Enzalutamide: Understanding and Managing Drug Interactions to Improve Patient Safety and Drug Efficacy

Enzalutamide is an oral androgen receptor signaling inhibitor utilized in the treatment of men with prostate cancer. It is a moderate inducer of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes CYP2C9 and CYP2C19, and a strong inducer of CYP3A4. It was also shown to be a mild inhibitor of the efflux transporter P-glycoprotein in patients with prostate cancer. Enzalutamide is primarily metabolized by CYP3A4 and CYP2C8. The risk of enzalutamide drug interactions arises primarily when it is coadministered with other drugs that interact with these CYPs, including CYP3A4. In this review, we begin by providing an overview of enzalutamide including its dosing, use in special populations, pharmacokinetics, changes to its prescribing information, and potential for interaction with coadministered drugs. Enzalutamide interactions with drugs from a wide range of medication classes commonly prescribed to patients with prostate cancer are described, including oral androgen deprivation therapy, agents used to treat a range of cardiovascular diseases, antidiabetic drugs, antidepressants, anti-seizure medications, common urology medications, analgesics, proton pump inhibitors, immunosuppressants, and antigout drugs. Enzalutamide interactions with common vitamins and supplements are also briefly discussed. This review provides a resource for healthcare practitioners and patients that will help provide a basis for the understanding and management of enzalutamide drug-drug interactions to inform decision making, improve patient safety, and optimize drug efficacy.

Stereotactic body radiation therapy to postpone systemic therapy escalation for castration-resistant prostate cancer: A multicenter retrospective analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the oncological outcome after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for oligoprogressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (omCRPC) patients.

Materials-Methods

In this retrospective, observational, multi-institutional study, omCRPC patients (≤5 metastases) underwent SBRT. Primary endpoint was systemic therapy escalation-free survival (STE-FS) after SBRT. Local relapse (LR), distant (DP) and isolated biochemical (iBP) progressions were reported with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Prognostic factors for STE-FS were investigated. Toxicity was reported.

Results

From 01/07 to 09/19, 50 pts with omCRPC underwent SBRT. With a MFU of 23 months [3---100], median STE-FS was 13.1 months (95 %CI 10.8 - 36.4). Median OS was not reached and PFS was 13 months (CI95% 10.1 - 20.8). Post-SBRT PSA remained stable or decreased in 19 pts (38 %). Progression events (LR, DP, iBP) were observed in 34 pts (68 %), among whom 6 relapsed in the irradiated area (local control rate: 88 %). DP and iBP were observed in 28 pts (56 %) and 4 pts (8 %) respectively. In multivariate analysis, post-SBRT biochemical response was an independent prognostic factor for STE-FS. Grade ≥ 3 toxicity occurred in 2 pts.

Conclusion

With excellent local control and tolerance, SBRT for omCRPC patients represents an acceptable approach to defer systemic therapeutic escalation and prevent its side effects. Accurate patient selection for SBRT requires more data with longer follow-up and higher numbers of patients pending the results of upcoming randomized trials.

Risk of Fractures and Falls in Men with Advanced or Metastatic Prostate Cancer Receiving Androgen Deprivation Therapy and Treated with Novel Androgen Receptor Signalling Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

CONTEXT

The addition of androgen receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSIs) to standard androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has improved survival outcomes in patients with advanced prostate cancer (PCa). Advanced PCa patients have a higher incidence of osteoporosis, compounded by rapid bone density loss upon commencement of ADT resulting in an increased fracture risk. The effect of treatment intensification with ARSIs on fall and fracture risk is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the risk of falls and fractures in men with PCa treated with ARSIs.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, and The Health Technology Assessment Database for randomised control trials between 1990 and June 2023 was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses guidance. Risk ratios were estimated for the incidence of fracture and fall events. Subgroup analyses by grade of event and disease state were conducted.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-three studies were eligible for inclusion. Fracture outcomes were reported in 17 studies (N = 18 811) and fall outcomes in 16 studies (N = 16 537). A pooled analysis demonstrated that ARSIs increased the risk of fractures (relative risk [RR] 2.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.00-2.71; p < 0.01) and falls (RR 2.22, 95% CI 1.81-2.72; p < 0.01) compared with control. A subgroup analysis demonstrated an increased risk of both fractures (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.70-2.67; p < 0.01) and falls (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.53-3.12; p < 0.0001) in metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa patients, and an increased risk of fractures in the nonmetastatic (RR 2.27, 95% CI 1.60-3.20; p < 0.00001) and metastatic castrate-resistant (RR 2.85, 95% CI 2.16-3.76; p < 0.00001) settings. The key limitations include an inability to distinguish fragility from pathological fractures and potential for a competing risk bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of an ARSI to standard ADT significantly increases the risk of fractures and falls in men with prostate cancer.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We found a significantly increased risk of both fractures and falls with a combination of novel androgen signalling inhibitors and traditional forms of hormone therapy.

Contemporary Systemic Therapy Intensification for Prostate Cancer: A Review for General Practitioners in Oncology

Prostate cancer accounts for a significant proportion of cancer diagnoses in Canadian men. Over the past decade, the therapeutic landscape for the management of metastatic prostate cancer has undergone rapid changes. Novel strategies use hormonal agents, chemotherapy, homologous recombination repair inhibitors, and radioligand therapy or combination strategies in addition to androgen deprivation therapy. In this review, we summarize the available data addressing key therapeutic areas along the disease continuum and focus on practical aspects for general practitioners in oncology managing patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

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).

Treatment patterns and outcomes in older adults with castration-resistant prostate cancer: Analysis of an Australian real-world cohort

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer (PC) is the second commonest malignancy and fifth leading cause of cancer death in men worldwide. Older men are more likely to develop PC but are underrepresented in pivotal clinical trials, leading to challenges in treatment selection in the real-world setting. We aimed to examine treatment patterns and outcomes in older Australians with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified 753 men with mCRPC within the electronic CRPC Australian Database (ePAD). Clinical data were analysed retrospectively to assess outcomes including time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), PSA doubling time (PSADT), PSA50 response rate, and pre-defined adverse events of special interest (AESIs). Descriptive statistics were used to report baseline characteristics, stratified by age groups (<75y, 75-85y and >85y). Groups were compared using Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-square analyses. Time-to-event analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared through log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazards univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the influence of variables on OS.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven percent of men were aged <75y, 31% 75-85y, and 12% >85y. Patients ≥75y more frequently received only one line of systemic therapy (40% of <75y vs 66% 75-85y vs 68% >85y; P < 0.01). With increasing age, patients were more likely to receive androgen receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSIs) as initial therapy (42% of <75y vs 70% of 75-85y vs 84% of >85y; p < 0.01). PSA50 response rates or TTF did not significantly differ between age groups for chemotherapy or ARSIs. Patients >85y receiving enzalutamide had poorer OS but this was not an independent prognostic variable on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.93(0.09-9.35); p = 0.95). PSADT >3 months was an independent positive prognostic factor for patients receiving any systemic therapy. Older patients who received docetaxel were more likely to experience AESIs (18% in <75y vs 37% 75-85y vs 33% >85y, p = 0.038) and to stop treatment as a result (21% in <75y vs 39% in 75-85y; p = 0.011).

DISCUSSION

In our mCRPC cohort, older men received fewer lines of systemic therapy and were more likely to cease docetaxel due to adverse events. However, treatment outcomes were similar in most subgroups, highlighting the importance of individualised assessment regardless of age.

Myocardial bridge in a patient with castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer treated with enzalutamide

INTRODUCTION

Myocardial bridge is a morphological anomaly of the heart characterised by the presence of a myocardial segment above a coronary artery, which results in a higher risk of cardiovascular events. In patients with prostate cancer treated with androgen receptor-targeted agents, a higher risk of cardiotoxicity was observed.

