Search

Purpose: This post hoc analysis of PROSPER evaluated the relationship between depth of PSA decline and clinical outcomes in enzalutamide-treated men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer., Materials and Methods: PROSPER was an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial that demonstrated significantly improved metastasis-free survival and overall survival with androgen deprivation therapy plus enzalutamide vs placebo. A total of 905 enzalutamide-treated men were included in this post hoc analysis. Metastasis-free survival (primary endpoint) and overall survival (secondary endpoint) were evaluated for 4 mutually exclusive subgroups defined by PSA decline: <50% (reference); ≥50% to <90%; ≥90%, nadir ≥0.2 ng/mL; and ≥90%, nadir <0.2 ng/mL. Medians and 95% confidence intervals were determined using a 12-month landmark analysis; hazard ratios and P values were based on an unstratified Cox proportional analysis model., Results: In enzalutamide-treated men, PSA declines of <50%, ≥50% to <90%, ≥90% with nadir ≥0.2 ng/mL, and ≥90% with nadir <0.2 ng/mL were associated with median metastasis-free survival in months (95% confidence intervals) of 22.1 (14.8-not reached), 34.2 (29.4-not reached), 36.6 (33.4-not reached), and not reached, respectively, and overall survival in months (95% confidence intervals) of 40.8 (31.7-44.9), 54.4 (49.0-67.0), 64.3 (63.4-not reached), and not reached, respectively., Conclusions: There was a statistically significant correlation between greater depth of PSA decline and improved clinical outcomes, suggesting a previously underappreciated relationship between changes in PSA levels and clinical outcomes in nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Multiple systemic immune-oncology (IO) combination therapies have demonstrated overall survival (OS) benefits in metastatic renal clear cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, the magnitude of benefits over time has not been compared in a structured fashion. To assess OS and progression free survival (PFS) efficacy as reflected by hazard ratios [HR]) according to the duration of follow-up over time for each of four IO combination therapies. A systematic PubMed (MEDLINE) literature review was performed (January, 1, 2016 to February, 20, 2022). Only phase III randomized clinical trials with proven OS benefit relative to sunitinib were included. These search criteria yielded four eligible RCTs: CheckMate 214 (nivolumab plus ipilimumab), Keynote 426 (pembrolizumab plus axitinib), CheckMate 9ER (nivolumab plus cabozantinib), CLEAR (lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab). OS and PFS HRs were tabulated for all four studies including all reported timepoints. Median follow-up ranged from 25-68 months for CheckMate 214 (5 timepoints), 13-43 months for Keynote 426 (3 timepoints), 18-33 months for CheckMate 9ER (3 timepoints) and 27-34 months for CLEAR (2 timepoints). Respective OS and PFS HRs were 0.68-0.72 and 0.98-0.86, 0.53-0.73 and 0.69-0.68, 0.60-0.70 and 0.51-0.56, 0.66-0.72 and 0.39-0.47 for CheckMate 214, Keynote 426, CheckMate 9ER and CLEAR. Regarding OS HRs virtually no change was recorded over time for CheckMate 214, but a decrease in magnitude occurred in the three IO-TKI remaining studies. Regarding PFS HRs, no benefit was recorded for CheckMate 214. Statistically significant benefit was recorded in the remaining IO-TKI studies. However, it also decreased with longer follow-up. It remains to be seen, whether further 'slippage' of efficacy will persist as the data matures further for all IO-TKI combinations., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Context: Several recent randomised trials have evaluated the role of combination systemic treatment using androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus chemotherapy or an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor (ARSI) in patients with high-risk and/or unfavourable nonmetastatic prostate cancer (nmPC)., Objective: To assess the outcomes associated with adding combination systemic treatment to primary definitive local therapy in patients with high-risk and/or unfavourable nmPC., Evidence Acquisition: We queried the PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases and conference abstracts to identify prospective randomised trials examining the value of adding chemotherapy or an ARSI to ADT and primary local therapy with curative intent for nmPC. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and failure-free survival (FFS). Secondary endpoints included adverse events (AEs) and pathologic outcomes., Evidence Synthesis: We identified 15 randomised studies, of which nine evaluated chemohormonal and six investigated ARSI-based treatment strategies. In both radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiation therapy (RT) settings, addition of docetaxel to ADT was associated with significantly better CSS (pooled hazard ratio [HR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.95; p = 0.025), MFS (pooled HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71-0.95; p = 0.008), and FFS (pooled HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62-0.79; p < 0.001); the difference did not meet the conventional level of statistical significance for OS (pooled HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73-1.01; p = 0.072). For patients treated with RT alone, docetaxel-based combination treatment did not meet the significance threshold set for OS (p = 0.3), CSS (p = 0.072), or MFS (p = 0.079), but the difference for FFS was statistically significant (pooled HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.84; p < 0.001). On network meta-analyses including RT studies, ARSI + ADT outperformed docetaxel + ADT for survival endpoints and had a more favourable AE profile., Conclusions: Intensification of systemic therapy with docetaxel or an ARSI in addition to ADT