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

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

Apalutamide for prostate cancer: Multicentre and multidisciplinary real-world study of 227 patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of apalutamide prostate cancer compared to the pivotal trials patients and to identify the first subsequent therapy in a real-world setting. METHODS: The study is prospective and observational based on real-world evidence, performed by different medical disciplines and eight academics centres around Barcelona, Spain. It included all patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) treated with apalutamide from June 2018 to December 2022. RESULTS: Of 227 patients treated with apalutamide, 10% had ECOG-PS 2, and 41% were diagnosed with new-generation imaging. In the mHSPC group (209 patients), 75 years was the median age, 53% had synchronous metastases, and 22% were M1a. In the nmCRPC (18 patients), 82 years was the median age, and 81% ≤6 months had PSA doubling time. Patients achieved PSA90 in 92% of mHSPC and 50% of nmCRPC and PSA ≤0.2 in 71% of mHSPC and 39% of nmCRPC. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 40.1% of mHSPC and 44.4% of nmCRPC. After discontinuation of apalutamide due to disease progression, 54.5% in mHSPC and 75% in nmCRPC started chemotherapy, while after discontinuation because of adverse events, 73.3% in mHSPC and 100% in nmCRPC continued with other hormonal-therapies. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of apalutamide were similar to that described in the pivotal trials, despite including an older and more comorbid population. Usually, subsequent therapies after apalutamide differed depending on the reason for discontinuation: by disease progression started chemotherapy and by adverse events hormonal sequencing.

Efficacy and safety outcomes of darolutamide in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with comorbidities and concomitant medications from the randomised phase 3 ARAMIS trial.

PURPOSE: In patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) in the Androgen Receptor Antagonizing Agent for Metastasis-free Survival (ARAMIS) trial, darolutamide significantly improved median metastasis-free survival by nearly 2 years and reduced the risk of death by 31% versus placebo, with a favourable safety/tolerability profile. This post hoc analysis of ARAMIS evaluated efficacy and safety in patients by number of comorbidities and concomitant medications. METHODS: Patients with nmCRPC were randomised 2:1 to darolutamide (n = 955) or placebo (n = 554) while continuing androgen-deprivation therapy. Overall survival (OS) and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were evaluated in subgroups by median numbers of ongoing comorbidities and concomitant medications. HRs were determined from univariate analysis using Cox regression. FINDINGS: Median numbers of comorbidities and concomitant medications were 6 and 10, respectively, with 41.6% of patients having >6 comorbidities and 48.8% taking >10 concomitant medications. For patients with ≤ 6 and >6 comorbidities, darolutamide increased OS versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65 and 0.73, respectively), and this benefit was consistent for cardiovascular, metabolic, and other comorbidities (HR range: 0.39-0.88). For patients taking ≤ 10 and >10 concomitant medications, increased OS was also observed with darolutamide versus placebo (HR 0.76 and 0.66, respectively), and the benefit was consistent across medication classes (HR range: 0.45-0.80). Incidences of TEAEs and TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation with darolutamide were similar to placebo across subgroups by numbers of comorbidities and concomitant medications. CONCLUSIONS: The OS benefit and safety of darolutamide remained consistent with that observed in the overall ARAMIS population, even in patients with high numbers of comorbidities or concomitant medications. GOV REGISTRATION: NCT02200614. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Darolutamide increased overall survival versus placebo, and incidences of most adverse events were similar between treatments in patients with ≤ 6 or >6 comorbidities and those taking ≤ 10 or >10 concomitant medications.