CASE REPORT

An 88 years old man with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in treatment with enzalutamide, denosumab, and triptorelin presented to our attention complaining dyspnoea and angina pectoris.

MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME

Blood examinations revealed normal Troponin I levels. Transthoracic echocardiography revealed no signs of acute myocardial ischaemia. The treadmill stress test revealed S-T tract under levelling in V4-V6 with a very slow resolution. Coronary angiography identified a myocardial bridge in the medium tract of the interventricular anterior artery. Due to these findings, ranolazine and simvastatin were started and, after multidisciplinary assessment, we decided to continue the treatment with enzalutamide. At the first follow-up visit echocardiography found out the cardiological reports stability and no therapy changes were performed. During follow-up visit cardiological revaluation showed reports stability and no therapy changes were performed.

DISCUSSION

Due to the high prevalence of prostate cancer in elderly patients at high cardiovascular risk and the increasing use of androgen receptor-targeted agent, a multidisciplinary approach is highly recommended to weigh survival benefits on toxicities. This case report may support the use of androgen receptor-targeted agent in elderly patients with controlled cardiovascular diseases, a population that is often excluded from randomised trials.

Feasibility of cabazitaxel in octogenarian prostate cancer patients

Background

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of cabazitaxel in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients aged ≥80 years, we performed a retrospective study on a sample of patients from 11 Italian cancer centers.

Materials and methods

Fifty-seven patients aged ≥80 years were treated with cabazitaxel after previous failure with docetaxel; 39 completed a comprehensive geriatric assessment questionnaire (34 fit and 5 vulnerable) and 8 patients (14%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) ≥2, while most had a PS of 0-1 (86%). Cabazitaxel was administered at a dose of 25 mg/m2 in 30 (52%) patients and 20 mg/m2 or adapted schedules in 27 (48%) patients. These schedules were adopted mainly in patients ≥85 years (75%), with a PS ≥2 (87.5%), and those classified as vulnerable (100%).

Results

The duration of treatment was 4.8 months and was comparable in all subgroups; disease control rate was reported in 36 patients (63%); prostate-specific antigen response was recorded in 18 patients (31.5%). Median overall survival was 13.1 months regardless of age (<85/≥85 years), but overall survival was reduced in vulnerable (7.2 months) and PS ≥ 2 patients (6.8 months). The most frequently documented grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia (14%) and diarrhea (10.5%). Six patients (10.5%) dropped out due to severe toxicity.

Conclusions

Octogenarian patients can be treated with cabazitaxel with reduced doses or alternative schedules that are associated with less toxicity and fewer treatment interruptions. Comprehensive geriatric assessment could facilitate more appropriate patient selection.

A national questionnaire survey of Japanese urologists on treatment perspectives for elderly prostate cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

This study conducted a national questionnaire survey of Japanese urologists from a treatment perspective for older patients with prostate cancer.

METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed to 922 teaching hospitals of the Japanese Urological Association. Questionnaire items included years of urologist experience, gender, workplace, treatment equipment owned, daily specialty practice area, urological cancer specialty, treatment reference items for older adults, upper age limit for radical treatment, medication, and two hypothetical cases of Gleason grade group 2 prostate cancer with or without oligometastasis.

RESULTS

In total, 1732 questionnaires were analyzed, with responses evenly distributed across all age groups. Workplaces included general hospitals (49.4%), university hospitals (40.3%), and cancer centers (4.2%). Performance status was the most frequently mentioned treatment-related item, followed by comorbidities and cognitive function. In addition, geriatric assessment was used by only 13.3% of respondents. No upper age limit was found for total prostatectomy, brachytherapy, and external beam radiation. Anti-androgens, androgen receptor-axis-targeted agents, chemotherapy, poly ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors, and immune-checkpoint inhibitors were selected by 6.8%, 35.6%, 47.3%, 89%, 62.8%, 24.7%, 41.9%, and 41.7% of the respondents, respectively. Response rates for administration of hormone therapy for hypothetical cases of Gleason grade group 2 prostate cancer with or without oligometastases were 96.8% and 61.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than 15% of urologists used geriatric assessments. Several responded that they would set age limits for highly invasive radical and systemic therapies.

Safety and Efficacy of [177Lu]-PSMA-I&T Radioligand Therapy in Octogenarians with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Report on 80 Patients over the Age of 80 Years

¹⁷⁷Lu-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) radioligand therapy (RLT) is a new treatment option for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Its low toxicity profile favors use in elderly patients or in patients with critical comorbidities. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of [¹⁷⁷Lu]-PSMA RLT in mCRPC patients at least 80 y old. Methods: Eighty mCRPC patients at least 80 y old underwent [¹⁷⁷Lu]-PSMA-I&T RLT and were retrospectively selected. The patients were previously treated by androgen receptor-directed therapy, received taxane-based chemotherapy, or were chemotherapy-ineligible. The best prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response was calculated, as well as clinical progression-free survival (cPFS) and overall survival (OS). Toxicity data were acquired until 6 mo after the last treatment cycle. Results: Of 80 patients, 49 (61.3%) were chemotherapy-naïve and 16 (20%) had visceral metastases. The median number of previous mCRPC treatment regimens was 2. In total, 324 cycles (median, 4 cycles; range, 1-12) with a median cumulative activity of 23.8 GBq (interquartile range, 14.8-42.2) were applied. A PSA decline of 50% was achieved in 37 (46.3%) patients. Chemotherapy-naïve patients showed higher 50% PSA response rates than chemotherapy-pretreated patients (51.0% vs. 38.7%, respectively). Overall, median cPFS and OS were 8.7 and 16.1 mo, respectively. The median cPFS and OS of chemotherapy-naïve patients were significantly longer than those of chemotherapy-pretreated patients (10.5 vs. 6.5 mo and 20.7 vs. 11.8 mo, respectively, P < 0.05). A lower hemoglobin level and higher lactate dehydrogenase level at baseline were independent predictors of shorter cPFS and OS. Treatment-emergent grade 3 toxicities were anemia in 4 patients (5%), thrombocytopenia in 3 patients (3.8%), and renal impairment in 4 patients (5%). No nonhematologic grade 3 and no grade 4 toxicities were observed. The most frequent clinical side effects were grade 1-2 xerostomia, fatigue, and inappetence. Conclusion: [¹⁷⁷Lu]-PSMA-I&T RLT in mCRPC patients at least 80 y old is safe and effective, comparable to previously published data on non-age-selected cohorts with a low rate of high-grade toxicities. Chemotherapy-naïve patients showed a better and longer response to therapy than taxane-pretreated patients. [¹⁷⁷Lu]-PSMA RLT seems to be a meaningful treatment option for older patients.

Frailty and survival among veterans treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Abiraterone and enzalutamide are treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Due to a lack of head-to-head trials, they are prescribed interchangeably. However, the drugs have different pharmacokinetics and thus may have differing efficacy and adverse effects influenced by patient functional status and comorbid diseases. Additionally, mCRPC mainly affects older adults and since the prevalence of frailty increases with age, frailty is an important patient factor to consider in personalizing drug selection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study of US veterans treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide for mCRPC from September 2014 to June 2017. Frailty was assessed using the Veterans Affairs Frailty Index (VA-FI), which utilizes administrative codes to assign a standardized frailty score. Patients were categorized as frail if VA-FI scores were > 0.2. The primary outcome was difference in overall survival (OS) between the two treatment groups. Cox regression modeling and propensity score matching was used to compare between abiraterone and enzalutamide treatments.

