Search

What is this summary about? This summary is about the ongoing research study called TALAPRO-3. This study is testing the use of two medicines called talazoparib and enzalutamide. The two medicines are being used together as a treatment for patients with a type of cancer called metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer and changes in specific DNA repair genes within their tumors. The study began in May 2021, and includes 599 patients from 27 countries. What is metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer? Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer is known as mCSPC for short. It is cancer that has started in the prostate and spread to other body parts. The prostate is a gland below the bladder and helps make semen (the liquid that contains sperm). Castration-sensitive means that the cancer responds to treatments that lower testosterone in the blood. Which medicines are being tested? In this study, some patients will take talazoparib plus enzalutamide while others will take a placebo plus enzalutamide. Talazoparib and enzalutamide are two different cancer medicines. Talazoparib is not currently used to treat patients with mCSPC. Enzalutamide is used to treat patients with prostate cancer. Talazoparib plus enzalutamide is being compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide to see if patients live longer without their cancer getting worse, or them dying, when taking talazoparib plus enzalutamide or when taking a placebo plus enzalutamide. What are the aims of the TALAPRO-3 study? This study aims to find out if treatment with talazoparib plus enzalutamide increases the length of time the patients in the study live without their cancer getting worse, or them dying, compared with treatment with a placebo plus enzalutamide. The study will also measure how long the patients in the study live, the number and types of side effects they have, their general health and quality of life, and whether there are changes in how patients report their pain. Clinical Trial Registration:NCT03395197 (TALAPRO-2) (ClinicalTrials.gov) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is this summary about? This summary describes the results from the TALAPRO-2 research study (also known as a clinical trial). The TALAPRO-2 study tested the combination of two medicines called talazoparib plus enzalutamide. This combination of medicines was used as the first treatment for adult patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The combination of talazoparib plus enzalutamide was compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide. What is metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer? Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is a type of cancer that starts in the prostate and has spread to other parts of the body. Castration-resistant means that the cancer continues to grow even when testosterone levels in the blood are reduced to very low levels. Taking medicines to lower testosterone levels in the blood is a standard treatment for men with advanced prostate cancer. What are the aims of the TALAPRO-2 trial? TALAPRO-2 looked at if combining talazoparib plus enzalutamide would increase the length of time patients lived before their cancer got worse or they died compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide. Researchers looked at how treatment affected the size and number of tumors and the length of time before patients needed to change to a new cancer medicine. Researchers also looked at any side effects patients had during the study. What are the key takeaways? A total of 805 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer took part in the study. Compared with patients who took a placebo plus enzalutamide, the group of patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide had a 37% reduced risk of their cancer getting worse or dying. Some patients had tumors that at the start of the study could be measured with scans. Sixty-two percent of patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide had their tumors decrease or shrink to the point that they could no longer be seen on scans versus 44% of patients who took a placebo plus enzalutamide. Patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide were more likely to have a longer time before they needed to change to a new cancer medicine. The most common side effects of talazoparib plus enzalutamide were low levels of red blood cells (66% of patients) and neutrophils (36% of patients), and excessive tiredness or exhaustion (34% of patients). Clinical Trial Registration:NCT03395197 (TALAPRO-2) (ClinicalTrials.gov) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Teverelix drug product (DP) is a parenteral gonadotropin‐releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist that has been successfully tested in phase 2 trials for hormone‐sensitive advanced prostate cancer (APC) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). In previous APC trials, teverelix DP was administered as intramuscular (IM) and subcutaneous (SC) injections, using a loading dose and (in a single trial) a maintenance dose. Our objective was to derive an optimal dosing regimen for phase 3 clinical development, using a pharmacometrics modeling approach. Data from 9 phase 2 studies (229 patients) was utilized to develop a population pharmacokinetic (PK) model that described the concentration profile accommodating both IM and SC routes of administration. A 2‐compartment model with sequential first‐order absorption (slow and fast) and lag times best described the PK profiles of teverelix following SC and IM administration. An indirect response model with inhibition of production rate was fit to describe testosterone (T) concentrations based on physiological relevance. The final population PK–pharmacodynamic model was used to conduct simulations of various candidate dosing regimens to select the optimal dosing regimen to achieve clinical castration (T < 0.5 ng/mL by day 28) and to sustain clinical castration for 26 weeks. Model simulation showed that a loading dose of 360 mg SC and 180 mg IM with a maintenance dose of 360 mg SC 6‐weekly (Q6W) starting at day 28 can achieve a ≥95% castration rate up to 52 weeks. This dose regimen was selected for phase 3 clinical development, which includes cardiovascular safety assessment in comparison to a GnRH agonist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) are usually asymptomatic and seek treatments that improve survival but have a low risk of adverse events. Darolutamide, a structurally distinct androgen receptor inhibitor (ARi), significantly reduced the risk of metastasis and death versus placebo in ARAMIS. We assessed the extended safety and tolerability of darolutamide and the time-course profile of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) related to ARis and androgen-suppressive treatment. Patients and Methods Patients with nmCRPC were randomized 2:1 to darolutamide (n  = 955) or placebo (n  = 554). After trial unblinding, patients could receive open-label darolutamide. Tolerability and TEAEs were assessed every 16 weeks. Time interval–specific