Impact of performance status on efficacy of systemic therapy for prostate cancer: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of systemic therapies in patients with worse performance status (PS) treated for high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer (PCa), metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa (mHSPC), and non-metastatic/metastatic castration-resistant PCa (nmCRPC/mCRPC), as there is sparse pooled data showing the effect of PS on oncological outcomes in patients with PCa. METHODS: Three databases were queried in June 2022 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysing patients with PCa treated with systemic therapy (i.e., adding androgen receptor signalling inhibitor [ARSI] or docetaxel [DOC] to androgen-deprivation therapy [ADT]). We analysed the oncological outcomes of patients with PCa with worse PS, defined as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS ≥ 1, treated with combination therapies and compared these to patients with good PS. The main outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and progression-free survival. RESULTS: Overall, 25 and 18 RCTs were included for systematic review and meta-analyses/network meta-analyses, respectively. In all clinical settings, combination systemic therapies significantly improved OS in patients with worse PS as well as in those with good PS, while the MFS benefit from ARSI in the nmCRPC setting was more pronounced in patients with good PS than in those with worse PS (P = 0.002). Analysis of treatment ranking in patients with mHSPC revealed that triplet therapy had the highest likelihood of improved OS irrespective of PS; specifically, adding darolutamide to DOC + ADT had the highest likelihood of improved OS in patients with worse PS. Analyses were limited by the small proportion of patients with a PS ≥ 1 (19%-28%) and that the number of PS 2 was rarely reported. CONCLUSIONS: Among RCTs, novel systemic therapies seem to benefit the OS of patients with PCa irrespective of PS. Our findings suggest that worse PS should not discourage treatment intensification across all disease stages.

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.

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.

Comparative efficacy of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors for treating prostate cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Introduction: Second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors (SGARIs), namely enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide, are good for improving survival outcomes in prostate cancer patients, but some researchers have shown that using SGARIs increases side effects, which complicates clinicians' choice of. Therefore, we performed this network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and toxicity of several SGARIs in the treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases from January 2000 to December 2022 to identify randomized controlled studies associated with SGARIs. We use Stata 16.0 and R 4.4.2 for data analysis, hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to assess the results. Results: This meta-analysis included 7 studies with a total of 9488 patients. In mHSPC, enzalutamide and darolutamide had a positive effect on overall survival (OS) (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.82), but we did not find a difference in their efficacy to improve OS (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.75-1.89). Also in nmCRPC, enzalutamide, apalutamide and darolutamide were beneficial for metastasis-free survival (MFS) (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.25-0.41). Compared to darolutamide, enzalutamide (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.93) and apalutamide (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51-0.91) prolonged MFS, but there was no difference in efficacy between enzalutamide and apalutamide (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73-1.28). Finally in mCRPC, there was no significant difference in indirect effects on OS between pre- and post-chemotherapy enzalutamide (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.70-1.13). However, using enzalutamide before chemotherapy to improve radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) was a better option (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.62-2.73). Conclusion: The SGARIs used in each trial were beneficial for the primary endpoint in the study. Firstly there was no significant difference in the effect of enzalutamide and darolutamide in improving OS in patients with mHSPC. Secondly improving MFS in patients with nmCRPC was best achieved with enzalutamide and apalutamide. In addition both pre- and post-chemotherapy use of enzalutamide was beneficial for OS in mCRPC patients, but for improving rPFS pre-chemotherapy use of enzalutamide should be preferred.The INPLASY registration number of this systematic review is INPLASY202310084.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Darolutamide Combined with Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Patients with High-Risk Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer in China.

INTRODUCTION: The increasing incidence of prostate cancer (PC) in China leads to a significant disease burden. Although three novel androgen inhibitors (darolutamide, apalutamide, and enzalutamide) have been approved for patients with high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), the economic evaluation of these novel treatments in China remains unknown. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of darolutamide combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), comparing with apalutamide + ADT and enzalutamide + ADT, in patients with high-risk nmCRPC from a healthcare system perspective in China. METHODS: A partitioned survival model was developed to capture time spent by patients in three health states: nmCRPC, metastatic CRPC (mCRPC), and death. Clinical outcomes from the ARAMIS, PROSPER, and SPARTAN studies were obtained. In the absence of head-to-head studies, indirect treatment comparisons were conducted to capture the comparative effectiveness between darolutamide + ADT, apalutamide + ADT, and enzalutamide + ADT. The prices of apalutamide and enzalutamide were assumed to be the same as the initial launch price of darolutamide, since post-negotiation prices after national reimbursement drug list (NRDL) inclusion remain confidential. Other health resources costs, baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and utility were collected through literature or clinical expert interviews. Selected sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: For a 20-year time horizon, darolutamide + ADT was associated with lower cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) than apalutamide + ADT and enzalutamide + ADT (202,897 Chinese yuan (CNY)/QALY vs. 228,998 CNY/QALY and 221,409 CNY/QALY, respectively) (exchange rate, 1 USD = 6.7871 CNY). Darolutamide + ADT had better health outcomes and lower total costs compared to both apalutamide + ADT (+ 0.22 QALYs and - 72,818 CNY) and enzalutamide + ADT (+ 0.09 QALYs and - 67,451 CNY). Across the modelled sensitivity analyses (including hazard ratios and drug costs), darolutamide + ADT remained dominant or cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: This economic evaluation suggested that, in comparison with apalutamide + ADT and enzalutamide + ADT, darolutamide + ADT was a dominant or cost-effective treatment option for patients with high-risk nmCRPC in China.