RESULTS

We identified 5,822 veterans, 57% of whom were initially treated with abiraterone and 43% with enzalutamide. Frail patients (n = 2,314; 39.7%) were older, with a mean age of 76.1 versus 74.9 years in the non-frail group (n = 3,508; 60.3%, p < 0.001) and had shorter OS compared to non-frail patients regardless of treatment group (18.5 vs. 26.6 months, p < 0.001). Among non-frail patients there was no significant difference in OS between abiraterone and enzalutamide treatment (27.7 vs 26.1 months, p = 0.07). However, frail patients treated with enzalutamide versus abiraterone had improved OS (20.7 vs 17.2 months, p < 0.001). In a propensity score matched analysis of frail patients (n = 2,070), enzalutamide was associated with greater median OS (24.1 vs 20.9 months, p < 0.001). In patients with dementia, enzalutamide was associated with longer OS (19.4 vs. 16.6 months, p = 0.003).

DISCUSSION

In this study of 5822 US veterans with mCRPC, treatment with enzalutamide was associated with improved OS compared to abiraterone among frail veterans and veterans with dementia, but not among non-frail veterans. Future studies should evaluate interactions between frailty and cancer treatments to optimize selection of therapy among frail adults.

Quality of life for men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer participating in an aerobic and resistance exercise pilot intervention

BACKGROUND

Following a prostate cancer diagnosis, disease and treatment-related symptoms may result in diminished quality of life (QoL). Whether exercise improves QoL in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is not fully understood.

METHODS

We conducted a 3-arm pilot randomized controlled trial to assess the feasibility, acceptability, safety, and efficacy of a 12-week remotely monitored exercise program among men with mCRPC. Here we report qualitative changes in QoL, consistent with the guidelines for pilot trials. Men were randomized to control, aerobic exercise, or resistance exercise. Exercise prescriptions were based on baseline cardiorespiratory and strength assessments. QoL outcomes were evaluated using self-reported questionnaires (e.g., QLQ-C30, PROMIS Fatigue, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), EPIC-26) collected at baseline and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 25 men were randomized (10 control, 8 aerobic, 7 resistance). Men were predominately white (76%) with a median age of 71 years (range: 51-84) and 10.5 years (range: 0.9-26.3) post prostate cancer diagnosis. The men reported poor sleep quality and high levels of fatigue at enrollment. Other baseline QoL metrics were relatively high. Compared to the controls at 12 weeks, the resistance arm reported some improvements in social function and urinary irritative/obstruction symptoms while the aerobic arm reported some improvements in social function and urinary incontinence, yet worsening nausea/vomiting. Compared to the resistance arm, the aerobic arm reported worse urinary irritative/obstruction symptoms and self-rated QoL, yet some improvements in emotional function, insomnia, and diarrhea.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3-month exercise intervention pilot appeared to have modest effects on QoL among mCRPC survivors on ADT. Given the feasibility, acceptability, and safety demonstrated in prior analyses, evaluation of the effect of the intervention on QoL in a larger sample and for extended duration may still be warranted.

Second generation anti-androgens and androgen deprivation therapy with radiation therapy in the definitive management of high-risk prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Evolving data suggest that men with high-risk localized prostate cancer may benefit from more potent androgen receptor inhibition in the context of curative intent radiotherapy. Recently updated American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) evidence-based guidelines and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines have updated recommendations for the consideration of adding second generation anti-androgens to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in men receiving radiation therapy (RT) for noncastrate locally advanced high and very high risk nonmetastatic or node positive prostate cancer.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a comprehensive review of existing published and abstract presented evidence behind RT with ADT for the definitive management of high-risk prostate cancer, particularly focused on the current phase II and III trial evidence for the addition of second generation anti-androgens to ADT in definitive RT treatment of high-risk prostate cancer and specifically focused on the recent STAMPEDE trial results with abiraterone acetate. We review the biological mechanisms in which second generation anti-androgens may help mitigate ADT resistance and provide radiosensitization through inhibition of DNA repair. Finally, we discuss ongoing clinical trials of potent androgen receptor (AR) inhibitors with ADT in this non-metastatic high-risk radiotherapy setting that may inform on future treatment guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent data suggest an overall survival benefit as well as increased probabilities of disease free and metastasis free survival in men with high and very high-risk localized, node positive, and oligometastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer with abiraterone acetate and prednisone and support the use of potent AR inhibitors in this setting after informed decision making.

Association between age and efficacy of combination systemic therapies in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Combination systemic therapies have become the standard for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). However, the effect of age on oncologic outcomes remains unknown. Our aim was to perform a systematic review, meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis (NMA) on the effect of chronological age on overall survival (OS) in patients treated with combination therapies for mHSPC.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed®, Web of ScienceTM, and Scopus® databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that analyzed the efficacy of combination systemic therapies using ADT plus docetaxel and/or androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI) in patients with mHSPC. We included studies, which provided separate hazard ratios (HRs) for younger vs. older patients. The selected age cut-off was 70 years (±5 years). Our outcome of interest was OS.

RESULTS

We included nine RCTs with a total of 9183 patients. Younger and older men constituted 51% and 49% of included patients, respectively. Docetaxel plus ADT significantly improved OS among both older (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99, p = 0.04) and younger patients (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69-0.90, p < 0.001) with no differences according to age. ARSI plus ADT improved OS in older (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.80, p < 0.001) and younger (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.51-0.66, p < 0.001) patients; younger patients did benefit more (p = 0.02). On NMA treatment ranking, triplet therapy showed the highest probability of OS benefit irrespective of age group; in older patients, the benefit of triplet therapy compared to doublet was less expressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with mHSPC benefit from combination systemic therapies irrespective of age; the effect is, however, more evident in younger patients. Chronological age alone seems not to be a selection criteria for the administration of combination systemic therapies.

Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors, prostate cancer, and older adults: a global Young International Society of Geriatric Oncology drug review

Prostate cancer is a disease of older adults that has undergone a significant therapeutic paradigm shift in the last decade with the emergence of novel androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPis). One of the more commonly used ARPis is enzalutamide. This drug, along with darolutamide and apalutamide, initially received approvals in the metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer setting but is now utilized frequently in the metastatic castrate-sensitive and non-metastatic castration-resistant settings. Landmark phase III data illustrating ARPi efficacy in older adults are limited to those with excellent performance status. However, its role in unfit older prostate cancer patients remains to be explored in the context of a narrative review. This first-of-its-kind drug review aims to shed light on the most up-to-date evidence behind the unique toxicity profile of ARPis in the context of geriatric vulnerabilities such as cognitive and functional impairment, along with potential solutions and supporting evidence that exists to circumvent these issues in the vulnerable older adult.

Androgen Receptor Signaling Inhibition in Advanced Castration Resistance Prostate Cancer: What Is Expected for the Near Future?

The androgen signaling pathway is the cornerstone in the treatment of high risk or advanced prostate cancer patients. However, in recent years, different mechanisms of resistance have been defined in this field, limiting the efficacy of the currently approved antiandrogen drugs. Different therapeutic approaches are under research to assess the role of combination therapies against escape signaling pathways or the development of novel antiandrogen drugs to try to solve the primary or acquired resistance against androgen dependent or independent pathways. The present review aims to summarize the current state of androgen inhibition in the therapeutic algorithm of patients with advanced prostate cancer and the mechanisms of resistance to those available drugs. In addition, this review conducted a comprehensive overview of the main present and future research approaches in the field of androgen receptor inhibition to overcome these resistances and the potential new drugs under research coming into this setting.