improves oncologic endpoints in high-risk and/or unfavourable nmPC treated with local definitive therapy. The highest efficacy was achieved with ARSI + ADT, specifically in patients treated with RT., Patient Summary: Our findings highlight that selected patients with high-risk nonmetastatic prostate cancer benefit from intensification of systemic therapy beyond hormonal treatment., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: The majority of new bladder cancer diagnoses are non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). For patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk NMIBC, the preferred treatment after transurethral tumor resection is bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) intravesical therapy; however, some patients receiving BCG do not respond and are at risk for recurrence and progression to muscle invasive disease. Currently, there is a lack of bladder-sparing therapies for patients that do not respond to BCG therapy. This review highlights recent advances in bladder-sparing therapies for NMIBC that do not respond to BCG therapy., Recent Findings: Several clinical trials have emerged over the past several years using novel agents. Systemic immunotherapy with pembrolizumab has shown promising activity, and recently gained FDA approval for use in BCG-unresponsive NMIBC. Gene therapy using Nadofaragene firadenovec, a replication-deficient adenoviral vector delivering interferon (IFN) alfa, shows durable results and is pending regulatory approval. Several other agents are on the horizon and there will likely be an emergence of therapies over the next several years., Summary: Patients with NMIBC that do not respond to BCG therapy are at high risk for progression to muscle invasive disease. Bladder-sparing therapeutic options for these patients are sparse but now include pembrolizumab and several other potential options are emerging. These bladder-sparing therapies will benefit patients unwilling or unable to undergo radical cystectomy., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The clinical impact of concurrent corticosteroid use (CCU) on enzalutamide-treated patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is unknown. We investigated the association of CCU with overall survival (OS), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and time to prostate-specific antigen progression (TTPP) in post-chemotherapy, enzalutamide-treated patients with mCRPC., Patients and Methods: Post hoc analysis of AFFIRM (NCT00974311) with patients (n = 1,199) randomized 2:1 to enzalutamide 160 mg/day or placebo. Treatment group, CCU, and known prognostic factors were evaluated for impact on OS, rPFS, and TTPP using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. CCU was defined as "baseline" (use started at baseline) or "on-study" (baseline plus use that was started during the trial)., Results: Enzalutamide significantly improved OS, rPFS, and TTPP independent of baseline CCU but was associated with inferior clinical outcomes when compared with no baseline CCU, including a shorter OS [10.8 months vs. not reached (NR); HR for use vs. no use, 2.13; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.79-2.54], rPFS (5.2 months vs. 8.0 months; HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.29-1.72], and TTPP (4.6 months vs. 5.7 months; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.25-1.81). These findings held in a multivariate analysis adjusting for baseline prognostic factors wherein baseline CCU was independently associated with decreased OS (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.43-2.04; P < 0.0001) and rPFS (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11-1.48; P = 0.0007)., Conclusions: Patients with mCRPC benefited from enzalutamide treatment independent of CCU, but CCU was associated with worse baseline prognostic factors and outcomes., (©2021 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers are enriched for DNA repair gene defects (DRDs) that can be susceptible to synthetic lethality through inhibition of PARP proteins. We evaluated the anti-tumour activity and safety of the PARP inhibitor niraparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers and DRDs who progressed on previous treatment with an androgen signalling inhibitor and a taxane., Methods: In this multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study, patients aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mixed histology accepted, with the exception of the small cell pure phenotype) and DRDs (assessed in blood, tumour tissue, or saliva), with progression on a previous next-generation androgen signalling inhibitor and a taxane per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 or Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, were eligible. Enrolled patients received niraparib 300 mg orally once daily until treatment discontinuation, death, or study termination. For the final study analysis, all patients who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analysis population; patients with germline pathogenic or somatic biallelic pathogenic alterations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA cohort) or biallelic alterations in other prespecified DRDs (non-BRCA cohort) were included in the efficacy analysis population. The primary endpoint was objective response rate in patients with BRCA alterations and measurable disease (measurable BRCA cohort). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02854436., Findings: Between Sept 28, 2016, and June 26, 2020, 289 patients were enrolled, of whom 182 (63%) had received three or more systemic therapies for prostate cancer. 