Improving the identification of high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients in clinical practice.

Non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) represents a challenging disease state in prostate cancer care. nmCRPC patients with a high risk of progression to metastatic disease who are identified by a prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSADT) ≤10 months are eligible for treatment with the novel androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs), shown to delay disease progression and extend survival. However, nmCRPC is often unexploited in clinical practice due to a lack of standardization in the methodology and in the tools used for its identification. In this article, a group of Urology and Oncology specialists with acknowledged expertise in prostate cancer reviews the state of the art in the management of high-risk nmCRPC patients, identifies gaps and unmet needs, and proposes strategies to optimize the identification of this patient subgroup in the clinical practice and improve their health outcomes.

Treatment Landscape for Patients with Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Patient Selection and Unmet Clinical Needs.

Metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is an inevitably fatal disease. However, in recent years, several treatments have been shown to improve the outcome of CRPC patients both in the non-metastatic (nmCRPC) as well as the metastatic setting (mCRPC). In nmCRPC patients with a PSA doubling time <10 months, the addition of enzalutamide, apalutamide and darolutamide to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) compared to ADT alone resulted in improved metastases free (MFS) and overall survival (OS). For mCRPC patients, several treatment options have been shown to be effective: two taxane based chemotherapies (docetaxel and cabazitaxel), two androgen-receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPI) (abiraterone and enzalutamide), two radiopharmaceutical agents (radium 223 and 177Lutetium-PSMA-617), one immunotherapy treatment (sipuleucel-T) and two poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (olaparib and rucaparib). Pembrolizumab is US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in all MSI high solid tumors, although a very small proportion of prostate cancer patients harboring this characteristic will benefit. Despite having a broad variety of treatments available, there are still several unmet clinical needs for CRPC. The objective of this review was to describe the therapeutic landscape in CRPC patients, to identify criteria for selecting patients for specific treatments currently available, and to address the current challenges in this setting.

Early prostate-specific antigen response among Black and non-Black patients with advanced prostate cancer treated with apalutamide.

Aim: To assess reduction in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels among Black and non-Black patients treated with apalutamide for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) or metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Patients & methods: Patients were identified from electronic medical data. PSA reduction (≥50%, ≥90% or below 0.2 ng/ml) after apalutamide initiation was assessed. Results: A total of 313 patients with nmCRPC and 260 patients with mCSPC were identified. The majority of patients treated with apalutamide achieved a 90% reduction in PSA regardless of indication or race. The proportion of patients achieving a PSA reduction at any level was similar among Black and non-Black patients and was consistent with apalutamide phase III trials. Conclusion: In routine clinical practice, apalutamide consistently produced reduction in PSA levels in Black and non-Black men with nmCRPC or mCSPC.

Enzalutamide in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after combined androgen blockade for recurrence following radical treatment in Japan (Japanese research for patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer-enzalutamide: JCASTRE-zero)-a prospective single-arm interventional study.

BACKGROUND: The effect of enzalutamide in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after combined androgen blockade, which represents a patient profile similar to real-world clinical practice in Japan, remains unknown. Therefore, we investigate the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide after combined androgen blockade for recurrence following radical treatment in Japanese patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: We analyzed 66 patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after combined androgen blockade for recurrence following radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy who were prospectively enrolled from October 2015 to March 2018. They received enzalutamide 160 mg orally once daily until the protocol treatment discontinuation criteria were met. The primary endpoint was prostate-specific antigen-progression-free survival, defined as the time from enrollment to prostate-specific antigen-based progression or death from any cause. The secondary endpoints included overall survival, progression-free survival, metastasis-free survival, time to prostate-specific antigen progression, prostate-specific antigen response rate, chemotherapy-free survival, and safety assessment. RESULTS: The median observation period was 27.3 months. The median prostate-specific antigen-progression-free survival was 35.0 months (95% confidence interval, 17.5 to not reached). The median overall survival, median progression-free survival, median metastasis-free survival, and chemotherapy-free survival were not reached, with the corresponding 2-year rates being 91.6%, 67.1%, 72.4%, and 85.8%, respectively. The 50% prostate-specific antigen response rate was 88.9%, with the median time being 2.8 months. In total, 42.2% of the patients experienced adverse events, with malaise being the most common. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide effectively manages non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after combined androgen blockade for recurrence following radical treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION:  UMIN000018964, CRB6180007.