Risk of cognitive impairment in men with advanced prostate cancer treated with NHAs: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Novel hormonal agents (NHAs) have significantly improved outcomes in men with advanced prostate cancer. However, it remains unclear whether NHAs are associated with subsequent cognitive impairment. Thus, we sought to perform a network meta-analysis to compare the risk of cognitive impairment across NHA types. Databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science), trial registries (Clinicaltrial.gov), the European Medicines Agency, and the US Food and Drug Administration drug safety reports were searched from inception through July 30, 2021. Eligible studies were clinical trials evaluating the risk of cognitive impairment between NHAs and placebo/standard care. Two independent investigators extracted the data and performed quality assessments using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and ROBINS-I. We estimated the risk ratios by the frequentist approach and calculated the ranking probabilities of all treatments with the surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities. The primary outcome and secondary outcome were odds ratio (OR) and incidence rate ratio of cognitive impairment, respectively. We identified 15 trials with 14,723 participants comparing HNAs with placebo/standard care. Treatments associated with cognitive impairment, from the most to the least, were enzalutamide (OR, 3.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.84-4.73), apalutamide (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.08-2.87), abiraterone acetate (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.01-2.45), and darolutamide (OR, 1.11 95% CI, 0.51-2.39). After adjustment of treatment time duration, enzalutamide still had the highest risk of cognitive impairment with an incidence rate ratio of 2.17 (95% CI, 1.65-2.78). These findings suggest that NHAs, especially enzalutamide, may increase the risk of cognitive impairment compared with placebo/standard care.

Subgroup analyses in randomized controlled trials frequently categorized continuous subgroup information

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To investigate how subgroup analyses of published Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are performed when subgroups are created from continuous variables.

METHODS

We carried out a review of RCTs published in 2016-2021 that included subgroup analyses. Information was extracted on whether any of the subgroups were based on continuous variables and, if so, how they were analyzed.

RESULTS

Out of 428 reviewed papers, 258 (60.4%) reported RCTs with a subgroup analysis. Of these, 178/258 (69%) had at least one subgroup formed from a continuous variable and 14/258 (5.4%) were unclear. The vast majority (169/178, 94.9%) dichotomized the continuous variable and treated the subgroup as categorical. The most common way of dichotomizing was using a pre-specified cutpoint (129/169, 76.3%), followed by a data-driven cutpoint (26/169, 15.4%), such as the median.

CONCLUSION

It is common for subgroup analyses to use continuous variables to define subgroups. The vast majority dichotomize the continuous variable and, consequently, may lose substantial amounts of statistical information (equivalent to reducing the sample size by at least a third). More advanced methods that can improve efficiency, through optimally choosing cutpoints or directly using the continuous information, are rarely used.

Management of prostate cancer in older patients

The incidence of prostate cancer among older men has increased in many countries, including Asian countries. However, older patients are ineligible for inclusion in large randomized trials, and the existing guidelines for the management of patients with prostate cancer do not provide specific treatment recommendations for older men. Therefore, generation of evidence for older patients with prostate cancer is a key imperative. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology has produced and updated several guidelines for management of prostate cancer in older men since 2010. Regarding localized prostate cancer, both surgery and radiotherapy are considered as feasible treatment options for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer even in older men, whereas watchful waiting and active surveillance are useful options for a proportion of these patients. With regard to advanced disease, androgen-receptor axis targets and taxane chemotherapy are standard treatment modalities, although dose modification and prevention of adverse events need to be considered. Management strategy for older patients with prostate cancer should take cognizance of not only the chronological age but also psychological and physical condition, socio-economic status and patient preferences. Geriatric assessment and patient-reported health-related quality of life are important tools for assessing health status of older patients with prostate cancer; however, there is a paucity of evidence of the impact of these tools on the clinical outcomes. Personalized management according to the patient's health status and tumour characteristics as well as socio-economic condition may be necessary for treatment of older patients with prostate cancer.

Consistent survival benefit of enzalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy in men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: PROSPER subgroup analysis by age and region

BACKGROUND

Enzalutamide combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly prolonged metastasis-free survival and overall survival (OS) versus ADT alone in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) with rapidly rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA). The objective of this post hoc analysis of the PROSPER trial is to evaluate OS benefit and safety of enzalutamide in patients across age and regional subgroups.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible men with nmCRPC, PSA doubling time ≤10 months and PSA ≥2 ng/mL with continued ADT use were randomised 2:1 to enzalutamide 160 mg or placebo. OS and safety were examined by age (<70 vs ≥70 years) and region (North America, Europe, Asia or the rest of the world). The impact of prior and subsequent therapy was also examined.

RESULTS

In total, 1401 men were enrolled (median age, 74 years). Enzalutamide plus ADT reduced the risk of death, independent of age or region. Multivariate analyses identified Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status (P < 0.0001), log (PSA; P = 0.0002) and subsequent therapy (P < 0.0001) as statistically significant factors impacting OS. Safety was consistent across age and regional subgroups. Any grade treatment-emergent adverse events were similar across age groups, were more common in the placebo group and had regional variation.

CONCLUSIONS

In men with nmCRPC and rapidly rising PSA, the benefit and safety of enzalutamide were consistent across age and regional subgroups. Variables impacting OS included ECOG status, log (PSA) and subsequent therapy. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT02003924.

Fracture Risk in Men with Metastatic Prostate Cancer Treated With Radium-223

BACKGROUND

Radium-223 is a bone-seeking, alpha-emitting radionuclide used in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Radium-223 increases the risk of fracture when used in combination with abiraterone and prednisolone. The risk of fracture in men receiving radium-223 monotherapy is unclear.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a prospective, multicenter phase II study of radium-223 in 36 men with mCRPC and a reference cohort (n = 36) matched for fracture risk and not treated with radium-223. Bone fractures were assessed using whole-body magnetic resonance imaging. The primary outcome was risk of new fractures.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients were treated with up to six 4-week cycles of radium-223. With a median follow-up of 16.3 months, 74 new fractures were identified in 20 patients. Freedom from fracture was 56% (95% confidence interval, 35.3-71.6) at 12 months. On multivariate analysis, prior corticosteroid use was associated with risk of fracture. In the reference cohort (n = 36), 16 new fractures were identified in 12 patients over a median follow-up of 24 months. Across both cohorts, 67% of all fractures occurred at uninvolved bone.

CONCLUSIONS

Men with mCRPC, and particularly those treated with radium-223, are at risk of fracture. They should receive a bone health agent to reduce the risk of fragility fractures.

Radium-223 in combination with enzalutamide in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a multi-centre, phase II open-label study

Background:

Radium-223 and enzalutamide are approved agents for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Combining radium-223 and enzalutamide to improve outcomes is of clinical interest due to their differing modes of action and non-overlapping toxicity profiles.

Methods:

This phase II study enrolled patients with mCRPC and bone metastases. Patients received six cycles of radium-223 in combination with enzalutamide, followed by enzalutamide alone. The primary endpoint was safety for the combination; secondary endpoints included radiographic/clinical progression-free survival (PFS), PSA PFS, overall survival (OS), change in alkaline phosphatase, patient-reported pain outcomes and skeletal related events.

Results:

Forty-five patients received the combination treatment: 42 patients (93.3%) received all six cycles. Fourteen patients (31.1%) developed grade 3 or 4 toxicities, most commonly fatigue and neutropaenia. Fractures during the combination period occurred in four patients (8.9%). A further 13 patients (28.9%) developed fractures after completing combination treatment, giving a total of 17 patients (37.8%) who developed a fracture at any time on study. The median time to fracture was greater than 17.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 17.2–not estimable]. The median time to PSA progression was 18.1 months (95% CI, 12.68–22.60) and the median time to radiological/clinical progression was 28.0 months (95% CI, 22.54–not reached). At the primary analysis, 19 (42.2%) out of 45 patients had died with a median OS not reached (mean 34.8 months, standard error 1.4).

