Search

Background: In the global ARASENS study (NCT02799602), darolutamide plus androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT) and docetaxel significantly reduced risk of death by 32.5% versus placebo plus ADT and docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57–0.80; p < 0.0001), with a favorable safety profile in patients with metastatic hormone‐sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). We investigated outcomes in Japanese participants. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to oral darolutamide 600 mg twice daily or placebo, plus ADT and docetaxel. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Results: The Japanese subgroup comprised 148 patients (darolutamide 63, placebo 85). In the Japanese versus overall population, more patients were aged ≥75 years (darolutamide/placebo 35%/22% vs. 16%/17%) and had body mass index <25 kg/m2 (78%/79% vs. 46%/43%), The ECOG performance status 0 (92%/88% vs. 72%/71%), de novo mHSPC (95%/97% vs. 86%/87%), and Gleason score ≥8 (94%/92% vs. 78%/79%). Median treatment duration was 43.3/15.4 months for darolutamide/placebo. The overall survival HR for darolutamide versus placebo was 0.91 (95% CI 0.50–1.64), despite 85% of patients in the placebo group receiving subsequent life‐prolonging therapy. Darolutamide prolonged time to castration‐resistant prostate cancer (HR 0.31; 95% CI 0.17–0.55). Treatment‐emergent adverse event incidences were generally similar between groups. Adverse events known to be associated with docetaxel (e.g., neutropenia) were more frequent in the Japanese versus overall population. Conclusion: In conclusion, efficacy outcomes showed positive trends for darolutamide plus ADT and docetaxel in Japanese patients with mHSPC, consistent with the overall population, despite higher risk factors. The combination was well tolerated, with no new safety signals in Japanese patients. In Japanese patients with metastatic hormone‐sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) who participated in the global phase 3 ARASENS study, darolutamide in combination with androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT) and docetaxel showed favorable trends in efficacy and tolerability over placebo plus ADT and docetaxel, with no new safety concerns. The outcomes were consistent with the findings in the overall study population and support the use of darolutamide in combination with ADT and docetaxel in Japanese patients with mHSPC as a new standard of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Luteinizing hormoneereleasing hormone (LHRH) agonists are believed to have higher cardiovascular risk relative to gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists. However, previous studies have not consistently demonstrated this. We used real-world clinical practice data to evaluate differences in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) risk between LHRH agonists compared to a GnRH antagonist following androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) initiation. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of data in the Decision Resources Group (now Clarivate) Real World Evidence repository, which represents >300 million US patients from 1991 to 2020 across all US regions. Patients with prostate cancer who received at least 1 injection of ADT were included. The risks of MACE and all-cause mortality as independent endpoints were evaluated, Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed, and associations between MACE and all available confounding risk factors were evaluated by Cox regression analysis using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Results: A total of 45,059 men with prostate cancer treated with ADT were analyzed. Overall, the risks of MACE and all-cause mortality were slightly lower in the first year after ADT initiation compared to subsequent years. MACE risk was higher for the GnRH antagonist compared to LHRH agonists (HR[1.62; 95% CI 1.21-2.18, P = .001). The risk of all-cause mortality was also higher for the GnRH antagonist vs LHRH agonists (HR[1.87; 95% CI 1.39-2.51, P < .001). Conclusions: The adjusted incidence of MACE was higher for men treated with the GnRH antagonist compared to the LHRH agonists. The demographic and risk factors with the greatest impact on MACE risk were higher age, baseline metastasis, oncology (vs urology) setting, personal MACE history, antagonist (vs agonist), tobacco history, White (vs Black) race, and lower BMI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The availability of targeted therapies for advanced prostate cancer led to the expansion of national guidelines recommending germline genetic testing. The aim of this study was to describe recent trends in germline test ordering patterns for patients with prostate cancer., Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis of patients with prostate cancer who underwent germline testing through a single commercial laboratory (Invitae Corporation) between 2015-2020 was performed. Ordering trends between provider medical specialties were compared. Our primary hypothesis was that the proportion of tests ordered by urologists would increase over time., Results: In total, 17,256 prostate cancer patients underwent germline genetic testing; 14,400 patients had an ordering provider with an associated medical specialty and were included in the final comparison cohort. Total prostate cancer patients undergoing germline testing increased quarterly from 21 in Q2 of 2015 to 1,509 in Q3 of 2020. The proportion of tests ordered by urologists increased from 0% in Q2 2015 to 8.3% in Q3 2020 (P < 0.001). Compared to medical genetics, medical oncology, and other specialties, urology ordered more tests for patients under 70 years old (66% vs 51%-55%, P <0.004) and for patients who reported negative family history (25% vs 12%-20%, P = 0.012)., Conclusions: As awareness and indications for germline testing continue to expand, aggregate ordering volume is increasing, and urologists are becoming more involved in facilitating testing. This highlights the continued importance of educating urologists on the indications for and implications of germline genetic testing, as well as providing tools to support implementation., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Sarah Nielsen reports a relationship with Invitae Corporation that includes: employment. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)