoL in patients with mCSPC and nmCRPC regardless of age. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: TITAN (NCT02489318); SPARTAN (NCT01946204).

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline with apalutamide therapy is associated with longer survival and improved outcomes in individuals with metastatic prostate cancer: a plain language summary of the TITAN study.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary describes the results from an additional (or post hoc) analysis of the TITAN study. The TITAN study looked at whether the prostate cancer treatment apalutamide could be used to treat individuals with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (or mCSPC). A total of 1052 participants with mCSPC were included in the TITAN study. Treatment with apalutamide was compared with treatment with placebo. All participants received androgen deprivation therapy (or ADT), which is a type of hormone therapy that has been part of the main treatment for mCSPC for many years. The results showed that apalutamide plus ADT increased the length of time that participants remained alive compared with placebo plus ADT. Apalutamide plus ADT also controlled the growth of the cancer for a longer length of time compared with placebo plus ADT. Additionally, participants who received apalutamide plus ADT experienced a greater reduction in the blood levels of prostate-specific antigen (or PSA), called a deep PSA decline, compared with those who received placebo plus ADT. An additional (or post hoc) analysis was carried out to understand whether a decrease in blood PSA levels, in response to treatment, was associated with improved outcomes, including longer survival time. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS?: In participants who received apalutamide plus ADT, a deep PSA decline in response to treatment was associated with longer survival time and improved outcomes. WHAT DO THESE RESULTS MEAN FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH MCSPC?: These results demonstrate that individuals with mCSPC can benefit from treatment with apalutamide plus ADT. The association seen between deep PSA decline and the longer survival time and improved outcomes highlights how PSA measurements can be used to help monitor cancer disease evolution in response to treatment. Monitoring PSA levels will assist doctors and other healthcare professionals to understand how effectively a treatment is working for a patient and to tailor their treatment approach to improve PSA decline.

Post Hoc Analysis of Rapid and Deep Prostate-specific Antigen Decline and Patient-reported Health-related Quality of Life in SPARTAN and TITAN Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adding apalutamide to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) resulted in a rapid (at 3- and 6-mo treatment) and deep prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline (to ≤0.2 ng/ml or ≥90% from baseline), improved overall survival, reduced risk of disease progression, and prolonged health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) in SPARTAN and metastatic castration-sensitive PC (mCSPC) in TITAN. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of a rapid, deep PSA decline at 3 and 6 mo achieved with the addition of apalutamide to ADT with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in SPARTAN and TITAN. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A post hoc analysis of SPARTAN and TITAN PRO data was performed. INTERVENTION: Apalutamide versus placebo plus concurrent ADT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: PROs were assessed using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P; SPARTAN and TITAN), Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF; TITAN), and Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI; TITAN) at baseline, prespecified cycles during treatment, and after progression for ≤1 yr. The association between a deep PSA decline at landmark 3 or 6 mo of apalutamide and the time to worsening of PROs was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier methodology and Cox proportional-hazard modeling. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 806 SPARTAN and 525 TITAN apalutamide-treated patients, the median treatment duration was 32.9 and 39.3 mo, respectively. Patients achieving a deep PSA decline at 3 mo had longer time to worsening in FACT-P total, FACT-P physical well-being, BPI-SF worst pain intensity, or BFI worst fatigue intensity. The 6-mo PSA decline results were similar. Limitations of patient characteristics in clinical studies should be considered. CONCLUSIONS: Attaining a deep and rapid PSA decline at 3 mo with apalutamide plus ADT was associated with longer preservation of overall HRQoL and physical well-being in nmCRPC and mCSPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Quality of life is maintained in individuals with advanced prostate cancer who achieve a deep prostate-specific antigen decline at 3 mo of apalutamide plus drugs that lower male sex hormones.

Treatment landscape and burden of disease in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: systematic and structured literature reviews.

