Health-related Quality of Life at the SPARTAN Final Analysis of Apalutamide for Nonmetastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Patients Receiving Androgen Deprivation Therapy

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.

Targeted Investigational Treatment Analysis of Novel Anti-androgen (TITAN) study: ultralow prostate-specific antigen decline with apalutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between achievement of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels ≤0.2 ng/mL (henceforth 'ultralow') and clinical outcomes in patients in the 'Targeted Investigational Treatment Analysis of Novel Anti-androgen' (TITAN) study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02489318) with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients in the TITAN study with mCSPC were randomised to 240 mg/day apalutamide (n = 525) or placebo (n = 527) plus androgen-deprivation therapy. This post hoc analysis assessed the achievement of a PSA level of 0.2->0.02 ng/mL ('ultralow one' [UL1]) and ≤0.02 ng/mL ('ultralow two' [UL2]) vs >0.2 ng/mL with apalutamide treatment and its association with radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), overall survival (OS), time to castration-resistant PC (TTCRPC), and time to PSA progression (TTPP). The landmark analysis and Kaplan-Meier methods were used.

RESULTS

By 3 months, more patients achieved UL1 and UL2 with apalutamide (38% and 23%) vs placebo (15% and 5%). In the apalutamide-treated patients, UL2 vs PSA >0.2 ng/mL at landmark 3 months was associated with significantly longer rPFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.54), OS (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.13-0.43), TTCRPC (HR 0.2, 95% CI 0.11-0.38), and TTPP (HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04-0.27; nominal P values all <0.001); this association was also observed but less pronounced for UL1. Similar findings were observed at 6 months. Early onset of decline to UL2 by 3 months was associated with improved survival vs PSA >0.2 ng/mL anytime (HR 0.12, 95% CI 0.06-0.22; P < 0.001) in apalutamide-treated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In this post hoc analysis of TITAN, patients with the deepest PSA decline derived the greatest benefit. These results extend our findings of apalutamide efficacy in the overall TITAN population, underscoring the clinical value of PSA kinetics as a marker for treatment efficacy.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Patients with metastatic prostate cancer that is sensitive to ongoing hormonal treatment benefited significantly from the addition of apalutamide compared with placebo. Those who achieved rapid and deep PSA reduction had the greatest survival benefit.

A multidisciplinary approach to address unmet needs in the management of patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

With the availability of second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors (SGARIs), the treatment landscape has changed dramatically for patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). In clinical trials, the SGARIs (apalutamide, enzalutamide, darolutamide) increased metastasis-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), and patient quality of life compared to placebo. These drugs were subsequently integrated into nmCRPC clinical practice guidelines. With advances in radiographic imaging, disease assessment, and patient monitoring, nmCRPC strategies are evolving to address limitations related to tracking disease progression using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics.

METHODS

A panel of 10 multidisciplinary experts in prostate cancer conducted reviews and discussions of unmet needs in the management and monitoring of patients with nmCRPC in order to develop consensus recommendations.

RESULTS

Across the SGARI literature, patient MFS and OS are generally comparable for all treatments, but important distinctions exist regarding short- and long-term drug safety profiles and drug-drug interactions. With respect to disease monitoring, a substantial proportion of patients using SGARIs may experience disease progression without rising PSA levels, suggesting a need for enhanced radiographic imaging in addition to PSA monitoring. Recent data also indicate that novel prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography radiotracers provide enhanced accuracy for disease detection, as compared to conventional imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical decision-making in nmCRPC has become more complex, with new opportunities to apply precision medicine to patient care. Multidisciplinary teams can ensure that patients with nmCRPC receive optimal and individualized disease management.

Low-Dose Apalutamide in Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Case Report

The effect of low-dose apalutamide in nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is unknown. We report the observation of therapy being administered at 25% of the recommended dose in an 80-year-old patient. Despite treatment discontinuation during COVID lockdowns, he survived three years without evidence of metastasis. This case gently invites us to reflect on the possibility of low-dose apalutamide in the elderly.

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).

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

OBJECTIVE

To review pharmacology, efficacy, safety, and considerations for use, of second-generation androgen receptor (AR) antagonists in treatment of nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (M0CRPC).