The Hospitalization-Related Costs of Adverse Events for Novel Androgen Receptor Inhibitors in Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: An Indirect Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: Three novel androgen receptor inhibitors are approved in the USA for the treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC): apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide. All three therapies have demonstrated prolonged metastasis-free survival in their respective phase III trials, with differing safety profiles. The objective of this study was to compare the mean per-patient costs of all-cause adverse events (AEs) requiring hospitalization between darolutamide versus apalutamide and enzalutamide for nmCRPC in the USA. METHODS: All-cause grade ≥ 3 AEs with corresponding any-grade AEs reported among at least 10% of patients in any arm of the ARAMIS (darolutamide), SPARTAN (apalutamide), and PROSPER (enzalutamide) trials were selected for inclusion in the primary analyses. After matching-adjusted indirect comparison, AE costs were calculated by multiplying the AE rates from the trials by their respective unit costs of hospitalization taken from the US Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) database. Sensitivity analyses which further included any-grade AEs reported among at least 5% of patients were also performed. RESULTS: After reweighting and adjusting for the trials' placebo arms, the mean per-patient AE costs were $1021 and $387 lower for darolutamide than for apalutamide and enzalutamide, respectively, over the trials' duration (SPARTAN and PROSPER, 43 months; ARAMIS, 48 months). For darolutamide vs. apalutamide, the largest drivers of the per-patient cost differences were fracture (adjusted difference $416), hypertension ($143), and rash ($219); for darolutamide vs. enzalutamide, they were fatigue not including asthenia ($290) and hypertension including increased blood pressure (i.e., any AE of hypertension or with elevated blood pressure not yet classified as hypertension) ($60). The results of the sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary results. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with nmCRPC treated with darolutamide in ARAMIS incurred lower AE-related costs (USD), as determined using HCUP costing data, compared with patients treated with either apalutamide (in SPARTAN) or enzalutamide (in PROSPER).

Patterns of care for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: A population-based study.

Objectives: To describe patterns of practice of PSA testing and imaging for Ontario men receiving continuous ADT for the treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective, longitudinal, population-based study of administrative health data from 2008 to 2019. Men 65 years and older receiving continuous androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with documented CRPC were included. An administrative proxy definition was applied to capture patients with nmCRPC and excluded those with metastatic disease. Patients were indexed upon progression to CRPC and were followed until death or end of study period to assess frequency of monitoring with PSA tests and conventional imaging. A 2-year look-back window was used to assess patterns of care leading up to CRPC as well as baseline covariates. Results: At a median follow-up of 40.1 months, 944 patients with nmCRPC were identified. Their median time from initiation of continuous ADT to CRPC was 26.0 months. 60.7% of patients had their PSA measured twice or fewer in the year prior to index, and 70.7% patients did not receive any imaging in the year following progression to CRPC. Throughout the study period, 921/944 (97.6%) patients with CRPC progressed to high-risk (HR-CRPC) with PSA doubling time ≤ 10 months, of which more than half received fewer than three PSA tests in the year prior to developing HR-CRPC, and 30.9% received no imaging in the subsequent year. Conclusion: PSA testing and imaging studies are underutilized in a real-world setting for the management of nmCRPC, including those at high risk of developing metastatic disease. Infrequent monitoring impedes proper risk stratification, disease staging and detection of treatment failure and/or metastases, thereby delaying the necessary treatment intensification with life-prolonging therapies. Adherence to guideline recommendations and the importance of timely staging should be reinforced to optimize patient outcomes.

Non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: the evolving treatment landscape and role of nurse specialists.