Purpose: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is a lethal disease that imposes a major burden on patients and healthcare systems. Three structured literature reviews (treatment guidelines, treatment landscape, and human/clinical/patient burden) and one systematic literature review (economic burden) were conducted to better understand the disease burden and unmet needs for patients with late-stage mCRPC, for whom optimal treatment options are unclear. Methods: Embase®, MEDLINE®, MEDLINE® In-Process, the CENTRAL database (structured and systematic reviews), and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database (systematic review only) were searched for English-language records from 2009 to 2021 to identify mCRPC treatment guidelines and studies related to the treatment landscape and the humanistic/economic burden of mCRPC in adult men (aged ≥18 years) of any ethnicity. Results: In total, six records were included for the treatment patterns review, 14 records for humanistic burden, nine records for economic burden, three records (two studies) for efficacy, and eight records for safety. Real-world treatment patterns were broadly aligned with treatment guidelines and provided no optimal treatment sequencing beyond second line other than palliative care. Current post-docetaxel treatments in mCRPC are associated with adverse events that cause relatively high rates of treatment discontinuation or disruption. The humanistic and economic burdens associated with mCRPC are high. Conclusion: The findings highlight a lack of treatment options with novel mechanisms of action and more tolerable safety profiles that satisfy a risk-to-benefit ratio aligned with patient needs and preferences for patients with late-stage mCRPC. Treatment approaches that improve survival and health-related quality of life are needed, ideally while simultaneously reducing costs and healthcare resource utilization.

Apalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy in clinical subgroups of patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: A subgroup analysis of the randomised clinical TITAN study.

BACKGROUND: Whether disease burden in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) predicts treatment outcomes is unknown. We assessed apalutamide treatment effect in TITAN patients with mCSPC by disease volume, metastasis number and timing of metastasis presentation. METHODS: These protocol-defined and post hoc analyses of the phase III randomised TITAN study evaluated clinical outcomes in patients receiving 240 mg/day apalutamide (n = 525) or placebo (n = 527) plus androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Subgroups were defined by volume (high: visceral and ≥1 bone metastases or ≥4 bone lesions with ≥1 beyond vertebral column/pelvis), development of metastases per conventional imaging (synchronous: at initial diagnosis; metachronous: after localised disease) and oligometastases (≤5 bone-only metastases) or polymetastases (>5 in bone ± other locations or ≤5 in bone plus other locations). Overall survival (OS), radiographic or second progression-free survival, and time to prostate-specific antigen progression or castration resistance were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of 1052 patients, 63%, 81%, 54%, 27%, 5.7%, and 8.0% had high-volume, synchronous, synchronous/high-volume, synchronous/low-volume, metachronous/high-volume, and metachronous/low-volume disease, respectively. The OS benefit favoured apalutamide plus ADT versus ADT alone in synchronous/high-volume (hazard ratio = 0.68 [95% confidence interval: 0.53-0.87]; p = 0.002), synchronous/low-volume (0.65 [0.40-1.05]; p = 0.08), metachronous/high-volume (0.69 [0.33-1.44]; p = 0.32) and metachronous/low-volume (0.22 [0.09-0.55]; p = 0.001) subgroups. Apalutamide improved other clinical outcomes regardless of subgroup, with similar safety profiles. Most favourable outcomes were observed in oligometastatic disease. CONCLUSION: TITAN patients derived a robust benefit with apalutamide plus ADT regardless of disease volume and timing of metastasis presentation without differences in safety, supporting early apalutamide intensification in mCSPC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02489318.

Rucaparib for the Treatment of Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Associated with a DNA Damage Repair Gene Alteration: Final Results from the Phase 2 TRITON2 Study.

BACKGROUND: Initial TRITON2 (NCT02952534) results demonstrated the efficacy of rucaparib 600 mg BID in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) associated with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) or other DNA damage repair (DDR) gene alteration. OBJECTIVE: To present the final data from TRITON2. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: TRITON2 enrolled patients with mCRPC who had progressed on one or two lines of next-generation androgen receptor-directed therapy and one taxane-based chemotherapy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR; as per the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor Version 1.1/Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 criteria in patients with measurable disease by independent radiology review [IRR]); prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (≥50% decrease from baseline [PSA50]) was a key secondary endpoint. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: As of July 27, 2021 (study closure), TRITON2 had enrolled 277 patients, grouped by mutated gene: BRCA (n = 172), ATM (n = 59), CDK12 (n = 15), CHEK2 (n = 7), PALB2 (n = 11), or other DDR gene (Other; n = 13). ORR by IRR was 46% (37/81) in the BRCA subgroup (95% confidence interval [CI], 35-57%), 100% (4/4) in the PALB2 subgroup (95% CI, 40-100%), and 25% (3/12) in the Other subgroup (95% CI, 5.5-57%). No patients within the ATM, CDK12, or CHEK2 subgroups had an objective response by IRR. PSA50 response rates (95% CI) in the BRCA, PALB2, ATM, CDK12, CHEK2, and Other subgroups were 53% (46-61%), 55% (23-83%), 3.4% (0.4-12), 6.7% (0.2-32%), 14% (0.4-58%), and 23% (5.0-54%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The final TRITON2 results confirm the clinical benefit and manageable safety profile of rucaparib in patients with mCRPC, including those with an alteration in BRCA or select non-BRCA DDR gene. PATIENT SUMMARY: Almost half of TRITON2 patients with BRCA-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer had a complete or partial tumor size reduction with rucaparib; clinical benefits were also observed with other DNA damage repair gene alterations.