new and cumulative event rates were determined during the first 24 months of the double-blind period. Results Darolutamide remained well tolerated during the double-blind and open-label periods, with 98.8% of patients receiving the full planned dose. The incidence of TEAEs of interest in the darolutamide group was low and ≤2% different from that in the placebo group, except for fatigue. When incidences were adjusted for exposure time, there were minimal differences between the darolutamide double-blind and double-blind plus open-label periods. The rate of initial onset and cumulative incidence of grade 3/4 TEAEs and serious TEAEs were similar for darolutamide and placebo groups over 24 months. Conclusion Extended treatment with darolutamide was well tolerated and no new safety signals were observed. Most ARi-associated and androgen-suppressive treatment–related TEAEs occurred at low incidences with darolutamide, were similar to placebo, and showed minimal increase over time with continued treatment. Trial number ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02200614 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) is the standard of care for patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) after transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT). BCG in combination with programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors may yield greater anti-tumor activity compared with either agent alone. CREST is a phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of the subcutaneous PD-1 inhibitor sasanlimab in combination with BCG for patients with BCG-naive high-risk NMIBC. Eligible participants are randomized to receive sasanlimab plus BCG (induction ± maintenance) or BCG alone for up to 25 cycles within 12 weeks of TURBT. The primary outcome is event-free survival. Secondary outcomes include additional efficacy end points and safety. The target sample size is around 1000 participants. Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is the most common type of bladder cancer. Most people have surgery to remove the cancer cells while leaving the rest of the bladder intact. This is called transurethral resection of a bladder tumor (TURBT). For people with high-risk NMIBC, a medicine called Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) is placed directly inside the bladder after TURBT. A 'high risk' classification means that the cancer is more likely to spread or come back after treatment. Some people's cancer does not respond to BCG or returns after BCG treatment. Researchers are currently looking at whether BCG combined with other immunotherapies may prevent cancer growth more than BCG on its own. Immunotherapy helps the immune system recognize and kill cancer cells. Sasanlimab is an immunotherapy medicine that is not yet approved to treat people with NMIBC. It is given as an injection under the skin. In this CREST study, researchers are looking at how safe and effective sasanlimab plus BCG is for people with high-risk NMIBC. Around 1000 people are taking part in CREST. They must have had TURBT 12 weeks or less before joining the study. Researchers want to know how long people live without certain events occurring, such as bladder cancer cells returning. A plain language summary of this article can be found as Supplementary Material. Clinical Trial Registration:NCT04165317; 2019-003375-19 (EudraCT) (ClinicalTrials.gov) CREST is a phase III study evaluating the subcutaneous PD-1 inhibitor sasanlimab in combination with BCG versus current standard-of-care BCG monotherapy for patients with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To provide a practical review of immune‐related adverse events (irAEs) that may be encountered in uro‐oncology patients. Patients and Methods: We conducted a literature review of studies reporting irAEs including articles published through September 2023 for uro‐oncology patients and the potential relevancy for the practicing urologist. Results: Immunotherapy has revolutionised cancer treatment, extending its impact to urological malignancies including for patients with urothelial, kidney, and prostate cancers. Immuno‐oncology (IO) compounds have achieved measurable and durable responses in these cancers. Urologists, choosing to administer or co‐manage IO patient care, should be prepared to understand, evaluate, and treat irAEs. This review discusses the spectrum of irAEs that can be encountered. Ongoing trials are exploring the use of immunotherapy at earlier stages of uro‐oncological diseases, thus underscoring the evolving landscape of urological cancer treatment. Paradoxically, some data suggests that the occurrence of irAEs is associated with improved oncological outcomes. Conclusions: Immune‐related AEs, while manageable, may be life‐threatening and require lifelong therapy. A thorough understanding of AEs and toxicity of a novel drug class is imperative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Few studies have explored the potential for pharmacological interventions to delay disease progression in patients undergoing active surveillance (AS). This preplanned transcriptomic analysis of patient samples from the ENACT trial aims to identify biomarkers in patients on AS who are at increased risk for disease progression or who may derive the greatest benefit from enzalutamide treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the phase II ENACT (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02799745) trial, patients on AS were randomly assigned 1:1 to 160 mg orally once daily enzalutamide monotherapy or continued AS for 1 year. Transcriptional analyses were conducted on biopsies collected at trial screening, year 1, and year 2. Three gene expression signatures were evaluated in samples collected at screening and in available samples from patients on AS at any time during surveillance (expanded cohort): Decipher genomic classifier, androgen receptor activity (AR-A) score, and Prediction Analysis of Microarray 50 (PAM50) cell subtype signature. RESULTS: The Decipher genomic classifier score was prognostic; higher scores were associated with disease progression in the expanded cohort and AS arm of the expanded cohort. Patients with higher Decipher scores had greater positive treatment effect from enzalutamide as measured by time to secondary rise in prostate-specific antigen >25% above baseline. In patients treated with enzalutamide, higher AR-A scores and PAM50 luminal subtypes were associated with a greater likelihood of negative biopsy incidence at year 2. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that the Decipher genomic classifier may be prognostic for disease progression in AS patients with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Higher Decipher and AR-A scores, as well as PAM50 luminal subtypes, may also serve as biomarkers for treatment response. Higher Decipher or AR-A score, or PAM50 luminal subtype, may predict greater response to enzalutamide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Effective bladder-preserving therapeutic options are needed for patients with bacillus Calmette-Gue'rin unresponsive non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Nadofaragene firadenovec-vncg (Adstiladrin®) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as the first gene therapy in urology and the first intravesical gene therapy indicated for the treatment of adult patients with high-risk bacillus Calmette-Gue'rin-unresponsive non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer with carcinoma in situ with or without papillary tumors. The proposed mechanism of action underlying nadofaragene firadenovec efficacy is likely due to the pleiotropic nature of interferon-a and its direct and indirect antitumor activities. Direct activities include cell death and the mediation of an antiangiogenic effect, and indirect activities are those initiated through immunomodulation of the innate and adaptive immune responses. The sustained expression of interferon-a that results from this treatment modality contributes to a durable response. This review provides insight into potential mechanisms of action underlying nadofaragene firadenovec efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in combination with androgen-receptor signaling inhibitors are a promising therapeutic option for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations. Here, we describe the design and rationale of the multinational, phase III, TALAPRO-3 study comparing talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide in patients with mCSPC and HRR gene alterations. The primary end point is investigator-assessed radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) per RECIST 1.1 in soft tissue, or per PCWG3 criteria in bone. The TALAPRO-3 study will demonstrate whether the addition of talazoparib can improve the efficacy of enzalutamide as assessed by rPFS in patients with mCSPC and HRR gene alterations undergoing androgen deprivation therapy. Clinical Trial Registration:NCT04821622 (ClinicalTrials.gov) Registry Name: Study of Talazoparib With Enzalutamide in Men With DDR Gene Mutated mCSPC. Date of Registration: 29 March 2021. TALAPRO-3 is a phase III, randomized study that aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide in men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) and homologous recombination repair gene alterations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Opinion Statement: Patients with biochemical recurrent prostate cancer (BCR) are a heterogeneous group, whereby a personalized approach to management is critical. Patients with high-risk features such as PSA doubling time (PSADT) ≤ 9–12 months warrant earlier imaging for metastasis detection and consideration for intensified therapy (beyond intermittent androgen deprivation alone) during this phase of BCR-only disease. The BCR phase represents a unique opportunity to impact disease survival and delay metastasis progression. There is compelling evidence from the EMBARK trial that ADT monotherapy is no longer the optimal consideration for high-risk BCR patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To understand the treatment plans suggested for BCG-unresponsive non-muscle invasive disease (NMIBC) patients in the Arab countries and therapeutic decisions applied for BCG-naive patients during BCG shortage time. Methods: A 10-minute online survey was distributed through the Arab Association of Urology (AAU) office to urologists in the Arab countries who treat patients with NMIBC. Results: One hundred six urologists responded to the survey. The majority of urologists had treated, in the past 6 months, > 10 patients with NMIBC who were considered BCG-unresponsive (55% of respondents). Radical cystectomy (RC) was the most popular treatment option (recommended by 50%) for these patients. This was followed by intravesical chemotherapy (30%), repeat BCG therapy (12%), resection with ongoing surveillance (8%). Clinical trials and intravenous checkpoint inhibitors were never selected. The most preferred intravesical chemotherapy was by ranking: 60% gemcitabine, 19% mitomycin C, 8% docetaxel, 8% gemcitabine/docetaxel, 4% sequential gemcitabine/mitomycin C, and 1% valrubicin. The use of intravesical chemotherapy appears limited by Arab urologists due to concerns regarding clinical efficacy (fear of progression) and the lack of clear recommendations by urology societies. Given the BCG shortage, which may vary per Arab country, Arab urologists have adjusted by prioritizing BCG for T1 and carcinoma in situ (CIS) patients over Ta, adapting intravesical chemotherapy, and reducing the dose/strength of BCG administered. Most physicians report an eagerness to utilize novel therapies to address the BCG deficit, especially to try intravesical chemotherapy. Conclusions: Even though Arab urologists are in the majority of cases selecting RC for BCG-unresponsive cases, one-third of them are most recently initiating intravesical chemotherapy as an alternative option. To further assist Arab urologists in the appropriate selection of BCG unresponsive high risk NMIBC patient treatments, enhanced education and pathway protocols are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In the ARASENS trial (NCT02799602), darolutamide in combination with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and docetaxel significantly reduced the risk of death by 32.5% (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.80; P  < .0001) compared with placebo plus ADT with docetaxel in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). We present efficacy and safety of darolutamide versus placebo in Black patients from ARASENS. Patients and Methods Patients with mHSPC were randomized 1:1 to darolutamide 600 mg or placebo twice daily in combination with ADT and docetaxel. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Key secondary endpoints included time to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and safety. Results In ARASENS, 54 Black patients received darolutamide (n  = 26) or placebo (n  = 28) plus ADT and docetaxel. In Black patients, overall survival favored darolutamide versus placebo (median, not reached vs. 38.7 months; stratified HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.17-1.02), with 4-year survival rates of 62% versus 41%. The darolutamide group also had longer time to CRPC compared with the placebo group (median, not reached vs.12.6 months; HR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.02-0.30). The safety profile of darolutamide in Black patients was consistent with that observed for the overall ARASENS population (grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events, TEAEs: 61.5% vs. 66.1%; serious TEAEs: 42.3% vs. 44.8%). Conclusion In this small population of Black patients with mHSPC from the ARASENS trial, darolutamide was associated with an improvement in survival and time to CRPC and was well tolerated. Efficacy and safety findings in Black patients were consistent with the overall ARASENS population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cardiovascular (CV) events are the leading cause of death in prostate cancer. Men with prostate cancer are likely to have CV risk factors and use CV-related concomitant medications. In the phase 3 