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.

Real world treatment utilization patterns in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Studies describing treatment utilization for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) are limited. We aimed to describe the treatment utilization of a contemporary population-based CRPC cohort between 2006 and 2016. METHODS: We identified 1699 men with a PC diagnosis between 2005 and 2015, who developed CRPC between 2006 and 2015 in the Stockholm region of Sweden. Demographic information, stage and grade at PC diagnosis, stage at CRPC, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) nadir, PSA doubling time, treatment utilization rate within 1 year of CRPC diagnosis, reason for stopping therapy, treatment sequence trajectory, overall and PC specific survival was described. RESULTS: Treatment for men with de novo metastatic disease (n = 463) was 32%, treatment for men with progressive metastatic disease after PC diagnosis (n = 66) was 44%, treatment for men with nonmetastatic CRPC (n = 113) was 34% and treatment for those with an unknown stage at time of CRPC diagnosis (n = 857) was 12%. Docetaxel was used in 39%, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in 15%, enzalutamide in 13%, cabazitaxel in 11% and radium-223 in 5% of treatments. Treatment increased from 22% in 2006-2009 for metastatic cancer to 50% in 2013-2015 (p < .001). Factors associated with treatment were an unknown stage at diagnosis (OR: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.2-0.4), age ≥75 years (OR: 0.2, 95% CI: 0.1 - 0.3), PSA doubling time >3 months (OR: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.3 - 0.6) and a diagnosis between 2013 and 2015 (OR: 3.4, 95% CI: 2.0 - 5.8). CONCLUSIONS: Despite treatment availability, in this large real-world cohort we found treatment utilization to remain low.

Trophectoderm biopsy protocols can affect clinical outcomes: time to focus on the blastocyst biopsy technique.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two different blastocyst biopsy protocols. DESIGN: Retrospective single-center cohort study. SETTINGS: Private in vitro fertilization center. PATIENT(S): The study included 1,670 frozen-thawed embryo transfers (FETs) with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Survival rate (SR) after thawing, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), ongoing implantation rate (IR), and live birth rate (LBR). RESULT(S): Eight hundred thirty-five FETs with PGT-A cycles including only embryos biopsied in the sequential blastocyst hatching and biopsy protocol paired with the ablation of one-fourth of the zona pellucida (ZP) were matched with 835 FETs with PGT-A cycles including only embryos biopsied in the day 3 prehatching protocol by female age (±1 year), number of embryos transferred, use of gestational carrier or egg donor, and day of blastocyst transfer. Only FETs with euploid blastocysts graded no lower than 4BB were included, and cycles with fewer than five oocytes were excluded. SR after thawing, CPR, ongoing IR, and LBR were significantly higher in the FET cycles with the embryos biopsied in the sequential hatching and biopsy protocol. Four cases of monozygotic twin pregnancies were reported with the day 3 prehatching protocol and none with the sequential hatching and biopsy protocol. CONCLUSION(S): Our results show, for the first time, that using different blastocyst biopsy protocols can affect clinical outcomes. Because the study was retrospective, our findings should be validated in a prospective trial.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Health-Related Quality of Life and Adverse Events of Apalutamide Versus Enzalutamide in Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The present study aimed to indirectly compare apalutamide and enzalutamide with respect to tolerability and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). METHODS: Patient-level data from the SPARTAN study [apalutamide + androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus placebo + ADT] and aggregate published data from the PROSPER study (enzalutamide + ADT versus placebo + ADT) were used. Anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted by weighting patients' baseline characteristics from SPARTAN to match aggregated baseline characteristics in PROSPER. Odds ratios (ORs) of reported adverse events (AEs) and baseline-to-follow-up least squares mean differences in HRQoL [measured with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) score] with 95% credible intervals were re-estimated for SPARTAN arms using weighted population and indirectly compared with those in PROSPER through a Bayesian framework. Events of special interest included fatigue, hot flush, nausea, diarrhea, hypertension, falls, dizziness, decreased appetite, arthralgia, asthenia and headache. In addition, any AEs and serious AEs were explored. RESULTS: Of 1207 SPARTAN patients, 1171 were matched to 1401 PROSPER patients. Relative to enzalutamide, apalutamide demonstrated better tolerability as evidenced by the highest probability of reduced occurrence of fatigue [p(OR < 1) = 99.5%], hypertension [p(OR < 1) = 99.2%], decreased appetite [p(OR < 1) = 98.3%], fall [p(OR < 1) = 90.3%], headaches [p(OR < 1) = 86.7%], and nausea [p(OR < 1) = 80.0%]. The probabilities of reduced occurrence of any AEs and SAEs with apalutamide versus enzalutamide were 66.9% and 90.9%, respectively. Relative to enzalutamide, apalutamide treatment was associated with a higher probability of a better HRQoL based on the FACT-P total score [p(diff > 0) = 73.1%]. The probability of a better HRQoL with apalutamide versus enzalutamide was highest for the physical [p(diff > 0) = 97.3%] and functional [p(diff > 0) = 86.7%] wellbeing subscales, and the pain-related subscale [p(diff > 0) = 90.1%]. CONCLUSION: Anchored MAIC suggests that treatment of men with nmCRPC with apalutamide is associated with a higher probability of better tolerability due to fewer AEs and better HRQoL than enzalutamide.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of the Efficacy of Apalutamide and Enzalutamide with ADT in the Treatment of Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Apalutamide and enzalutamide are next-generation androgen receptor inhibitors that demonstrated efficacy in placebo-controlled studies (SPARTAN for apalutamide; PROSPER for enzalutamide) when used in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). In the absence of comparative studies between these agents, the present study sought to indirectly compare metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with nmCRPC who received these therapies. METHODS: Individual patient-level data from SPARTAN (apalutamide plus ADT) and published data from PROSPER (enzalutamide plus ADT) were utilized. An anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted by weighting the patients from the SPARTAN study to match baseline characteristics reported for PROSPER. Hazard ratios (HRs) for MFS and OS were re-estimated for SPARTAN using weighted Cox proportional hazards models and indirectly compared with those of PROSPER using a Bayesian network meta-analysis. RESULTS: From the SPARTAN population (N = 1207), a total of 1171 patients were matched to the PROSPER population (N = 1401). The recalculated HRs (95% confidence interval) for apalutamide versus ADT based on the reweighted SPARTAN data to mimic the PROSPER patient population were 0.26 (0.21; 0.33) for MFS and 0.62 (0.41; 0.94) for OS. MAIC-based HRs (95% credible interval) for apalutamide versus enzalutamide were 0.91 (0.68; 1.22) for MFS and 0.77 (0.46; 1.30) for OS. The Bayesian probabilities of apalutamide being more effective than enzalutamide were 73.6% for MFS and 83.5% for OS. CONCLUSIONS: MAIC results suggest that nmCRPC patients treated with apalutamide have a higher probability of a more favorable MFS and OS compared with those treated with enzalutamide.