Apalutamide for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: final analysis of the Asian subpopulation in the TITAN trial.

The final analysis of the phase 3 Targeted Investigational Treatment Analysis of Novel Anti-androgen (TITAN) trial showed improvement in overall survival (OS) and other efficacy endpoints with apalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus ADT alone in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). As ethnicity and regional differences may affect treatment outcomes in advanced prostate cancer, a post hoc final analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of apalutamide in the Asian subpopulation. Event-driven endpoints were OS, and time from randomization to initiation of castration resistance, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, and second progression-free survival (PFS2) on first subsequent therapy or death. Efficacy endpoints were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional-hazards models without formal statistical testing and adjustment for multiplicity. Participating Asian patients received once-daily apalutamide 240 mg ( n = 111) or placebo ( n = 110) plus ADT. After a median follow-up of 42.5 months and despite crossover of 47 placebo recipients to open-label apalutamide, apalutamide reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42-1.13), risk of castration resistance by 69% (HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.21-0.46), PSA progression by 79% (HR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.13-0.35) and PFS2 by 24% (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.44-1.29) relative to placebo. The outcomes were comparable between subgroups with low- and high-volume disease at baseline. No new safety issues were identified. Apalutamide provides valuable clinical benefits to Asian patients with mCSPC, with an efficacy and safety profile consistent with that in the overall patient population.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for patients with metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: final results from two randomised phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (herein referred to as abiraterone) or enzalutamide added at the start of androgen deprivation therapy improves outcomes for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes and test whether combining enzalutamide with abiraterone and androgen deprivation therapy improves survival. METHODS: We analysed two open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol, with no overlapping controls, conducted at 117 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restriction) had metastatic, histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; a WHO performance status of 0-2; and adequate haematological, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computerised algorithm and a minimisation technique to either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy; docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously for six cycles with prednisolone 10 mg orally once per day allowed from Dec 17, 2015) or standard of care plus abiraterone acetate 1000 mg and prednisolone 5 mg (in the abiraterone trial) orally or abiraterone acetate and prednisolone plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once a day (in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial). Patients were stratified by centre, age, WHO performance status, type of androgen deprivation therapy, use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pelvic nodal status, planned radiotherapy, and planned docetaxel use. The primary outcome was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started treatment. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of individual patient data was used to compare differences in survival between the two trials. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN78818544). FINDINGS: Between Nov 15, 2011, and Jan 17, 2014, 1003 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=502) or standard of care plus abiraterone (n=501) in the abiraterone trial. Between July 29, 2014, and March 31, 2016, 916 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=454) or standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide (n=462) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. Median follow-up was 96 months (IQR 86-107) in the abiraterone trial and 72 months (61-74) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. In the abiraterone trial, median overall survival was 76·6 months (95% CI 67·8-86·9) in the abiraterone group versus 45·7 months (41·6-52·0) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·53-0·73]; p<0·0001). In the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, median overall survival was 73·1 months (61·9-81·3) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide group versus 51·8 months (45·3-59·0) in the standard of care group (HR 0·65 [0·55-0·77]; p<0·0001). We found no difference in the treatment effect between these two trials (interaction HR 1·05 [0·83-1·32]; pinteraction=0·71) or between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·70). In the first 5 years of treatment, grade 3-5 toxic effects were higher when abiraterone was added to standard of care (271 [54%] of 498 vs 192 [38%] of 502 with standard of care) and the highest toxic effects were seen when abiraterone and enzalutamide were added to standard of care (302 [68%] of 445 vs 204 [45%] of 454 with standard of care). Cardiac causes were the most common cause of death due to adverse events (five [1%] with standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide [two attributed to treatment] and one (<1%) with standard of care in the abiraterone trial). INTERPRETATION: Enzalutamide and abiraterone should not be combined for patients with prostate cancer starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Clinically important improvements in survival from addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy are maintained for longer than 7 years. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer-metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. TWITTER SUMMARY: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer. TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here.