223 (77%) of 289 patients were included in the overall efficacy analysis population, which included BRCA (n=142) and non-BRCA (n=81) cohorts. At final analysis, with a median follow-up of 10·0 months (IQR 6·6-13·3), the objective response rate in the measurable BRCA cohort (n=76) was 34·2% (95% CI 23·7-46·0). In the safety analysis population, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were nausea (169 [58%] of 289), anaemia (156 [54%]), and vomiting (111 [38%]); the most common grade 3 or worse events were haematological (anaemia in 95 [33%] of 289; thrombocytopenia in 47 [16%]; and neutropenia in 28 [10%]). Of 134 (46%) of 289 patients with at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event, the most common were also haematological (thrombocytopenia in 17 [6%] and anaemia in 13 [4%]). Two adverse events with fatal outcome (one patient with urosepsis in the BRCA cohort and one patient with sepsis in the non-BRCA cohort) were deemed possibly related to niraparib treatment., Interpretation: Niraparib is tolerable and shows anti-tumour activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DRDs, particularly in those with BRCA alterations., Funding: Janssen Research & Development., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MRS has received grants or contracts to their institution from Bayer, Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Lilly; has received consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, Novartis, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Lilly, and Pfizer; and has participated on data safety monitoring boards, advisory boards, or both for Janssen, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. HIS has a leadership role in Asterias Biotherapeutics; holds stock and other ownership interests in Asterias Biotherapeutics; received grants or contracts to their institution from Epic Sciences, Illumina, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, ThermoFisher, and AIQ Pharma; provided consulting to Ambry Genetics Corporation/Konica Minolta, Amgen (uncompensated), Bayer, ESSA Pharma (uncompensated), Menarini Silicon Biosystems (uncompensated), Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and WCG Oncology; has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center—Jefferson Health; has received support for attending meetings or travel from Amgen, Bayer, ESSA Pharma, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Epic Sciences, Pfizer, WCG Oncology, and Phosplatin; has patents planned, issued, or pending via their institution with BioNTech, Elucida Oncology, MabVax Therapeutics, and Y-mAbs Therapeutics; and has other financial or non-financial interests in Elsevier, Prostate Cancer Foundation (via institution), National Cancer Institute (via institution), Department of Defense (via institution), MabVax Therapeutics, and BioNTech. SS has received grants from Amgen, Advanced Accelerator Applications (a Novartis company), Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, and Genentech; has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and participated on a data safety monitoring board for Advanced Accelerator Applications (a Novartis company). EE has received grants or contracts, consulting fees, and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Sanofi, Astellas, Pfizer, Myovant, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, and Novartis, and has participated on data safety monitoring boards, advisory boards, or both for Sanofi, Astellas, Pfizer, Myovant, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. PNL Jr has received grants or contracts from Janssen to their institution. EYY has received grants or contracts from Bayer, Dendreon, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Seagen, Taiho, Blue Earth, and Lantheus; and has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bayer, Clovis, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Seagen, Sanofi, AbbVie, Advanced Accelerator Applications (a Novartis company), and Exelixis. DJG has received grants or contracts to their institution from Astellas, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Exelixis, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; has received consulting fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Constellation, Exelixis, Flatiron, IdeoOncology, Janssen, Merck, Myovant Sciences, Physician Education Resource, Pfizer, PlatformQ, Propella, RevHealth, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, WebMD, and Xcures; has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentation, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bayer, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Ipsen, Michael J Hennessey, Pfizer, Sanofi, UroGPO, and UroToday; has received payment for expert testimony from Wilmer Hale Attorneys; has received support for attending meetings or travel from Bayer, Exelixis, Sanofi, and UroToday; has participated on data safety monitoring boards, advisory boards, or both for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Modra; and holds a leadership or fiduciary role in the American Association for Cancer Research (senior editor), AstraZeneca (CAPI-281 study coordinator), Bristol Myers Squibb (study coordinator), Capio Biosciences (scientific advisory board), Millennium Medical Publishing (co-editor-in-chief, Clinical Advances in Hematology & Oncology), NCI Genitourinary (study coordinator), Nektar Therapeutics (study coordinator), and Pfizer (study coordinator). KNC has received grants or contracts to their institution from Janssen, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and Point Biopharma; has received consulting fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Point Biopharma, and Roche; and has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astellas, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, and Novartis. FS has received grants or contracts, consulting fees, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events, and has received equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from Janssen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Myovant, Sanofi, Novartis, and