Understanding symptomatic experience, impact, and emotional response in recently diagnosed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: We sought to explore the symptomatic experience of men recently told their castration-resistant prostate cancer has metastasized (mCRPC); the impact and emotional response to this; the emotional burden of monitoring development to metastatic status; and the emotional impact on the primary support person (PSP). METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 25 men recently diagnosed with mCRPC from the United States (US), France, and Germany. We also interviewed 14 PSPs. Thematic analysis was conducted using Atlas.ti. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 72.2 years; mean time since metastasis 7.8 months. The most frequent symptoms were fatigue/tiredness, sexual dysfunction, and pain. Metastasis had a negative emotional impact on the patient and PSP. Some explicitly associated certain symptoms/impacts with metastasis, such as localized pain, diarrhea, blood in stool, and increased impact on activities of daily living. About 72% of patients highlighted the emotional impact of a metastatic diagnosis, reporting worry/anxiety/fear, low mood/depression, shock, increased burden on PSP, and strain on relationships. Monitoring prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values was important; ten patients explicitly discussed feeling fear/worry when PSA was rising, and glad/happy/excited when PSA was falling. Most reported that, if a medication had been available to them to delay metastasis, they would have taken it, even if they were asymptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: Interviews highlighted the substantial burden of mCRPC to both patient and PSP. Development of metastasis was associated with symptoms worsening rather than the development of new symptoms, with physical and emotional impacts. Most patients were willing to take a medication to delay metastasis.