Prostate cancer is the most common type of cancer in men in the UK. Within 2 years of diagnosis, one-third of patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) will develop metastatic disease, which is associated with significantly greater morbidity and mortality compared to disease without metastases. The approval of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors such as darolutamide has transformed the nmCRPC treatment landscape because they lead to prolonged metastasis-free survival and better maintenance of quality of life compared with placebo. Early identification of patients with nmCRPC who are suitable for treatment is imperative because most of these patients are asymptomatic. Clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) play a critical, supportive role in the management of disease and treatment follow-up. This product-focused article discusses the use of darolutamide in nmCRPC and the vital role that CNSs play in the management and care of patients with prostate cancer.

Decisions and dilemmas in non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer management.

Non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) indicates a condition characterized by the progression of the prostate-specific antigen without radiographic evidence of distant metastasis on conventional imaging during androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Recently, 3 phase III trials have shown that the addition of next-generation androgen-receptor inhibitors (ARIs) apalutamide, darolutamide, and enzalutamide to ADT allows patients with high-risk nmCRPC to delay the appearance of metastasis and to obtain long-term clinical benefits. However, the lack of head-to head comparison makes it difficult to choose one among these agents. We reviewed the literature and explained the rationale of the possible therapeutic choices. In any case, the availability of novel ARIs means that patients with nmCRPC have now a new effective treatment option that provides them a renewed hope.

Real-world burden of adverse events for apalutamide- or enzalutamide-treated non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs) have been associated with adverse events (AEs) such as fatigue, falls, fractures, and rash in non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) patients as identified in clinical trials. The objectives of this study were to describe the incidence and management of AEs in patients receiving apalutamide and enzalutamide. METHODS: This retrospective chart review study was conducted in nmCRPC-treating sites in the United States. Patients starting apalutamide or enzalutamide between February 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018 were included and any AEs they experienced were recorded. AEs, including those considered to be of special interest as defined in the pivotal clinical trials of the second-generation ARIs, were analyzed and grouped retrospectively in this study. Detailed chart data (patient demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment history, type of AE, outcomes, and resource utilization) were then collected for a randomly selected subset among patients with ≥1 AE to characterize AEs and their management. Descriptive results were summarized. RESULTS: Forty-three sites participated in the study. A total of 699 patients were included, of whom 525 (75.1%) experienced ≥1 AE. The most common AEs were fatigue/asthenia (34.3%), hot flush (13.9%), and arthralgia (13.6%). In the subset of 250 patients randomly selected from those who experienced ≥1 AE, patients were primarily White (72.0%), the mean age was 71 years, 86.0% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of 0-1 at nmCRPC diagnosis, and the average prostate specific antigen (PSA) value at diagnosis was 23.2 ng/mL. PSA-doubling time < 10 months was chosen as reason to initiate treatment in 40% of patients. The median duration of follow-up was 1.1 years, with 14.4% of patients progressing to metastasis by end of study period. Grade 3-4 and Grade 5 AEs occurred in 14.4 and 0.4% of patients, respectively. Actions taken to manage AEs included AE-directed treatment (38.0%), ARI discontinuation (10.4%), dose reduction (7.6%), and AE-related hospitalization (4.8%). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the burden of AEs among nmCRPC patients treated with apalutamide or enzalutamide, providing a relevant real-world benchmark as clinical trial evidence and the treatment landcape for nmCRPC continues to evolve.

Apalutamide Compared with Darolutamide for the Treatment of Non-metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Efficacy and Tolerability in a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: Apalutamide and darolutamide are next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors that have demonstrated superior efficacy compared to placebo in men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In the absence of head-to-head studies, the present study sought to indirectly compare the efficacy and tolerability between these two treatments. METHODS: This anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) used patient-level data from the phase 3, randomized, controlled SPARTAN study (apalutamide + ADT), weighted to match aggregate published data from the ARAMIS study (darolutamide + ADT) for clinically relevant baseline measures. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI) were estimated for efficacy endpoints: metastasis-free survival (MFS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Odds ratios were estimated for tolerability outcomes: adverse events and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Before weighting, baseline characteristics from SPARTAN versus ARAMIS were different for median PSA (7.8 vs. 9.2 ng/mL), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 (23% vs. 31%), use of bone-targeted agents (10% vs. 4%), median time from initial diagnosis (94.9 vs. 85.4 months), and proportion of patients from North America (35% vs. 12%) and Europe (50% vs. 64%). After matching (n = 455), our analysis demonstrated that apalutamide + ADT had a Bayesian probability of being more effective than darolutamide + ADT for MFS [98.3%; HR 0.70 (95% CrI 0.51, 0.98)], PSA progression [~ 100%; HR 0.46 (95% CrI 0.33, 0.64)], and PFS [93.2%; HR 0.79 (95% CrI 0.59, 1.08)]. Results for OS and tolerability were similar between apalutamide + ADT and darolutamide + ADT. CONCLUSION: This anchored MAIC analysis of pivotal phase 3 studies in patients with nmCRPC suggests that apalutamide + ADT is more effective than darolutamide + ADT for MFS, progression-free survival (PFS), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, with a similar OS benefit and tolerability profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ARAMIS ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02200614; SPARTAN ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01946204.