Testosterone suppression plus enzalutamide versus testosterone suppression plus standard antiandrogen therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (ENZAMET): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The interim analysis of the ENZAMET trial of testosterone suppression plus either enzalutamide or standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy showed an early overall survival benefit with enzalutamide. Here, we report the planned primary overall survival analysis, with the aim of defining the benefit of enzalutamide treatment in different prognostic subgroups (synchronous and metachronous high-volume or low-volume disease) and in those who received concurrent docetaxel. METHODS: ENZAMET is an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial conducted at 83 sites (including clinics, hospitals, and university centres) in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA. Eligible participants were males aged 18 years or older with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate adenocarcinoma evident on CT or bone scanning with 99mTc and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a centralised web-based system and stratified by volume of disease, planned use of concurrent docetaxel and bone antiresorptive therapy, comorbidities, and study site, to receive testosterone suppression plus oral enzalutamide (160 mg once per day) or a weaker standard oral non-steroidal antiandrogen (bicalutamide, nilutamide, or flutamide; control group) until clinical disease progression or prohibitive toxicity. Testosterone suppression was allowed up to 12 weeks before randomisation and for up to 24 months as adjuvant therapy. Concurrent docetaxel (75 mg/m2 intravenously) was allowed for up to six cycles once every 3 weeks, at the discretion of participants and physicians. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This planned analysis was triggered by reaching 470 deaths. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02446405, ANZCTR, ACTRN12614000110684, and EudraCT, 2014-003190-42. FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2014, and March 24, 2017, 1125 participants were randomly assigned to receive non-steroidal antiandrogen (n=562; control group) or enzalutamide (n=563). The median age was 69 years (IQR 63-74). This analysis was triggered on Jan 19, 2022, and an updated survival status identified a total of 476 (42%) deaths. After a median follow-up of 68 months (IQR 67-69), the median overall survival was not reached (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·58-0·84]; p<0·0001), with 5-year overall survival of 57% (0·53-0·61) in the control group and 67% (0·63-0·70) in the enzalutamide group. Overall survival benefits with enzalutamide were consistent across predefined prognostic subgroups and planned use of concurrent docetaxel. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia associated with docetaxel use (33 [6%] of 558 in the control group vs 37 [6%] of 563 in the enzalutamide group), fatigue (four [1%] vs 33 [6%]), and hypertension (31 [6%] vs 59 [10%]). The incidence of grade 1-3 memory impairment was 25 (4%) versus 75 (13%). No deaths were attributed to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: The addition of enzalutamide to standard of care showed sustained improvement in overall survival for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and should be considered as a treatment option for eligible patients. FUNDING: Astellas Pharma.

Clinical testing of transcriptome-wide expression profiles in high-risk localized and metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: an ancillary study of the STAMPEDE abiraterone Phase 3 trial.

Metastatic and high-risk localized prostate cancer respond to hormone therapy but outcomes vary. Following a pre-specified statistical plan, we used Cox models adjusted for clinical variables to test associations with survival of multi-gene expression-based classifiers from 781 patients randomized to androgen deprivation with or without abiraterone in the STAMPEDE trial. Decipher score was strongly prognostic (p<2×10-5) and identified clinically-relevant differences in absolute benefit, especially for localized cancers. In metastatic disease, classifiers of proliferation, PTEN or TP53 loss and treatment-persistent cells were prognostic. In localized disease, androgen receptor activity was protective whilst interferon signaling (that strongly associated with tumor lymphocyte infiltration) was detrimental. Post-Operative Radiation-Therapy Outcomes Score was prognostic in localized but not metastatic disease (interaction p=0.0001) suggesting the impact of tumor biology on clinical outcome is context-dependent on metastatic state. Transcriptome-wide testing has clinical utility for advanced prostate cancer and identified worse outcomes for localized cancers with tumor-promoting inflammation.

Rucaparib or Physician's Choice in Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 2 study, rucaparib, an inhibitor of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), showed a high level of activity in patients who had metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer associated with a deleterious BRCA alteration. Data are needed to confirm and expand on the findings of the phase 2 study. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients who had metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer with a BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM alteration and who had disease progression after treatment with a second-generation androgen-receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI). We randomly assigned the patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or a physician's choice control (docetaxel or a second-generation ARPI [abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide]). The primary outcome was the median duration of imaging-based progression-free survival according to independent review. RESULTS: Of the 4855 patients who had undergone prescreening or screening, 270 were assigned to receive rucaparib and 135 to receive a control medication (intention-to-treat population); in the two groups, 201 patients and 101 patients, respectively, had a BRCA alteration. At 62 months, the duration of imaging-based progression-free survival was significantly longer in the rucaparib group than in the control group, both in the BRCA subgroup (median, 11.2 months and 6.4 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.69) and in the intention-to-treat group (median, 10.2 months and 6.4 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80; P<0.001 for both comparisons). In an exploratory analysis in the ATM subgroup, the median duration of imaging-based progression-free survival was 8.1 months in the rucaparib group and 6.8 months in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.52). The most frequent adverse events with rucaparib were fatigue and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: The duration of imaging-based progression-free survival was significantly longer with rucaparib than with a control medication among patients who had metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer with a BRCA alteration. (Funded by Clovis Oncology; TRITON3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02975934.).