Health-related quality of life after apalutamide treatment in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (TITAN): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 TITAN study, the addition of apalutamide to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly improved the primary endpoints of overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. We aimed to assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in TITAN, including pain and fatigue. METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 study, patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (defined as not receiving ADT at the time of metastatic disease progression) aged 18 years and older, receiving continuous ADT (selected at the investigator's discretion), and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1), using an interactive web response system, to receive oral apalutamide (four 60 mg tablets, once daily) or matching placebo. Previous localised disease treatment or previous docetaxel for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer were allowed. Randomisation was stratified by Gleason score at diagnosis, region, and previous docetaxel treatment. Randomisation was done using randomly permuted blocks (block size of four). Investigators, research staff, sponsor study team, and patients were masked to the identities of test and control treatments. Patient-reported outcomes were prespecified exploratory endpoints and were the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF), Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), and EuroQoL 5D questionnaire 5 level (EQ-5D-5L). BPI and BFI were completed for 7 consecutive days (days -6 to 1 inclusive of each cycle visit), then at months 4, 8, and 12 in follow-up. FACT-P and EQ-5D-5L were completed during cycles 1-7, then every other cycle until the end of treatment, and at months 4, 8, and 12 in follow-up. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population. Missing patient-reported outcome assessments were calculated as the expected number of assessments for a visit minus the actual number of assessments received for that visit. For time-to-event endpoints, when median values could not be calculated because less than 50% of patients had degradation, 25th percentiles were compared. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02489318, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Dec 9, 2015, and July 25, 2017, 1052 eligible patients were enrolled randomly assigned to apalutamide (n=525) or placebo (n=527). Data cutoff for this analysis of patient-reported outcomes was Nov 23, 2018. Median follow-up for time to pain-related endpoints ranged from 19·4 to 22·1 months. Patients were mostly asymptomatic at baseline: on the BPI-SF pain severity scale of 0-10, median pain scores (indicating worst pain in the past 24 h) were 1·14 (IQR 0-3·17) in the apalutamide group and 1·00 (0-2·86) in the placebo group, and median worst fatigue scores on the BFI were 1·29 (IQR 0-3·29) in the apalutamide group and 1·43 (0·14-3·14) in the placebo group. Patient experience of pain and fatigue (intensity and interference) did not differ between the groups for the duration of treatment. Median time to worst pain intensity progression was 19·09 months (95% CI 11·04-not reached) in the apalutamide group versus 11·99 months (8·28-18·46) in the placebo group (HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·75-1·06]; p=0·20). Median time to pain interference progression was not reached in either group (95% CI 28·58-not reached in the apalutamide group; not reached-not reached in the placebo group). 25th percentiles for time to pain interference progression were 9·17 months (5·55-11·96) in the apalutamide group and 6·24 months (4·63-7·43) in the placebo group (HR 0·90 [95% CI 0·73-1·10]; p=0·29). FACT-P total scores and EQ-5D-5L data showed preservation of HRQOL in both groups. The median time to deterioration as determined by FACT-P total score was 8·87 months (95% CI 4·70-11·10) in the apalutamide group and 9·23 months (7·39-12·91) in the placebo group (HR 1·02 [95% CI 0·85-1·22]; p=0·85). INTERPRETATION: Apalutamide with ADT is a well-tolerated and effective option for men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. The combination significantly improves survival outcomes compared with ADT alone while maintaining HRQOL despite additive androgen blockade. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Fatigue, treatment satisfaction and health-related quality of life among patients receiving novel drugs suppressing androgen signalling for the treatment of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer.

Clinical studies have demonstrated the benefits of abiraterone acetate + prednisone (AAP) and enzalutamide (ENZ) in significantly improving survival among metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. However, evidence regarding patient's real-world experience, particularly with respect to fatigue, treatment satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is limited. Interviews were initially conducted with patients (n = 38) and carers (n = 12) to elicit qualitative data regarding their experiences. Findings informed the design of a quantitative, multinational online survey of mCRPC patients (n = 152) receiving AAP or ENZ. Participants completed validated questionnaires assessing fatigue (Brief Fatigue Inventory), treatment satisfaction (Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire) and HRQoL (EuroQol-5-Dimensions). Results indicated that patients were generally satisfied with these therapies, more specifically with reductions in prostate-specific antigen levels and extended survival. Fatigue was commonly linked to poor HRQoL and responses indicated that significantly fewer patients in the AAP group reported feeling usually tired or fatigued in the last week compared to the ENZ group (33% vs. 55%, p = 0.006 respectively). Findings highlight the benefit of AAP and ENZ in promoting the "quality" of extended survival. That fatigue was lower among patients receiving AAP may be important for informing treatment decisions. Further research is needed to gain deeper insights.

A comparison of the efficacy of immunomodulatory-free regimens in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: a network meta-analysis.