Conclusion:

In men with progressive mCRPC and bone metastases, the combination of radium-223 and enzalutamide was tolerable with the majority of patients completing the combination treatment. Bone fractures during the combination period were uncommon; however, we did identify a higher incidence of fractures occurring in patients after completing combination treatment. Bone health agents should be administered and bone health should be closely monitored following treatment with radium-223 and enzalutamide.

Treating the patient and not just the cancer: therapeutic burden in prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PC) is a leading cause of death in older men. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is considered the standard-of-care for men with locally advanced disease. However, continuous androgen ablation is associated with acute and long-term adverse effects and most patients will eventually develop castration-resistant PC (CRPC). The recent approval of three, second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs), apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide, has transformed the treatment landscape of PC. Treatment with these second-generation ARIs have produced positive trends in metastasis-free survival, progression-free survival, and overall survival. For patients with non-metastatic CRPC, who are mainly asymptomatic from their disease, maintaining quality of life is a major objective when prescribing therapy. Polypharmacy for age-related comorbidities also is common in this population and may increase the potential for drug-drug interactions (DDIs).

METHOD

This review summarizes the multiple factors that may contribute to the therapeutic burden of patients with CRPC, including the interplay between age, comorbidities, concomitant medications, the use of ARIs, and financial distress.

CONCLUSIONS

As the treatment landscape in PC continues to rapidly evolve, consideration must be given to the balance between therapeutic benefits and potential treatment-emergent adverse events that may be further complicated by DDIs with concomitant medications. Patient-centered communication is a crucial aspect of alleviating this burden, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) may benefit from training in effective patient communication. HCPs should closely and frequently monitor patient treatment responses, in order to better understand symptom onset and exacerbation. Patients also should be encouraged to participate in exercise programs, and health information and support groups, which may assist them in preventing or mitigating certain determinants of the therapeutic burden associated with PC and its management.

Neurotoxicities of novel non-steroidal anti-androgens for prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Novel non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAA) are increasingly part of the management of prostate cancer. We aimed to quantify and compare the neurologic side effects of NSAA agents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Phase III randomized controlled trials evaluating NSAAs in the treatment of prostate cancer were selected by two reviewers independently in MEDLINE. A random-effects model and the Mantel-Haenszel method were used. The Odds Ratio (OR) and its 95 % confidence interval were computed. The primary endpoints were the rates of neurologic adverse events.

RESULTS

Eight phase III trials evaluating novel NSAAs (vs. non-NSAAs) were included. Fatigue (OR:1.66 [1.32-2.08]), falls (OR:1.76 [1.25-2.49]), headache (OR:1.74 [1.42-2.14]), and dizziness (OR:1.70 [1.33-2.19]) were found to be significantly associated with NSAA use.

CONCLUSIONS

NSAAs are associated with an increase in various neurologic adverse events. When NSAAs are prescribed, neurologic adverse event prevention and management strategies should be discussed and implemented.

Prospects of Treating Prostate Cancer through Apalutamide: A Mini-Review

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is considered the second most diagnosed cancer, and one of the most common causes of death from cancer in men. Apalutamide is an effective, safe, and well-tolerated agent used for the treatment of men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) and metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer (mHNPC). Androgen receptor signaling is a leading factor that drives these prostate tumors. USFDA has approved apalutamide on 14 February 2018 as an agent that targets androgen receptor signaling through inhibition causing significant improvement in metastasis-free survival in patients with prostate cancer. <P> Objective: In this review, various aspects related to apalutamide have been summarized which involve the mechanism of action, chemistry, synthesis, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, adverse reactions, and safety parameters. <P> Methods: The literature was thoroughly searched in the relevant databases to identify studies published in this field during recent years. Special attention has been given to apalutamide clinical trials phases and its promising future as one of the first-line agents for the treatment of patients with advanced prostate cancer. <P> Results: Ongoing trials are progressing for apalutamide monotherapy and also for its combinations in other disease settings. The expected results of such trials will shape the future scenario of prostate cancer therapy. <P> Conclusion: This review article has highlighted different aspects of Apalutamide like its mechanism of action, adverse effects, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, clinical trials among others. The contents of this article should make an excellent read for prospective researchers in this field.

Effectiveness of first-line abiraterone versus enzalutamide among patients ≥80 years of age with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: A retrospective propensity score-weighted comparative cohort study

BACKGROUND

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) disproportionately affects the elderly. There is limited data assessing the efficacy and tolerability of abiraterone acetate (AA) versus enzalutamide in this population.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy and tolerability of AA versus enzalutamide in patients ≥ 80 years with mCRPC.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective propensity-weighted comparative cohort study of first-line AA versus enzalutamide among patients with mCRPC aged ≥80 years.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Inverse probability treatment weights based on propensity scores were generated to assess the treatment effect of AA versus enzalutamide on time to PSA progression (TTPP), time to progression (TTP) (first of PSA/radiographic/clinical progression) and overall survival using a weighted Cox proportional hazards model. PSA response rate (PSA RR) was compared between groups using Χ².

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

One hundred fifty-three patients received AA, and 125 received enzalutamide. Enzalutamide was associated with higher PSA RR (61.6% vs 43.8%, P < 0.004), and TTP (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.88, P = 0.01) but not TTPP (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53-1.01, P = 0.06). There were significantly more dose reductions with enzalutamide (22.9% vs 44.8%, P > 0.001) but there was no interaction between median proportion of full dose received and TTPP or TTP for either drug. Rates of treatment discontinuation (for reasons other than progression) were also significantly different between AA and enzalutamide (28.8% vs 40.8%, respectively, P = 0.04). The most common reason for dose reductions and discontinuation of enzalutamide was fatigue (30.4% and 5.6%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite more dose reductions and a higher treatment discontinuation rate, enzalutamide was associated with a higher PSA RR and longer time to progression, than AA. Given that clinical outcomes were not adversely impacted by decreased treatment exposure, dose modification may be a useful treatment strategy to balance toxicity and tolerance.

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.

2020 Korean guidelines for the management of metastatic prostate cancer

In 2017, Korean Society of Medical Oncology (KSMO) published the Korean management guideline of metastatic prostate cancer. This paper is the 2nd edition of the Korean management guideline of metastatic prostate cancer. We updated recent many changes of management in metastatic prostate cancer in this 2nd edition guideline. The present guideline consists of the three categories: management of metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer; management of metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer; and clinical consideration for treating patients with metastatic prostate cancer. In category 1 and 2, levels of evidence (LEs) have been mentioned according to the general principles of evidence-based medicine. And grades of recommendation (GR) was taken into account the quality of evidence, the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, the values and preferences, and the use of resources and GR were divided into strong recommendations (SR) and weak recommendations (WR). A total of 16 key questions are selected. And we proposed recommendations and described key evidence for each recommendation. The treatment landscape of metastatic prostate cancer is changing very rapid and many trials are ongoing. To verify the results of the future trials is necessary and should be applied to the treatment for metastatic prostate cancer patients in the clinical practice. Especially, many prostate cancer patients are old age, have multiple underlying medical comorbidities, clinicians should be aware of the significance of medical management as well as clinical efficacy of systemic treatment.