DATA SOURCES

Conducted search in PubMed and Google scholar (January, 1, 2002-December 31, 2022), using relevant terms.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant English-language studies, conducted in humans evaluating second-generation AR antagonists for M0CRPC, and additional articles and package inserts were considered.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Apalutamide, darolutamide, and enzalutamide are effective in delaying the time to development of metastatic prostate cancer in men with M0CRPC with a rapid prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time (<10 months). No head-to-head, randomized, clinical trials have been conducted. The most common adverse effects include fatigue and hypertension, and quality of life is maintained in most patients. Cost is similar among the agents (~$15,000/month). Drug-drug interactions vary among these agents and should be considered, when selecting therapy as well as likely adherence. Darolutamide is administered twice daily with the others once daily.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Second-generation AR antagonists are effective in reducing time to development of metastatic disease and prolonging overall survival in patients with M0CRPC and a PSA doubling time of <10 months. Recent imaging advances may alter how we evaluate outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Second-generation AR antagonists improve disease control and overall survival. Generally, they are well tolerated and QOL is maintained. Selection of the best agent is based on the adverse effect profile, potential for drug- and disease-interactions, administration, cost, and patient preference.

Patient-reported outcomes of maintenance rucaparib in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma in ARIEL3, a phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

PURPOSE

To compare NFOSI-18 Disease Related Symptoms - Physical (DRSP), Total score, and side effect bother between maintenance rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) vs. placebo in the phase III ARIEL3 trial.

METHODS

ARIEL3 (NCT01968213) included patients with ovarian carcinoma who responded to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy. The NFOSI-18 DRS-P and Total scales were secondary endpoints. The NFOSI-18 contains a side effect impact item (GP5): "I am bothered by side effects of treatment." We compared treatment arms on change from baseline of DRS-P and Total scores using mixed models with repeated measures (MRMM). Time to first and confirmed deterioration of NFOSI-18 DRS-P and Total scales were analyzed using Cox regression. We also calculated the proportion of patients reporting moderate to high side effect bother on GP5.

RESULTS

In the intention-to-treat (ITT) cohort, mean change from baseline favored the placebo. Compared to placebo, rucaparib was associated with higher risk of deterioration [e.g., 4-point deteriorator definition hazard ratio (HR): 1.85; 95% CI: 1.46, 2.36; median time to first deterioration on DRSP: 1.9 vs. 7.0 months]. Confirmed deterioration results resembled those for first deterioration. Proportions of patients reporting moderate/high side effect bother on GP5 fluctuated around 20% across treatment cycles. Results in BRCA mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts were generally similar to those from the ITT cohort.

CONCLUSION

This placebo-controlled study in the maintenance therapy setting provides a unique view of the impact of PARP inhibition on the patient-reported outcomes that are commonly used in ovarian cancer clinical trials. Information regarding the adverse side effect impact of PARP inhibitors should be weighed against their clinical benefit.

Health-related quality of life in GALAHAD: A multicenter, open-label, phase 2 study of niraparib for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DNA-repair gene defects