Novel Androgen Receptor Inhibitors in Non-Metastatic, Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide have all been approved by Food and Drug Administration to treat high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) since 2018 based on interim results of several phase III clinical trials. Final analyses of long-term overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs) results of these trials have been successively published recently. To help clinical practice to precisely select optimal treatment for high-risk nmCRPC patients, we performed a network meta-analysis to indirectly compare the final long-term results among these medications. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Libraries were searched for phase III clinical trial that reports OS and AEs results in nmCRPC patients published before January 30, 2021. Primary outcome was OS; secondary outcomes were Time to first chemotherapy, Subsequent antineoplastic therapy rate, and AEs. Firstly, class-level effect was assessed as the second-generation androgen receptor antagonists (SGARAs) were regarded as one whole class compared with placebo through traditional meta-analysis by using Revman 5.4, then a Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to give indirect comparison among SGARAs by using R 3.5.3 software. Subgroup analysis of OS was only conducted in the certain subgroups which were available in all included studies. RESULTS: Three eligible studies including 4,104 participants were finally selected. OS was significantly improved by the SGARAs as a class compared with placebo (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.84). Darolutamide had the highest likelihood of providing best OS (p-score=0.802). SGARAs also significantly delayed the first time to chemotherapy (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50-0.66). Patients who received darolutamide experienced similar toxicity compared with placebo regarding AEs of grade 3 or higher (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.7) and serious AEs (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.99-1.6). When compared with darolutamide, enzalutamide caused significantly higher toxicity in terms of any AEs (OR, 2.3; 95% CI,1.5-3.7) and AEs of grade 3 or higher (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.2), apalutamide caused significantly more AEs of grade 3 or higher (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.7) and serious AEs (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-2.8). Subgroup analysis showed that SGARAs as a group significantly improved OS in ECOG=1 population, although insignificant results were found in these patients from included studies. CONCLUSIONS: SGARAs combined with ADT significantly improved OS when compared with ADT alone in high-risk nmCRPC patients. Darolutamide may not only provide best OS but also have the most favorable safety profile among the included SGARAs in high-risk nmCRPC patients.

Darolutamide and health-related quality of life in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: An analysis of the phase III ARAMIS trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ARAMIS trial, darolutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus placebo plus ADT significantly improved metastasis-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS) and time to pain progression in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). Herein, we present analyses of patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial randomised patients with nmCRPC and prostate-specific antigen doubling time ≤10 months to darolutamide 600 mg (n = 955) twice daily or matched placebo (n = 554) while continuing ADT. The primary end-point was MFS; the secondary end-points included OS and time to pain progression. In this analysis, HRQoL was assessed by the time to deterioration using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) prostate cancer subscale (PCS) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Prostate Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-PR25) subscales. RESULTS: Darolutamide significantly prolonged time to deterioration of FACT-P PCS versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.91; P = 0.0005) at the primary analysis (cut-off date: 3rd September 2018). Time to deterioration of EORTC QLQ-PR25 outcomes showed statistically significant delays with darolutamide versus placebo for urinary (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54-0.76; P < 0.0001) and bowel (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.92; P = 0.0027) symptoms. Time to worsening of hormonal treatment-related symptoms was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with nmCRPC who are generally asymptomatic, darolutamide maintained HRQoL by significantly delaying time to deterioration of prostate cancer-specific quality of life and disease-related symptoms versus placebo.