Quality of life in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with enzalutamide or abiraterone: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) have similar efficacy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), but different mechanisms of action. The aim was to compare patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in men treated with enzalutamide vs AAP for mCRPC.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the literature in June 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) until the last follow-up were summarised in a narrative synthesis. Short-term changes (12 weeks) in HRQoL, measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate total score (FACT-P), were compared between treatment groups and were analysed for enzalutamide and AAP in separate meta-analyses. Higher FACT-P scores indicate better HRQoL.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included in the systematic review, four of which were randomised clinical trials (RCTs) eligible for the meta-analyses. The meta-analyses showed mean within-subject FACT-P changes from baseline to week 12 of -1.3 points (95% confidence interval [CI] -2.7; 0.1) for enzalutamide and 4.7 points (95% CI -0.1; 9.6) for AAP. One RCT and three non-randomised studies directly compared enzalutamide with AAP. The RCT showed better short-term HRQoL for AAP (6.8 FACT-P-points, 95% CI 1.7; 11.8) and better long-term HRQoL for AAP in men ≥75 years (7.35 FACT-P-points, 95% CI 2.59; 12.11). The non-randomised studies showed no difference in long-term HRQoL but had all a serious risk of bias. Limitations of the included studies include that the PRO in the included trials were inconsistently reported and that only one study defined the HRQoL measures in their published protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

AAP seems to be associated with better short-term HRQoL than enzalutamide. This difference was not apparent at longer follow-up, but the long-term studies had serious risks of bias.

Deep and ongoing response of castrate-resistant prostate cancer on very low-dose enzalutamide in an elderly chemotherapy-naïve patient: a case report

Background

Enzalutamide is an orally administered drug that blocks signaling in the androgen receptor with clinical activity in both chemotherapy–naive and post-chemotherapy patients with castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Enzalutamide is generally well-tolerated, but dose reductions are nonetheless needed in case of side effects.

Case

An 82-year-old patient with chemotherapy–naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was treated with a very low dose of 40 mg enzalutamide once daily. The trough levels of enzalutamide and the active metabolite N-desmethylenzalutamide were 4.5 mg/L and 3.0 mg/L, respectively. This exposure provided a long-term response without any significant side effects.

Conclusion

Low doses of enzalutamide may be efficacious, while also reducing the risk of side effects. Furthermore, employing a lower dose would reduce healthcare costs and increase access to enzalutamide. Studies exploring the efficacy of lower enzalutamide doses are warranted.

Examining the ability of the Cancer and Aging Research Group tool to predict toxicity in older men receiving chemotherapy or androgen-receptor-targeted therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Because multiple treatments are available for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and most patients are elderly, the prediction of toxicity risk is important. The Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG) tool predicts chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with mixed solid tumors, but has not been validated in mCRPC. In this study, its ability to predict toxicity risk with docetaxel chemotherapy (CHEMO) was validated, and its utility was examined in predicting toxicity risk with abiraterone or enzalutamide (A/E) among older adults with mCRPC.

METHODS

Men aged 65+ years were enrolled in a prospective observational study at 4 Canadian academic cancer centers. All clinically relevant grade 2 to 5 toxicities over the course of treatment were documented via structured interviews and chart review. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of toxicity.

RESULTS

Seventy-one men starting CHEMO (mean age, 73 years) and 104 men starting A/E (mean age, 76 years) were included. Clinically relevant grade 3+ toxicities occurred in 56% and 37% of CHEMO and A/E patients, respectively. The CARG tool was predictive of grade 3+ toxicities with CHEMO, which occurred in 36%, 67%, and 91% of low, moderate, and high-risk groups (P = .003). Similarly, grade 3+ toxicities occurred among A/E users in 23%, 48%, and 86% with low, moderate, and high CARG risk (P < .001). However, it was not predictive of grade 2 toxicities with either treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

There is external validation of the CARG tool in predicting grade 3+ toxicity in older men with mCRPC undergoing CHEMO and demonstrated utility during A/E therapy. This may aid with treatment decision-making.

Risk of Cognitive Effects in Comorbid Patients With Prostate Cancer Treated With Androgen Receptor Inhibitors

Prostate cancer (PC) is primarily a disease of older men. As the risk of neurocognitive decline increases as people age, cognitive dysfunction is a potential complication in men with PC, imposing detrimental effects on functional independence and quality of life. Importantly, risk of cognitive decline may increase with exposure to androgen deprivation therapy and other hormonal therapies. Particular consideration should be given to patients with castration-resistant PC (CRPC), many of whom require continuous, long-term androgen deprivation therapy combined with a second-generation androgen receptor inhibitor. Non-comparative evidence from interventional trials of androgen receptor inhibitors in men with non-metastatic CRPC suggests differential effects on cognitive function and central nervous system-related adverse events within this drug class. Drug-drug interactions with concomitant medications for chronic, non-malignant comorbidities differ among ARIs and thus may contribute further to cognitive impairment. Hence, establishing baseline cognitive function is a prerequisite to identifying subsequent clinical decline associated with androgen receptor-targeted therapies. Although brief, sensitive screening tools for cancer-related cognitive dysfunction are lacking, mental status can be ascertained from the initial medical history and neurocognitive examination, progressing to more in-depth evaluation when impairment is suspected. On-treatment neurocognitive monitoring should be integrated into regular clinical follow-up to preserve cognitive function and quality of life throughout disease management. This review summarizes the multiple factors that may contribute to cognitive decline in men with CRPC, awareness of which will assist clinicians to optimize individual treatment. Practical, clinic-based strategies for managing the risks for and symptoms of cognitive dysfunction are also discussed.

Endocrine consequences of treatment with the new androgen receptor axis-targeted agents for advanced prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the commonest non-cutaneous malignancy worldwide and the second cause of cancer death among males in the USA. Approval of the new androgen receptor axis-targeted (ARAT) agents (abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, apalutamide, and darolutamide) has altered the course of advanced PCa. We aimed to assess the endocrine and metabolic adverse events associated with treatment using ARAT compounds.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases from database inception to August 2020. We included randomized controlled trials reporting the endocrine and metabolic side effects of ARAT agents compared to each other or to placebo.

RESULTS

Although metastatic PCa remains incurable, ARAT medications combined with androgen deprivation therapy improve overall metastasis-free and progression-free survival in metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa, non-metastatic castration-resistant PCa, and metastatic castration-resistant PCa patients. This benefit comes at the cost of certain endocrine and metabolic consequences. Treatment with abiraterone acetate induces mineralocorticoid excess, hypokalemia, hypertension, elevated liver function tests, insulin resistance, and hyperglycemia. Enzalutamide may induce or worsen hypertension and increase the risk of falls and fractures in elderly patients, while common endocrine adverse events of apalutamide include hypothyroidism, hypertension, and skin rash. On the other hand, darolutamide seems to have a somewhat safer endocrine and metabolic profile.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of advanced PCa should be personalized, with administration of a combination of androgen deprivation therapy, ARAT agents, and chemotherapy being based on the patient's safety profile and the risk of side effects.

A Clinical Evaluation of Enzalutamide in Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Guiding Principles for Treatment Selection and Perspectives on Research

Enzalutamide was the first novel androgen receptor signaling inhibitor to demonstrate an overall survival benefit in non-metastatic and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC). It has emerged as one of the most commonly prescribed oral prostate cancer therapies (ARSI) by medical oncologists and urologists. Amongst a panoply of treatment options for metastatic CSPC, safe and effective utilization of enzalutamide dictates a detailed understanding of alternative therapy options and competing toxicity profiles. Ongoing research supports the potential for expanded enzalutamide use in earlier disease states, in combination with other systemic agents and as monotherapy (without androgen deprivation therapy). Optimal application of enzalutamide will ultimately require greater insight and attention to mitigating strategies for treatment-associated fatigue, cognitive impairment, and functional decline. This publication will comprehensively analyze the clinical evidence and guiding principles of enzalutamide use in CSPC. We will also provide a critical review of ongoing and future ARSI research focusing on pharmacologic approaches to overcome treatment resistance and strategies to improve treatment-associated functional impairment.

Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Receptors in Prostate Cancer: Molecular Aspects and Biological Functions

Pituitary Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone receptors (GnRH-R) mediate the activity of the hypothalamic decapeptide GnRH, thus playing a key role in the regulation of the reproductive axis. Early-stage prostate cancer (PCa) is dependent on serum androgen levels, and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), based on GnRH agonists and antagonists, represents the standard therapeutic approach for PCa patients. Unfortunately, the tumor often progresses towards the more aggressive castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) stage. GnRH receptors are also expressed in CRPC tissues, where their binding to both GnRH agonists and antagonists is associated with significant antiproliferative/proapoptotic, antimetastatic and antiangiogenic effects, mediated by the Gαi/cAMP signaling cascade. GnRH agonists and antagonists are now considered as an effective therapeutic strategy for CRPC patients with many clinical trials demonstrating that the combined use of these drugs with standard therapies (i.e., docetaxel, enzalutamide, abiraterone) significantly improves disease-free survival. In this context, GnRH-based bioconjugates (cytotoxic drugs covalently linked to a GnRH-based decapeptide) have been recently developed. The rationale of this treatment is that the GnRH peptide selectively binds to its receptors, delivering the cytotoxic drug to CRPC cells while sparing nontumor cells. Some of these compounds have already entered clinical trials.

Evaluation of Fall and Fracture Risk Among Men With Prostate Cancer Treated With Androgen Receptor Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

A high incidence of fall and fracture in a subset of patients treated with androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs) has been reported, although the relative risk (RR) of fall and fracture for patients who receive ARI treatment is unknown.

Objective

To evaluate whether treatment with ARIs is associated with an elevated relative risk for fall and fracture in patients with prostate cancer.

Data Sources

Cochrane, Scopus, and MedlinePlus databases were searched from inception through August 2019.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials comparing patients with prostate cancer treated with any ARI or placebo were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two independent reviewers used a standardized data extraction and quality assessment form. A mixed effects model was used to estimate the effects of ARI on relative risk, with included studies treated as random effects and study groups treated as fixed effects in the pooled analysis. Sample size for each study was used to weight the mixed model. Statistical analysis was performed from August to October 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was RR of fall and fractures for patients receiving ARI treatment.

Results

Eleven studies met this study's inclusion criteria. The total population was 11 382 men (median [range] age: 72 [43-97] years), with 6536 in the ARI group and 4846 in the control group. Participants in the ARI group could have received enzalutamide, apalutamide, or darolutamide in combination with androgen deprivation therapy or other enzalutamide combinations; patients in the control group could have received placebo, bicalutamide, or abiraterone. The reported incidence of fall was 525 falls (8%) in the ARI group and 221 falls (5%) in the control group. The incidence of fracture was 242 fractures (4%) in the ARI group and 107 fractures (2%) in the control group. Use of an ARI was associated with an increased risk of falls and fractures: all-grade falls (RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.42-2.24; P < .001); grade 3 or greater fall (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.27-2.08; P < .001); all-grade fracture (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.35-1.89; P < .001), and likely grade 3 or greater fracture (RR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.12-2.63; P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

Use of ARI was associated with an increase in falls and fractures in patients with prostate cancer as assessed by a retrospective systematic review and meta-analysis. Further studies are warranted to identify and understand potential mechanisms and develop strategies to decrease falls and fractures associated with ARI use.

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II-2020 Update: Treatment of Relapsing and Metastatic Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The working panel performed a literature review of the new data (2016-2019). The guidelines were updated, and the levels of evidence and/or grades of recommendation were added based on a systematic review of the literature.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography computed tomography scanning has developed an increasingly important role in men with biochemical recurrence after local therapy. Early salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy appears as effective as adjuvant radiotherapy and, in a subset of patients, should be combined with androgen deprivation. New treatments have become available for men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PCa), nonmetastatic CRPC, and metastatic CRPC, along with a role for local radiotherapy in men with low-volume metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa. Also included is information on quality of life outcomes in men with PCa.

CONCLUSIONS

The knowledge in the field of advanced and metastatic PCa and CRPC is changing rapidly. The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for use in clinical practice. These PCa guidelines are first endorsed by the EANM and reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management. A full version is available from the EAU office or online (http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/).

PATIENT SUMMARY

This article summarises the guidelines for the treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. These guidelines are evidence based and guide the clinician in the discussion with the patient on the treatment decisions to be taken. These guidelines are updated every year; this summary spans the 2017-2020 period of new evidence.

Falls in older adults with cancer: an updated systematic review of prevalence, injurious falls, and impact on cancer treatment

PURPOSE

This update of our 2016 systematic review answers the following questions: (1) How often do older adults with cancer fall? (2) What are the predictors for falls? (3) What are the rates and predictors of injurious falls? (4) What are the circumstances and outcomes of falls? (5) How do falls in older patients affect subsequent cancer treatment? and a new research question, (6) Which fall reduction interventions are efficacious in this population?

METHODS

MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase were searched (September 2015-January 25, 2019). Eligible studies included clinical trials and cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies published in English in which the sample (or subgroup) included adults aged ≥ 60, with cancer, in whom falls were examined as an outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 2521 titles were reviewed, 67 full-text articles were screened for eligibility, and 30 new studies were identified. The majority involved the outpatient setting (n = 19) utilizing cross-sectional method (n = 18). Sample size ranged from 21 to 17,958. Fall rates ranged from 1.52 to 3.41% per 1000 patient days (inpatient setting) and from 39%/24 months to 64%/12 months (outpatient setting). One out of the 6 research questions contributed to a new finding: one study reported that 1 in 20 older patients experienced impact on cancer treatment due to falls. No consistent predictors for falls/fall injuries and no studies on fall reduction interventions in the geriatric oncology setting were identified.

CONCLUSION

This updated review highlights a new gap in knowledge pertaining to interventions to prevent falls. Additionally, new knowledge also emerged in terms of impact of falls on cancer treatment; however, further research may increase generalizability. Falls and fall-related injuries are common in older adults with cancer and may affect subsequent cancer treatment. Further studies on predictors of falls, subsequent impacts, and fall reduction in the oncology setting are warranted.

A review of prostate cancer treatment impact on the CNS and cognitive function

BACKGROUND

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is the backbone of systemic therapy for men with prostate cancer (PC); almost one-half of patients receive treatment during their disease course. However, a range of cognitive and other central nervous system (CNS) changes have been associated with ADT. In this review, we discuss extant data describing these complications and the mechanisms through which medications used to deliver ADT may affect them.

METHODS

We performed a MEDLINE search for appropriate papers published between January 2000 and December 2018. Relevant papers were selected and reviewed; additional publications were identified by manually assessing references from included papers, and recent congress abstracts.

RESULTS

Of ~230 search outputs, 33 were selected for inclusion. Some studies suggested a clear association between ADT and CNS effects in men with PC, whereas others did not. Accurate assessment is limited by test instrument variability, inadequate sample sizes, short follow-up duration, and limited prospective longitudinal studies. The approved second-generation androgen receptor (AR) inhibitors enzalutamide and apalutamide were associated with some CNS-related adverse events (AEs) in clinical studies, including fatigue (which can interfere with cognitive function). The androgen synthesis inhibitor abiraterone acetate was associated with a low CNS AE profile when compared with enzalutamide. The AR antagonist darolutamide demonstrated a comparable incidence of cognitive disorder in clinical trials to that of ADT alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Adequately caring for men receiving ADT requires an understanding of the symptoms, incidence and magnitude of cognitive effects, and a feasible approach to cognitive assessment and management in clinical settings. Some CNS effects could relate to blood-brain barrier penetration and direct AR inhibitor activity; drug safety profiles may differ by the degree of blood-brain barrier penetration of particular agents. Ongoing clinical trials seek to define the CNS tolerability of newer AR pathway-targeted therapy options more clearly.