Treatment history influences the outcomes of subsequent therapies in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and needs to be considered when deciding which treatment to use next. To assess the relative merits of immunomodulatory (IMiD)-free treatments, a systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify relevant randomized controlled trials in patients with RRMM. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to assess various IMiD-free regimens, including bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd)-based treatments, and to explore differences in patient outcomes. The SLR identified 52 articles, from which four trials were ultimately included in the base-case NMA. The NMA showed that daratumumab plus Vd (DVd) provided a significant advantage in prolonging progression-free survival. Similar trends were observed for overall survival and overall response. Across all outcomes, DVd had the highest probability of being the best treatment. These findings suggest that DVd may provide superior clinical outcomes for RRMM patients suitable for IMiD-free regimens.

A Comparison of the Efficacy of Immunomodulatory-containing Regimens in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous network meta-analyses combined studies of immunomodulatory drug (IMiD)-containing and IMiD-free regimens, despite a lack of head-to-head randomized controlled trials to robustly link them. However, patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) treated with IMiD-containing regimens differ from those treated with IMiD-free regimens, especially relating to treatment history, which is an important treatment-effect modifier requiring clinical consideration when evaluating the most appropriate subsequent treatment options. A need exists to separately assess the efficacy of treatment regimens for patients who are suitable candidates for IMiD-containing and IMiD-free regimens. The presented analyses will enable clinicians to assess the best regimens to use in patients suitable for IMiD-containing regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare IMiD-containing regimens in patients with RRMM. Additionally, subgroup analyses were conducted stratified by previous therapy line, previous bortezomib therapy, and previous lenalidomide therapy. RESULTS: The results indicated that triplet combinations are more effective than doublet combinations. Of the triplet combinations, daratumumab, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (DRd) was significantly better in improving progression-free survival in patients with RRMM than were other IMiD-containing regimens (lenalidomide, dexamethasone [Rd]: hazard ratio [HR], 0.37; carfilzomib, Rd: HR, 0.54; elotuzumab, Rd: HR, 0.54; ixazomib, Rd: HR, 0.50). Similar trends were observed for overall survival and overall response. DRd showed the greatest probability of being the best treatment for all clinical efficacy outcomes. The subgroup analyses results were consistent with the base-case results. CONCLUSION: In patients with RRMM who are suitable for an IMiD-containing regimen, DRd showed clear advantages in survival and response outcomes compared with other IMiD-containing regimens.

Patients' Preferences for the Treatment of Metastatic Castrate-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

PURPOSE: Patient treatment preferences are increasingly being used to inform health care decision making. This discrete choice experiment assessed how men perceive the risks and benefits of hypothetical treatment options for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: Treatment attributes for inclusion were identified through a review of the literature and product labels. Expert interviews confirmed clinical appropriateness and patient relevance of the attributes, which included effectiveness (delay in months before chemotherapy), steroid use, possible drug interactions (additional hospital visits for monitoring), fogginess (effects on cognition and memory), fatigue (extreme tiredness), food restrictions, and bone pain. Following a pilot, the final discrete choice experiment included 18 choice sets presenting treatments for mCRPC and was completed by men with mCRPC in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Data were analyzed using a conditional logit model, with odds ratios (ORs) used to indicate preference for attributes, and tradeoff measures (TOM) were estimated using the ratio of coefficients. FINDINGS: Within each attribute category and with all other factors being equal, participants (N = 285) indicated a strong preference for treatments that fully control bone pain (OR = 12.069 [95% CI, 10.555-13.800]) and for treatments that delay chemotherapy (OR, 1.727 [95% CI, 1.548-1.927]). They also preferred treatments that were associated with the lowest risk of fogginess (OR, 2.115 [95% CI, 1.849-2.420]), a lower risk of fatigue (OR, 1.365 [95% CI 1.219-1.528]), and fewer additional hospital visits (OR, 1.245 [95% CI 1.111-1.397]) than the respective reference categories. Participants preferred to use steroids under advice from a physician (OR, 1.275 [95% CI 1.132-1.437]). Food restrictions related to taking medication were not a significant concern for participants. TOM results indicated that large tradeoffs in effectiveness, fogginess, and fatigue are required for patients to prefer a treatment with uncontrolled bone pain that is very difficult to live with. IMPLICATIONS: Men with mCRPC consider a wide range of factors when making decisions regarding their treatment. They showed a strong preference for treatment associated with better control of bone pain. They also placed value on treatments that could delay the need for chemotherapy, and they preferred to avoid side effects such as cognition and memory loss, and extreme tiredness. TOMs highlighted the importance of symptom control, even compared with potential side effects. An understanding of the degree to which patients value the attributes associated with various treatment options will assist clinicians and health care professionals when making decisions regarding the management of men with mCRPC.