Accurate prostate cancer detection based on enrichment and characterization of prostate cancer specific circulating tumor cells.

BACKGROUND: The low specificity of serum PSA resulting in the inability to effectively differentiate prostate cancer from benign prostate conditions is a persistent clinical challenge. The low sensitivity of serum PSA results in false negatives and can miss high-grade prostate cancers. We describe a non-invasive test for detection of prostate cancer based on functional enrichment of prostate adenocarcinoma associated circulating tumor cells (PrAD-CTCs) from blood samples followed by their identification by immunostaining for pan-cytokeratins (PanCK), prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA), alpha methyl-acyl coenzyme-A racemase (AMACR), epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM), and common leucocyte antigen (CD45). METHODS: Analytical validation studies were performed to establish the performance characteristics of the test using VCaP prostate cancer cells spiked into healthy donor blood (HDB). The clinical performance characteristics of the test were evaluated in a case-control study with 160 known prostate cancer cases and 800 healthy males, followed by a prospective clinical study of 210 suspected cases of prostate cancer. RESULTS: Analytical validation established analyte stability as well as acceptable performance characteristics. The test showed 100% specificity and 100% sensitivity to differentiate prostate cancer cases from healthy individuals in the case control study and 91.2% sensitivity and 100% specificity to differentiate prostate cancers from benign prostate conditions in the prospective clinical study. CONCLUSIONS: The test accurately detects PrAD-CTCs with high sensitivity and specificity irrespective of stage, serum PSA or Gleason score, which translates into low risks of false negatives or overdiagnosis. The high accuracy of the test could offer advantages over PSA based prostate cancer detection.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

Emergence of BRCA Reversion Mutations in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer After Treatment with Rucaparib.

BACKGROUND: Poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are approved in the USA for the treatment of patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA) mutated (BRCA+) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). BRCA reversion mutations are a known mechanism of acquired resistance to PARP inhibitors in multiple cancer types, although their impact and prevalence in mCRPC remain unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of BRCA reversion mutations in the plasma of patients with BRCA+ mCRPC after progression on rucaparib. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Men with BRCA+ mCRPC enrolled in Trial of Rucaparib in Prostate Indications 2 (TRITON2) were treated with rucaparib after progressing on one to two lines of androgen receptor-directed and one taxane-based therapy. Cell-free DNA from the plasma of 100 patients, collected at the end of treatment after confirmed progression before May 5, 2020, was queried for BRCA reversion mutations using next-generation sequencing (NGS). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The association of clinical efficacy and postprogression genomics was measured in 100 patients with BRCA+ mCRPC treated with rucaparib. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: No baseline BRCA reversion mutations were observed in 100 BRCA+ patients. NGS identified somatic BRCA reversion mutations in 39% (39/100) of patients after progression. Reversion rates were similar for BRCA2 and BRCA1, irrespective of germline or somatic status, but higher in samples with a high tumor DNA fraction. Most patients with reversions (74%, 29/39) had two or more reversion mutations occurring subclonally at lower allele frequencies than the original BRCA mutations. The incidence of BRCA reversion mutations increased with the duration of rucaparib treatment. The frequency of reversion mutations was higher in patients with an objective (58%) or a prostate-specific antigen (69%) response compared with those without either (39% and 29%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that BRCA reversion mutations are a significant mechanism of acquired resistance to rucaparib in patients with BRCA+ mCRPC, with evidence of subclonal convergence promoting systemic resistance. PATIENT SUMMARY: Men with BRCA mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer enrolled in TRITON2 were treated with rucaparib after progressing on one to two lines of androgen receptor-directed and one taxane-based therapy. Cell-free DNA from the plasma of 100 patients, collected after radiographic or prostate-specific antigen progression before May 5, 2020, was analyzed by next-generation sequencing and queried for BRCA reversion mutations.

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.