HERO study, a 54% lower incidence of major adverse cardiac events was reported in men treated with the oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist, relugolix, vs leuprolide. Herein, we characterize the impact of concomitant CV therapies on efficacy and safety in the HERO study. Methods: In HERO, 930 men with advanced prostate cancer (APC) were randomized 2:1 and treated with relugolix (120 mg orally once daily; after single 360 mg loading dose) or leuprolide (injections every 3 months) for 48 weeks. Subgroups analyzed included men who received antihypertensives, antithrombotics, or lipid-modifying therapies (LMAs), as well as the most common drug classes (> 10%) and single most common agent within each class. Assessments included sustained testosterone suppression to castrate levels (< 50 ng/dL) through 48 weeks and safety. Results: Antihypertensives, antithrombotics, and LMAs were utilized by 52.7%, 39.1%, and 39.6% of men in HERO, respectively. In the main subgroups, point estimates for sustained castration rates were generally consistent with overall estimates of relugolix and leuprolide observed in the overall population. Sustained castration rates were also mostly consistent for men taking the most common drug classes and individual agents in each class (losartan [n = 103]: relugolix, 95.4% vs leuprolide, 80.6%; amlodipine [n = 229]: 97.2% vs 85.5%; metoprolol [n = 88]: 95.7% vs 86.9%; acetylsalicylic acid [n = 259]: 97.0% vs 92.1%; clopidogrel [n = 43]: 96.4% vs 86.7%; simvastatin [n = 78]: 98.0% vs 87.3%). Incidence and types of adverse events (AEs) among men who received these medications were mostly consistent with overall population results, with some increases in grade ≥ 3 and fatal AEs. Conclusion: Relugolix suppressed testosterone and was generally well tolerated when given with concomitant CV agents. Trial Registration: Clinical Trial ID NCT03085095. Prior Presentation: Data presented at 15th Annual Genitourinary Cancers Symposium; February 17–19, 2022, San Francisco, CA, USA [Abstract 101, Poster board E11]. The published abstract from this presentation can be found at https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2022.40.6_suppl.101. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: An advanced prostate cancer research study known as HERO compared the ability of the medications relugolix and leuprolide to lower testosterone. The goal was to lower the testosterone to sustained castration levels, which is defined as below 50 ng/dL. This analysis evaluated how long an individual's disease progressed while their testosterone remained at castration levels during the study. This analysis is called castration resistance-free survival (CRFS) and compared men receiving relugolix or leuprolide in two populations: the group of individuals with metastatic disease (or disease that has progressed beyond the prostate) and the overall group of individuals enrolled in the study (that is those with and those without metastatic disease). This analysis showed that CRFS for relugolix and the standard-of-care leuprolide were the same in the population of men with metastatic disease as well as in the overall population of the HERO study. Background: Relugolix is an oral GnRH receptor antagonist approved for men with advanced prostate cancer. Relugolix treatment has demonstrated an ability to lower testosterone to sustained castration levels in the phase 4 HERO study. Herein, we describe the results of a secondary endpoint of castration resistance-free survival (CRFS) during 48 weeks of treatment and profile patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Methods: Subjects were 2:1 randomized to either relugolix 120 mg orally once daily (after a single 360 mg loading dose) or 3-monthly injections of leuprolide for 48 weeks. CRFS, defined as the time from the date of first dose to the date of confirmed prostate-specific antigen progression while castrated or death due to any reason was conducted in the metastatic disease population and the overall modified intention-to-treat (mITT) populations. Results: The CRFS analysis (mITT population) included 1074 men (relugolix: n = 717; leuprolide: n = 357) with advanced prostate cancer as well as 434 men (relugolix: n = 290; leuprolide: n = 144) with metastatic prostate cancer. In the metastatic disease populations, CRFS rates were 74.3% (95% CI: 68.6%, 79.2%) and 75.3% (95% CI: 66.7%, 81.9%) in the relugolix and leuprolide groups, respectively (hazard ratio: 1.03 [0.68, 1.57]; p = 0.84) at week 48. Results in the overall mITT population were similar to the metastatic population. No new safety findings were identified. Conclusions: In men with metastatic disease or in the overall population of the HERO study, CRFS assessed during the 48-week treatment with relugolix was not significantly different than standard-of-care leuprolide. Relugolix had similar efficacy for men with/without CRFS progression events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To characterize the impact of concomitant prostate cancer treatments with use of relugolix in advanced prostate cancer, a subgroup and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses of the HERO study was undertaken. Treatment with relugolix was associated with similar efficacy and safety profiles with and without concomitant enzalutamide or docetaxel. Standard-of-care use of relugolix in combination with these agents is supported by these data. Background: To characterize the impact of concomitant prostate cancer treatments with the use of relugolix, the oral GnRH receptor antagonist, in advanced prostate cancer, a subgroup and phar macokinetic/phar macodynamic analyses of the HERO study was undertaken. Patients and Methods: Overall, 934 patients were randomized 2:1 to receive relugolix 120 mg orally once daily or leuprolide injections every 12 weeks for 48 weeks. In the setting of rising PSA, patients could receive enzalutamide or docetaxel 2 months after study initiation. Assessments included sustained testosterone suppression to castrate levels (< 50 ng/dL) through 48 weeks and safety parameters. Subgroups analyzed included patients with or without concomitant enzalutamide or docetaxel. A sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint was performed excluding patients who received concomitant therapies that may affect testosterone. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses of 20 participants in the relugolix treatment group assessed the net effect of enzalutamide on exposure to relugolix. Results: Overall, 125 patients (13.4%) took concomitant therapies that could impact testosterone levels. Enzalutamide (n = 23) was the most frequently used therapy in the relugolix (2.7%) and leuprolide groups (1.9%). Docetaxel (n = 13) was used by 1.3% and 1.6% of patients in the relugolix and leuprolide groups, respectively. All other relevant concomitant therapy were used in < 1% of population. Sensitivity analysis showed concomitant therapy did not impact the testosterone levels. Castration rates were similar with and without concomitant use of enzalutamide or docetaxel. No clinically relevant differences in adverse events were observed between subgroups in either treatment group. No differences in relugolix C trough or testosterone concentrations were observed, suggesting that any induction or inhibition properties of enzalutamide on relugolix metabolism result in a neutral net effect on relugolix exposure and testosterone suppression. Conclusion: Treatment with relugolix was associated with similar efficacy and safety profiles with and without concomitant enzalutamide or docetaxel. Standard-of-care use of relugolix in combination with these agents is supported by these data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), a cornerstone of prostate cancer treatment, is commonly co-prescribed as combination therapy. Objective: To better understand the safety and tolerability profile of relugolix, an oral non-peptide gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist, in combination with abiraterone acetate (abiraterone) and apalutamide, a phase I study was undertaken. Patients and Methods: This is an ongoing, 52-week, open-label, parallel cohort study of relugolix in combination with abiraterone in men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) or metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) [Part 1] and apalutamide in men with mCSPC or non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) [Part 2]. Eligible patients treated with leuprolide acetate or degarelix with abiraterone or apalutamide prior to baseline, at which time they were transitioned to relugolix. Assessments included reporting of adverse events, clinical laboratory tests, vital sign measurements, electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters, and testosterone serum concentrations. In this interim report, patients completing ≥12 weeks were included. Results: Overall, 15 men were enrolled in Part 1 and 10 in Part 2. Adverse events were mostly mild-to-moderate in intensity and were consistent with the known safety profiles of the individual medications. No transition (from prior ADT treatment)- or time-related trends in clinical laboratory tests, vital sign measurements, or ECG parameters were observed. Mean testosterone concentrations remained below castration levels. Conclusions: Combination therapy of relugolix and abiraterone or apalutamide was associated with a favorable safety and tolerability profile consistent with the known profiles of the individual medications. Castration levels of testosterone were maintained after transitioning to relugolix from other ADTs. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04666129 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with metastatic prostate cancer can develop PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway-associated resistance to androgen receptor-targeted therapy. In an open-label phase Ib study, 27 systemically treated patients received abiraterone acetate plus capivasertib, a potent, selective pan-AKT inhibitor. The combination demonstrated acceptable tolerability with no dose-limiting toxicity and pharmacokinetics consistent with monotherapy dosing. These data support further clinical evaluation in this patient population. Background: Although androgen receptor-targeted agents prolong the lives of patients with metastatic prostate cancer, patients develop therapy resistance and most ultimately succumb to the disease. The PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway has been associated with the development of resistance, raising the possibility that pathway inhibitors may produce a clinical benefit. This open-label phase Ib study examined the safet y, tolerabilit y, pharmacokinetics (PK) and preliminary clinical activity of adding capivasertib - a potent, selective inhibitor of AKT1/2/3 - to approved abiraterone acetate therapy. Methods: Twenty-seven patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had undergone at least 1 prior line of systemic therapy received abiraterone acetate 1000 mg (orally administered once daily), plus oral prednisone 5 mg (twice daily) with capivasertib 400 mg (orally, twice daily, with an intermittent schedule of 4 days on, 3 days off). Results: No dose-limiting toxicity was observed. The most frequent adverse events (all grade) were diarrhea (30%), anemia (26%), asthenia (22%), and nausea (22%). The most frequent grade 3 or higher adverse events were acute kidney injury (19%), hyperglycemia (7%), rash (7%), abdominal pain (7%), and asthenia (7%). Capivasertib and abiraterone PK were consistent with previously reported results from monotherapy dosing. Nine participants (33%) showed a 20% or greater decrease in prostate-specific antigen during study treatment. Conclusion: The combination of capivasertib and abiraterone acetate had an acceptable tolerability profile consistent with the known profile of each agent. These data support further evaluation of capivasertib and abiraterone acetate in patients with advanced prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess, the effect of darolutamide (a structurally distinct androgen receptor inhibitor) on urinary and bowel symptoms, using data from the phase III ARAMIS trial (NCT02200614) that showed darolutamide significantly reduced the risk of metastasis and death versus placebo. Patients and Methods: Patients with non‐metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) were randomised 2:1 to darolutamide (n = 955) or placebo (n = 554). Local symptom control was assessed by first prostate cancer‐related invasive procedures and post hoc analyses of time to deterioration in quality of life (QoL) using total urinary and bowel symptoms, and individual questions for these symptoms from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Prostate Cancer Module subscales and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy‐Prostate prostate cancer subscale. Prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) responses were correlated with urinary and bowel adverse events (AEs). Results: Fewer patients receiving darolutamide (4.7%) versus placebo (9.6%) underwent invasive procedures, and time to first procedure was prolonged with darolutamide (hazard ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.28–0.62). Darolutamide significantly (P < 0.01) delayed worsening of QoL for total urinary and bowel symptoms versus placebo, mostly attributed by individual symptoms of urinary frequency, associated pain, and interference with daily activities. AEs of urinary retention and dysuria were less frequent with darolutamide, and greater PSA response (≥90%, ≥50% and <90%, <50%) among darolutamide‐treated patients was associated with lower incidences of urinary retention (2.2%, 4.2%, 5.1%) and dysuria (0.5%, 3.2%, 5.1%), respectively. Conclusions: Darolutamide demonstrated a positive impact on local disease recurrence and symptom control in patients with nmCRPC, delayed time to deterioration in QoL related to urinary and bowel symptoms, and a favourable safety profile showing similar incidence of urinary‐ and bowel‐related AEs compared with placebo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Approval of apalutamide, enzalutamide and darolutamide has transformed the treatment landscape and guideline recommendations for patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer but now raises the issue of decision-making regarding treatment selection. In this perspective, we discuss the efficacy and safety of these second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors and propose that for patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, safety considerations for these treatments are especially important. We examine these considerations in the context of patient and caregiver preferences as well as patient clinical characteristics. We further posit that consideration of treatments' safety profiles should include not only the initial direct impacts from potential treatment-emergent adverse events and drug–drug interaction events, but also the full cascade of potentially avoidable healthcare complications. Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in men. Because male hormones fuel the growth of prostate cancer cells, initial treatments generally focus on reducing these hormones to very low levels. Although these treatments are usually effective in controlling the cancer in the short term, over time, patients often stop responding to them. These patients need more advanced treatments to control their prostate cancer. For patients whose cancer has not spread to other body parts ('nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer'), more advanced treatment options were unavailable until recently, but during 2018–2019, three novel therapies became available. These new therapies have raised the question of how to choose a particular therapy when deciding on a patient's treatment regimen. Here we contend that patient safety is critical when deciding among these treatments, which are all similarly effective in terms of helping patients to live longer. We review the key differences of each drug's safety profile among these treatments. We assert that treatment selection should consider patients' preferences and clinical characteristics, as the latter can influence the potential for serious harm when treatment-related complications arise. Finally, treatment selection should consider the multiple after-effects that can occur following a treatment-related safety event. Key safety differences exist among second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We discuss these differences and their potential for patient harm for patient treatment selection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The single-arm, open-label, multicenter, phase II Apa-RP study evaluates the biochemical recurrence (confirmed prostate-specific antigen [PSA] > 0.2 ng/mL)-free rate in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer (HR-LPC) after radical prostatectomy following adjuvant apalutamide and androgen-deprivation therapy. In this substudy, relugolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, was evaluated in combination with apalutamide. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the approved standard maintenance dose of relugolix in combination with apalutamide sustains castrate testosterone levels (< 50 ng/dL). Patients and Methods: Twelve patients with HR-LPC who met all the main study criteria were included in the substudy. Patients received relugolix monotherapy for 2 weeks (loading dose [360 mg] at Day − 14 then 120 mg/day daily until Day − 1), then daily relugolix (120 mg) with apalutamide (240 mg) from Day 1 to Day 28. Endpoints were rate of maintained castration (testosterone < 50 ng/dL) through Day 28 (primary) and safety (secondary). Results: All 12 patients received relugolix and apalutamide and achieved castrate testosterone levels after 2-week relugolix monotherapy (median testosterone 348.5 ng/dL and 8.7 ng/dL at Days − 14 and − 1). All 11 patients who had testosterone measured at Day 28 maintained castrate testosterone (median 10.0 ng/dL) without relugolix dose adjustment. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in nine patients during relugolix monotherapy and in eight patients during relugolix + apalutamide coadministration. Hot flush was the most common TEAE reported, in six and four patients, respectively. Conclusions: Relugolix administered at approved standard doses concurrently with apalutamide was effective in maintaining castrate testosterone levels in HR-LPC without new safety signals. Trial Registration Number and Date: NCT04523207, 21 August 2020. Plain Language Summary: The Apa-RP study evaluates the combination of apalutamide with drugs that lower male sex hormones for reducing the risk of prostate cancer recurrence. Patients in this study had their prostate gland surgically removed and were at high risk for disease recurrence. Relugolix, a newly approved oral drug for advanced prostate cancer, lowers blood testosterone (the primary male sex hormone) and, in combination with apalutamide, may reduce the risk of prostate cancer recurrence. The Apa-RP substudy goal was to test whether relugolix lowers blood testosterone and maintains these low levels when administered with apalutamide. Researchers looked at the testosterone levels of 12 patients with early prostate cancer who received standard doses of relugolix alone for 2 weeks followed by apalutamide and relugolix for an additional 28 days. Testosterone was measured before and after 2 weeks of relugolix treatment, and then again 28 days after apalutamide was added. All 12 substudy patients achieved low testosterone levels (< 50 ng/dL) after 2 weeks of relugolix treatment. Testosterone was measured at Day 28 of relugolix + apalutamide treatment in 11 patients, all of whom maintained low testosterone without adjustment of their relugolix dose. Adverse effects were consistent with those previously reported for each drug when administered alone. All 12 patients completed the substudy and moved onto the main study, the longer-term results of which will be reported in the future. In summary, relugolix administered at the same time as apalutamide was effective in maintaining low testosterone levels in patients with prostate cancer, without any new safety concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To document the effect of the temporarily implanted nitinol device (iTind; Medi-Tate Ltd, Israel) on sexual function from a multicenter, randomized, single-blinded, sham-controlled trial. Materials and Methods: Men were randomized 2:1 between iTind and sham procedure arms. The iTind was placed for 5–7 days and an 18F Foley catheter was inserted and removed for the iTind and sham group, respectively. Patients were assessed at baseline, 3, and 12 months postoperatively using the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF). Unblinding occurred at 3 months. Results: We studied 185 men with a mean age of 61.1 ± 6.5 years. There was no difference in SHIM or total IIEF between iTind and sham at 3 months or in the iTind arm at 12 months compared with baseline. Men in the iTind arm without erectile dysfunction at baseline showed an improvement in total IIEF score of +6.07 ± 21.17 points (p = 0.034) at 12 months, in addition to an improvement in ejaculatory function. SHIM scores remained unchanged in all groups, regardless of age, prostate volume, or baseline erectile function. Conclusion: No changes were observed in sexual and ejaculatory function of patients with iTind regardless of a man's age, prostate volume, and baseline sexual function. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02506465 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A man in his 50s with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, receiving androgen deprivation therapy and abiraterone acetate/prednisone, presented with an uncontrollable ’Irish brogue’ accent despite no Irish background, consistent with foreign accent syndrome (FAS). He had no neurological examination abnormalities, psychiatric history or MRI of the brain abnormalities at symptom onset. Imaging revealed progression of his prostate cancer, despite undetectable prostate-specific antigen levels. Biopsy confirmed transformation to small cell neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC). Despite chemotherapy, his NEPC progressed resulting in multifocal brain metastases and a likely paraneoplastic ascending paralysis leading to his death. We report FAS as the presenting manifestation of transformation to small cell NEPC, a previously undescribed phenomenon. His presentation was most consistent with an underlying paraneoplastic neurological disorder (PND), despite a negative serum paraneoplastic panel. This report enhances the minimal existing literature on FAS and PNDs associated with transformed NEPC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Darolutamide significantly improved metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) versus placebo in the phase III ARAMIS study. We evaluated outcomes in Black/African–American patients in ARAMIS. Materials & methods: Patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomized 2:1 to darolutamide (n = 955) or placebo (n = 554) plus androgen-deprivation therapy. The primary end point was MFS. Secondary end points included OS and safety. Results: In 52 (3.4%) Black/African–American patients, darolutamide improved MFS (median: not reached vs 12.4 months) and OS (3-year survival rates: 100 vs 71%) versus placebo. The safety profile of darolutamide in Black/African–American patients was consistent with that of all ARAMIS patients. Conclusion: In Black/African–American patients, darolutamide improved MFS and OS and was well tolerated, consistent with the overall ARAMIS population. In patients with prostate cancer that has stopped responding to androgen-deprivation therapy, or 'ADT,' and has not spread to other parts of the body (known as nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, or 'nmCRPC'), darolutamide is an oral treatment option. Darolutamide added to ADT was tested in patients with nmCRPC in a large international study called ARAMIS and was found to prolong the time that patients were free from their cancer spreading compared with patients who received ADT alone. This report provides information on the effect of darolutamide in the 52 Black/African–American patients who took part in ARAMIS. In these patients, darolutamide showed similar effects on lowering the risk of their cancer spreading and was well tolerated. For Black/African–American patients with nmCRPC in the phase III ARAMIS study, darolutamide improved metastasis-free and overall survival, with a favorable safety profile consistent with the overall ARAMIS population. #darolutamide; #ARAMIS; #Blackpatients; #prostatecancer [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

399 Background: Androgen receptor inhibitors (ARIs) are recommended for nmCRPC. Darolutamide (DARO) is a structurally distinct & highly potent ARI approved for nmCRPC based on ARAMIS (phase 3). There are no prospective comparative clinical trial data for DARO vs enzalutamide (ENZA) & apalutamide (APA). DEAR (NCT05362149) compared real-world (RW) utilization, tolerability & outcomes of ARIs in 870 patients (pts) with nmCRPC. DEAR-EXT (NCT06013475) expands on DEAR with 1 y more of pt inclusion & follow-up. Methods: DEAR-EXT is a retrospective chart review cohort study of pts in the PPS network of US urology practices who started initial ARI for nmCRPC from 8/2019 to 3/2023. Key outcomes include time to initial ARI discontinuation, reason for discontinuation, time to metastatic CRPC (mCRPC) progression, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, overall survival (OS), metastasis-free survival (MFS) & treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). ARI utilization & tolerability were compared using descriptive frequency statistics; time-to-event outcomes were compared using unadjusted Kaplan–Meier estimates & Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for baseline characteristics. Results: Of all 1375 pts meeting eligibility criteria, 565 (41%) received DARO, 609 (44%) ENZA & 201 (15%) APA. During the study, the number of pts with nmCRPC initiating ARI treatment decreased annually but the proportion starting DARO increased vs ENZA & APA. Baseline characteristics were generally similar across treatment groups; median follow-up was similar for DARO (26.2 mo), ENZA (26.2 mo) & APA (25.5 mo). Median time to discontinuation was not reached (NR; 95% CI 35.5–NR) for DARO, 27.6 mo (23.9–35.6) for ENZA & 26.8 mo (22.6–42.8) for APA. Adjusted HRs showed significant discontinuation risk reductions for DARO vs ENZA (27%) & vs APA (31%) (Table). The most frequent reasons for discontinuation were TEAEs (DARO 10%, ENZA 15%, APA 15%) & disease progression/death (15%, 19%, 18%, respectively). Adjusted HRs for mCRPC progression showed significant risk reductions for DARO vs ENZA (37%) & vs APA (28%) (Table). Times to discontinuation & mCRPC progression were similar for ENZA & APA. PSA response, OS & MFS rates were numerically higher for DARO vs ENZA & APA. TEAEs occurred in 25% of pts on DARO, 28% on ENZA & 30% on APA. Conclusions: These data reinforce DARO as an effective, well-tolerated treatment for nmCRPC that demonstrates potentially greater clinical benefits vs ENZA & APA in RW practice. Clinical trial information: NCT06013475. HRs from adjusted Cox regression models. HR 95% CI P-value Time to initial ARI discontinuation DARO vs ENZA 0.73 0.61–0.88 0.001 DARO vs APA 0.69 0.54–0.89 0.003 ENZA vs APA 0.95 0.75–1.19 0.639 Time to mCRPC progression* DARO vs ENZA 0.63 0.50–0.80 <0.001 DARO vs APA 0.72 0.53–0.98 0.038 ENZA vs APA 1.14 0.85–1.52 0.373 *Not adjusted for multiple testing comparisons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The diagnostic and treatment landscapes of prostate cancer are rapidly evolving. This has led to several challenges and controversies regarding optimal management of the disease that outpace guidelines and clinical data. Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) can be used to engage the array of specialists that collaborate to treat complex malignancies such as prostate cancer. While the rationale for the use of MDTs in prostate cancer is well known, ways to optimally use MDTs to address the challenges and controversies associated with prostate cancer management are less well understood. One area of MDT care that remains undefined is how MDTs can most effectively provide guidance on clinical decision-making in situations in which information from novel diagnostic testing (genetic testing, molecular imaging) is substantially different from the established clinical risk factors. In this review, we provide a clinical perspective on ways that MDTs can be used to address this and other challenges and controversies across the prostate cancer disease continuum, from diagnosis to end-of-life considerations. Beyond clinical scenarios, we also review ways in which MDTs can mitigate disparities of care in prostate cancer. Overall, MDTs play a central role in helping to address the daily vexing issues faced by clinicians related to diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment. Given the accelerating advances in precision medicine and targeted therapy, and the new questions and controversies these will bring, the value of MDTs for prostate cancer management will only increase in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Journal articles provide reliable and current information about cancer research. This can offer hope to people with cancer and help them make decisions about their care. Here, the authors suggest ways in which different groups may help people with cancer to find, view, and understand articles. For example, journals should make articles free to view if they describe research that could change patient care. Also, clear titles and easy-to-follow summaries or videos may help people to find relevant articles and understand the main findings. It is important to explore ways to best share research with all those whose lives it may affect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mod Pathol; 29: 1381-1389, 2016 9 Tian W, Bi R, Ren Y, et al: Screening for hereditary cancers in patients with endometrial cancer reveals a high frequency of germline mutations in cancer predisposition genes. REFERENCES 1 Mandelker D, Zhang L, Kemel Y, et al: Mutation detection in patients with advanced cancer by universal sequencing of cancer-related genes in tumor and normal DNA vs guideline-based germline testing. Historically, professional society guidelines have recommended limited genetic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes (HCS) to patients with cancer thought to be at highest risk for carrying pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) in a few selected genes. [Extracted from the article]

PARP inhibitors in combination with androgen receptor-targeted therapy have demonstrated potential in the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Here, we describe the design and rationale of the multinational, phase III, two-part TALAPRO-2 study comparing talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide as a first-line treatment for patients with mCRPC with or without DNA damage response (DDR) alterations. This study has two co-primary end points: radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) by blinded independent clinical review in all-comers (cohort 1) and in patients with DDR alterations (cohort 2). TALAPRO-2 will demonstrate whether talazoparib plus enzalutamide can significantly improve the efficacy of enzalutamide in terms of rPFS in both molecularly unselected and DDR-deficient patients with mCRPC (NCT03395197). Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03395197 (ClinicalTrials.gov). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To evaluate real-world clinical outcomes of radium-223 or alternative novel hormonal therapy (NHT) following first-line NHT for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Patients & methods: Retrospective analysis of the US Flatiron database (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03896984). Results: In the radium-223 cohort (n = 120) versus the alternative NHT cohort (n = 226), proportionally more patients had prior symptomatic skeletal events and bone-only metastases, and first-line NHT duration was shorter. Following second-line therapy, 49 versus 39% of patients received subsequent life-prolonging therapy; of these, 47 versus 76% received taxane. Median overall survival was 10.8 versus 11.2 months. Conclusion: Real-world patients with mCRPC had similar median overall survival following second-line radium-223 or alternative NHT after first-line NHT. Many patients received subsequent therapy, with less taxane use after radium-223. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This US retrospective study described treatment outcomes among patients with castration resistant prostate cancer receiving docetaxel following next generation hormonal agents in the metastatic setting from 2013-2019 )N = 5,213). Treatment duration with docetaxel in second/third-line was short (~4 months), and most patients died within one year. Results highlight a significant unmet need and serve as a benchmark for future studies. Background: Real-world evidence suggest that next generation hormonal agents (NHAs) abiraterone and enzalutamide were preferred as first-line (1L) therapies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the United States (US) pre-2020, with chemotherapies, particularly docetaxel, being preferred in subsequent lines (2L + ). This real-world study described patient characteristics, treatment patterns, time on treatment (ToT) and overall survival (OS) among patients with mCRPC treated with 2L and 3L docetaxel post-NHAs in the mCRPC setting. Methods: Adults with confirmed adenocarcinoma mCRPC diagnosis and =1 month of follow-up post-diagnosis were selected from a US electronic health record-derived oncology de-identified database (01/2013-03/2019). Based on the observed line of therapy sequences post-mCRPC diagnosis, patients who received NHA therapy in 1L and docetaxel therapy in 2L were included in the 2L docetaxel cohort, and patients who received NHA therapy in both 1L and 2L and docetaxel therapy in 3L were included in the 3L docetaxel cohort. ToT and OS were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: Among 5,213 patients with mCRPC, 278 and 166 were included in the 2L and the 3L docetaxel cohorts, respectively (median age: 73 years for both cohorts). ADT was the most used class of medication pre-mCRPC (> 75%). For the 2L cohort, the most common sequence post-mCRPC was 1L abiraterone → 2L docetaxel (52.5%), while the median ToT and OS post-2L start were 4.1 and 10.5 months, respectively; for the 3L cohort, the most common sequence post-mCRPC was 1L abiraterone → 2L enzalutamide → 3L docetaxel (67.5%), while the median ToT and OS post-3L start were 3.8 and 8.7 months, respectively. Conclusions: This real-world study provides novel data on patients treated with docetaxel post-NHAs in a mCRPC setting and highlights the critical unmet need for developing more effective treatment options in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prostate cancer (PC) is pr imar ily 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 castrationresistant 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 dr ug class. Dr ug-dr ug 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]