BACKGROUND: Niraparib is a highly selective poly (adenosine diphosphateribose) polymerase-1 and poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase-2 inhibitor indicated for select patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancer. The phase 2 GALAHAD trial (NCT02854436) demonstrated that niraparib monotherapy is tolerable and efficacious in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations, particularly those with breast cancer gene (BRCA) alterations who had progressed on prior androgen signaling inhibitor therapy and taxane-based chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To report the prespecified patient-reported outcomes analysis from GALAHAD. METHODS: Eligible patients with alterations to BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 (BRCA cohort) and with pathogenic alterations in other HRR genes (other HRR cohort) were enrolled and received niraparib 300 mg once daily. Patient-reported outcome instruments included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate and the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form. Changes from baseline were compared using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures. RESULTS: On average, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improved in the BRCA cohort by cycle 3 (mean change = 6.03; 95% CI = 2.76-9.29) and was maintained above baseline until cycle 10 (mean change = 2.84; 95% CI = -1.95 to 7.63), whereas the other HRR cohort showed no early change in HRQoL from baseline (mean change = -0.07; 95% CI = -4.69 to 4.55) and declined by cycle 10 (mean change = -5.10; 95% CI = -15.3 to 5.06). Median time to deterioration in pain intensity and pain interference could not be estimated in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced mCRPC and BRCA alterations treated with niraparib experienced more meaningful improvement in overall HRQoL, pain intensity, and pain interference compared with those with other HRR alterations. In this population of castrate, heavily pretreated patients with mCRPC and HRR alterations, stabilization, and improvement in HRQoL may be relevant to consider when making treatment decisions. DISCLOSURES: This work was supported by Janssen Research & Development, LLC (no grant number). Dr Smith has received grants and personal fees from Bayer, Amgen, Janssen, and Lilly; and has received personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr Sandhu has received grants from Amgen, Endocyte, and Genentech; has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Merck; and has received personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck Serono. Dr George has received personal fees from the American Association for Cancer Research, Axess Oncology, Capio Biosciences, Constellation Pharma, EMD Serono, Flatiron, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Michael J. Hennessey Association, Millennium Medical Publishing, Modra Pharma, Myovant Sciences, Inc., NCI Genitourinary, Nektar Therapeutics, Physician Education Resource, Propella TX, RevHealth, LLC, and UroGPO; has received grants and personal fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pfizer; has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer and UroToday; has received grants from Calithera and Novartis; and has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Exelixis, Inc., Sanofi, and Janssen Pharma. Dr Chi has received grants from Janssen during the conduct of the study; has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Astellas Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, POINT Biopharma, Roche, and Sanofi; and has received personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Saad has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Janssen during the conduct of the study; and has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Bayer, Myovant, Sanofi, and Novartis. Dr Thiery-Vuillemin has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Pfizer; has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Ipsen, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Astellas Pharma; and has received personal fees from Sanofi, Novartis, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Olmos has received grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, and Pfizer; has received personal fees from Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and has received nonfinancial support from Astellas Pharma, F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Genentech, and Ipsen. Dr Danila has received research support from the US Department of Defense, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Stand Up to Cancer, Janssen Research & Development, Astellas Pharma, Medivation, Agensys, Genentech, and CreaTV. Dr Gafanov has received grants from Janssen during the conduct of the study. Dr Castro has received grants from Janssen during the conduct of the study; has received grants and personal fees from Janssen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer; and has received personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and Clovis. Dr Moon has received research funding from SeaGen, HuyaBio, Janssen, BMS, Aveo, Xencor, and has received personal fees from Axess Oncology, MJH, EMD Serono, and Pfizer. Dr Joshua has received nonfinancial support from Janssen; consulted or served in an advisory role for Neoleukin, Janssen Oncology, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Noxopharm, IQvia, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, and Eisai; and received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mayne Pharma, Roche/Genentech, Bayer, MacroGenics, Lilly, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Corvus Pharmaceuticals. Drs Mason, Liu, Bevans, Lopez-Gitlitz, and Francis and Mr Espina are employees of Janssen Research & Development. Dr Mason owns stocks with Janssen. Dr Fizazi has participated in advisory boards and talks for Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, MSD, Novartis/AAA, Pfizer, and Sanofi, with honoraria to his institution (Institut Gustave Roussy); has participated in advisory boards for, with personal honoraria from, Arvinas, CureVac, MacroGenics, and Orion. Study registration number: NCT02854436.

Apalutamide, Darolutamide and Enzalutamide for Nonmetastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (nmCRPC): A Critical Review

Nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) represents a condition in which patients with prostate cancer show biochemical progression during treatment with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) without signs of radiographic progression according to conventional imaging. The SPARTAN, ARAMIS and PROSPER trials showed that apalutamide, darolutamide and enzalutamide, respectively, prolong metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) of nmCRPC patients with a short PSA doubling time, and these antiandrogens have been recently introduced in clinical practice as a new standard of care. No direct comparison of these three agents has been conducted to support treatment choice. In addition, a significant proportion of nmCRPC on conventional imaging is classified as metastatic with new imaging modalities such as the prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET). Some experts posit that these "new metastatic" patients should be treated as mCRPC, resizing the impact of nmCRPC trials, whereas other authors suggest that they should be treated as nmCRPC patients, based on the design of pivotal trials. This review discusses the most convincing evidence regarding the use of novel antiandrogens in patients with nmCRPC and the implications of novel imaging techniques for treatment selection.

Assessment and Management of Cognitive Function in Patients with Prostate Cancer Treated with Second-Generation Androgen Receptor Pathway Inhibitors

Preservation of cognitive function is an important outcome in oncology. Optimal patient management requires an understanding of cognitive effects of the disease and its treatment and an efficacious approach to assessment and management of cognitive dysfunction, including selection of treatments to minimize the risk of cognitive impairment. Awareness is increasing of the potentially detrimental effects of cancer-related cognitive dysfunction on functional independence and quality of life. Prostate cancer occurs most often in older men, who are more likely to develop cognitive dysfunction than younger individuals; this population may be particularly vulnerable to treatment-related cognitive disorders. Prompt identification of treatment-induced cognitive dysfunction is a crucial aspect of effective cancer management. We review the potential etiologies of cognitive decline in patients with prostate cancer, including the potential role of androgen receptor pathway inhibitors; commonly used tools for assessing cognitive function validated in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and adopted in non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer trials; and strategies for management of cognitive symptoms. Many methods are currently used to assess cognitive function. The prevalence and severity of cognitive dysfunction vary according to the instruments and criteria applied. Consensus on the definition of cognitive dysfunction and on the most appropriate approaches to quantify its extent and progression in patients treated for prostate cancer is lacking. Evidence-based guidance on the appropriate tools and time to assess cognitive function in patients with prostate cancer is required.