Pharmacotherapeutic strategies for castrate-resistant prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is a potentially symptomatic disease with an eventual lethal outcome. Novel pharmaceutical agents are continuously studied with encouraging results in CRPC.

AREAS COVERED

In this perspective, the authors present established and promising pharmacotherapeutic strategies for the management of CRPC; both with and without metastases. Apart from the different treatment strategies, the authors present the relevant sequence of treatment through disease progression.

EXPERT OPINION

Usually, docetaxel should be considered the first line treatment in mCRPC. Abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisone or enzalutamide (ENZ) could be alternative treatments in chemotherapy naïve patients. Sipuleucel-T has been approved for the treatment of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC. Ra-223 has been approved for patients with mCRPC with symptomatic bone metastases (not visceral metastases). Cabazitaxel has been approved as the second line treatment to docetaxel in mCRPC. No differences in the overall survival has been observed between sequences starting with docetaxel versus AA/ENZ. Between AA-to-ENZ and ENZ-to-AA sequence, the AA-to-ENZ sequence appeared to be more favorable than the ENZ-to-AA regarding progression-free survival but not overall survival. Carbazitaxel seemed to retain its activity regardless of the treatment sequence. Of note, ENZ and apalutamide have been approved in non-metastatic CRPC.

Risk Assessment and Considerations for Proper Management of Elderly Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Treatment decisions for elderly men with prostate cancer are complicated by the intersection of competing risks of cancer, potential complications of treatment, and individual patients' comorbidities.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of data guiding the assessment of elderly prostate cancer patients that addresses the risk from cancer and treatment, and to discuss a patient-centered approach to incorporating these factors into decision making.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Evidence was gathered via a systematic review of the current literature. The search strategy used the terms prostate cancer, elderly, geriatric, >75 yr of age, risk assessment, and treatment in several combinations, and was limited to phase ≥ II clinical trials published between January 2008 and November 2018. Additional supporting literature for the discussion was pulled by hand search.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The benefits of treatment identified for systemic therapies commonly used to treat men with prostate in general extend to elderly patients. Evidence supports a multifaceted assessment of the risks of cancer and aging, and an understanding of the side effects of treatment to optimally guide therapeutic decision making for elderly patients. There is little evidence defining a geriatric risk stratification system specific to prostate cancer, and recommendations are predominantly based on adapted geriatric oncology approaches and expert consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

The care of elderly men with prostate cancer should incorporate a review of cancer risk, an assessment of aging, and an understanding of the effects of treatment to provide the patient with thorough and personalized guidance for treatment decisions. Future studies of elderly men with prostate cancer can define and validate ideal risk stratification methods as well as management approaches that may be distinct from those for younger populations.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Treatment decisions for elderly men with prostate cancer require consideration of the risk posed by the cancer coupled with an understanding of the patient's general health status.

Age, Gleason Score, and PSA are important prognostic factors for survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Results of The Uroncor Group (Uro-Oncological Tumors) of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR)

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) has changed significantly in recent years. Inhibitors of androgen receptors have shown especially significant benefits in overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), with a good toxicity profile. Treatment selection depends on the patient's individual clinical, radiological, and biological characteristics.

OBJECTIVE

To describe treatment outcomes (efficacy, toxicity) in a cohort of patients with mCRPC in Spain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Multicenter, retrospective study of patients with mCRPC included in a database of the Urological Tumour Working Group (URONCOR) of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR). Metastatic CRPC was defined according to the prostate cancer working group 3 (PCWG3) criteria. The Kaplan-Meier technique was used to evaluate OS and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE, v.4.0) were used to assess toxicity. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to identify the factors significantly associated with OS.

RESULTS

A total of 314 patients from 17 hospitals in Spain diagnosed with mCRPC between June 2010 and September 2017 were included in this study. Mean age at diagnosis was 68 years (range 45-89). At a median follow-up of 35 months, OS at 1, 3, and 5 years were 92%, 38%, and 28%, respectively. Grades 1-2 and grade 3 toxicity rates were, respectively, 68% and 19%. No grade 4 toxicities were observed. On the multivariate analysis, the following factors were significantly associated with OS: age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.42, p = 0.010), PSA value at diagnosis of mCRPC (HR 0.55, p = 0.008), and Gleason score (HR 0.61, p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Age, Gleason score, and PSA at diagnosis of mCRPC are independently associated with overall survival in patients with mCRPC. The efficacy and toxicity outcomes in this patient cohort treated in radiation oncology departments in Spain are consistent with previous reports.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019

BACKGROUND

Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To present the results from the APCCC 2019.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Similar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naïve prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Panellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making.

Incidence of the adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer: a systematic literature review

PURPOSE

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has broad application in the treatment of prostate cancer (PC) and is associated with numerous, debilitating adverse effects. Increasing use of ADT for PC, longer timeframe for treatment (increased uptake of PSA testing and earlier diagnosis), as well as improved survival and an ageing population, means patients can live for a considerable period of time on or after ADT, experiencing these adverse effects. A number of systematic reviews of adverse effects of ADT for PC exist; however, no single systematic review has previously examined the evidence for all adverse effects, including newer forms of ADT.

METHODS

A systematic review of existing systematic reviews of ADT for PC was conducted (2010-February 2019), as per Cochrane guidelines, to identify the highest level of risk/incidence evidence available, supplemented by evidence drawn from individual studies where no systematic review existed.

RESULTS

Incidence data was generated for 19 adverse effect subgroups, classified according to the common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE).

CONCLUSION

Incidence of adverse effects provides valuable information for future burden of disease studies. This information can better guide clinical management to reduce symptoms for patients and assist patients to make more informed decisions about their treatment, potentially improving disease outcomes. It also highlights the importance of supportive care for PC patients receiving ADT and their carers. For analysts conducting economic evaluations, the inclusion of adverse effects in PC decision analytic models can provide more comprehensive and accurate information for decision makers.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Androgens in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the sixth primary cause of cancer death. However, conflicts are present about the efficacy and safety of Non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAA) for its treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NSAAs versus any comparator for the treatment of advanced or metastatic PCa (mPCa).

METHODS

MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. References of included studies and clinicaltrials.gov were also searched for relevant studies. Only English language studies after 1990 were considered for review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of NSAAs as compared with any other comparator including surgery or chemotherapy in mPCa patients were included. The outcomes include efficacy, safety and the tolerability of the treatment. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used for quality assessment. Two authors were independently involved in the selection, extraction and quality assessment of included studies and disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight out of 1307 non-duplicate RCTs with 29154 patients were considered for the review. NSAA showed significantly better progression-free survival [PFS] (Hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.78; P=0.0001), time to distant metastasis or death [TTD] (HR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; P<0.0001), objective response (Odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI 1.06-2.54; P=0.03) and clinical benefits (OR, 1.33; 95% CI 1.08-1.63; P=0.006) as compared to the control group. There was no significant difference observed between the groups in terms of overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.87-1.03; P=0.18) and time to progression (HR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.77-1.11; P=0.43). Treatment-related adverse events were more with the NSAA group, but the discontinuation due to lack of efficacy reason was 43% significantly lesser than the control group in patients with mPCa. Rest of the outcomes were appeared to be non-significant.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with NSAA was appeared to be better efficacious with respect to PFS, TTD, and response rate with considerable adverse events when compared to the control group in patients with metastatic PCa.