Pfizer; and has participated on data safety monitoring boards, advisory boards, or both for Janssen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Myovant, Sanofi, Novartis, and Pfizer. DO has received grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Janssen; has received consulting fees from Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Janssen; has received support for attending meetings or travel from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Roche; and has participated on data safety monitoring boards, advisory boards, or both for Janssen, AstraZeneca, and Bayer. DCD has received consulting fees from Angle, Axiom, Janssen, Astellas, Medivation, Pfizer, Genzyme, and Agensys; and has other financial or non-financial interests (research support) in the US Department of Defense, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Stand Up to Cancer, Janssen, Astellas, Medivation, Agensys, Genentech, and CreaTV. GEM, BME, KAU, PF, and AL-G are employees of Janssen Research & Development. GEM and PF own stocks with Janssen. XZ was an employee of Janssen at the time of this study. KAU has been listed as an inventor on a patent as an employee of Janssen Research & Development. KF has received consulting fees from AAA, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, Janssen, Amgen, Pfizer, Orion, Curevac, and Sanofi; has received payment or honoraria from lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Orion; and has participated on data safety monitoring boards, advisory boards, or both for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, Janssen, Amgen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Orion, and Curevac. OS declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Four recent first-line clinical trials leveraging immune-oncology agents demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit relative to sunitinib. We aimed to provide formal comparisons among immune-oncology combinations in terms of OS, progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rates and treatment-related adverse events (AEs)., Materials and Methods: PubMed® database was searched for studies indexed from January 1, 2016 through March 6, 2021. Only phase III randomized clinical trials with proven OS benefit relative to sunitinib were included: CheckMate 214 (nivolumab plus ipilimumab [N+I]), KEYNOTE-426 (pembrolizumab plus axitinib [P+A]), CheckMate 9ER (nivolumab plus cabozantinib [N+C]) and KEYNOTE-581 (lenvatinib plus permbrolizumab [L+P]). OS represented the primary outcome. PFS, objective response rate and AEs represented secondary outcomes., Results: Overall, 3,320 patients were included. Regarding OS, N+C ranked first, followed by L+P, P+A and N+I. Regarding PFS and objective response rate, L+P ranked first, followed by N+C, P+A and N+I. Finally, N+I ranked first with respect to lowest grade 3+ AEs, followed by P+A, N+C and L+P. Differences in followup duration, risk grouping and nephrectomy rates distinguish the studies., Conclusions: N+C may provide the most favorable OS, L+P the most favorable PFS and ORRs, and N+I the lowest toxicity. Population differences may potentially undermine the generalizability and the robustness of findings of metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Background: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have antitumour activity against metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers with DNA damage response (DDR) alterations in genes involved directly or indirectly in homologous recombination repair (HRR). In this study, we assessed the PARP inhibitor talazoparib in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers with DDR-HRR alterations., Methods: In this open-label, phase 2 trial (TALAPRO-1), participants were recruited from 43 hospitals, cancer centres, and medical centres in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, South Korea, the UK, and the USA. Patients were eligible if they were men aged 18 years or older with progressive, metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancers of adenocarcinoma histology, measurable soft-tissue disease (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 [RECIST 1.1]), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, DDR-HRR gene alterations reported to sensitise to PARP inhibitors (ie, ATM, ATR, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, FANCA, MLH1, MRE11A, NBN, PALB2, RAD51C), had received one or two taxane-based chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease, and progressed on enzalutamide or abiraterone, or both, for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers. Eligible patients were given oral talazoparib (1 mg per day; or 0·75 mg per day in patients with moderate renal impairment) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, investigator decision, withdrawal of consent, or death. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate, defined as best overall soft-tissue response of complete or partial response per RECIST 1.1, by blinded independent central review. The primary endpoint was assessed in patients who received study drug, had measurable soft-tissue disease, and had a gene alteration in one of the predefined DDR-HRR genes. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03148795, and is ongoing., Findings: Between Oct 18, 2017, and March 20, 2020, 128 patients were enrolled, of whom 127 received at least one dose of talazoparib (safety population) and 104 had measurable soft-tissue disease (antitumour activity population). Data cutoff for this analysis was Sept 4, 2020. After a median follow-up of 16·4 months (IQR 11·1-22·1), the objective response rate was 29·8% (31 of 104 patients; 95% CI 21·2-39·6). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (39 [31%] of 127 patients), thrombocytopenia (11 [9%]), and neutropenia (ten [8%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 43 (34%) patients. There were no treatment-related deaths., Interpretation: Talazoparib showed durable antitumour activity in men with advanced metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers with DDR-HRR gene alterations who had been heavily pretreated. The favourable benefit-risk profile supports the study of talazoparib in larger, randomised clinical trials, including in patients with non-BRCA alterations., Funding: Pfizer/Medivation., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JSdB reports consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BioXcel Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Genmab, GSK, Janssen Oncology, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Merck Serono, MSD, Orion Pharma GmbH, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Sierra Oncology, and Taiho Pharmaceutical; funding or support to his institution for laboratory and clinical work from Astex Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Celgene, Cellcentric, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech, GSK, MedImmune, Medivation, Merck Serono, MSD, Orion Pharma GmbH, Sanofi, Sierra Oncology, and Taiho Pharmaceutical; honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, BioXcel Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen Oncology, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, and Sierra Oncology; travel, accommodation, and expenses from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Genmab, GSK, Orion Pharma GmbH, Qiagen, Sanofi, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Vertex; and is named as an inventor, with no financial interest, on a patent (number 8,822,438). NM reports consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genzyme, Janssen-Cilag, MSD Oncology, and Roche; funding or clinical trial and laboratory research support to his institution from Astellas Pharma, Janssen-Cilag, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, and Sanofi; and accommodation and expenses from Astellas Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology, and Roche. GVS reports payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, and Takeda; consulting fees from Eli Lilly, BeiGene, and AstraZeneca; institutional grants or contracts from MSD and Tesaro; support for attending meetings and travel from Bayer; and is a past president of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. EC reports consulting fees to her institution from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Janssen, MSD, and Pfizer; payment or honoraria to herself from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Janssen, Pfizer, and Roche; grants or contracts to her institution from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, and Synlab; support for attending meetings and travel from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Janssen; and is an unpaid member of the European Society for Medical Oncology faculty. TD reports participation on a Data Monitoring Safety Board or Advisory Board for Advanced Accelerator Applications, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, and Janssen. ASte reports consulting fees (personal) from Ipsen Pharma, Janssen, and Roche; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ferring, and Synergo; and research grant funding from Amgen, Ipsen Pharma, and Karl Storz AG. CSH reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Clovis Oncology, Ferring, Hinova Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, and Pfizer; funding for research work to her institution from Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Emergent BioSolutions, Ferring, Medivation, Pfizer, and Roche; honoraria from Astellas Pharma; and accommodation and expenses from Bayer, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Clovis Oncology, Ferring, Hinova Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Oncology, and Pfizer. FS reports consulting fees to himself from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Myovant, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; grants or contracts to his institution from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Myovant, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and payment or honoraria from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Myovant, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi. CB reports consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Merck, and Pfizer. IMvO reports consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Janssen, and MSD/AstraZeneca; grants or contracts from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Janssen, and MSD/AstraZeneca; payment or honoraria from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Janssen, and MSD/AstraZeneca; and support for attending meetings and travel from Astellas Pharma. ADL, MM, H-CC, CGH, and AC are employees of Pfizer and hold Pfizer stock and stock options. KF reports payment or honoraria to his institution from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Janssen, and Sanofi, and participation on a Data Monitoring Safety Board or Advisory Board to his institution for Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi. ASti and MTF declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common cancer in North American men. Advanced PC is incurable. The androgen receptor antagonist enzalutamide is used to manage advanced PC, often over a period of months or years; it is therefore important to evaluate the safety profile of enzalutamide., Areas Covered: This literature review presents safety data from pivotal trials and real-world data studies of enzalutamide in patients with advanced PC, including metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). A large body of evidence supports the maintenance or improvement in the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) afforded by enzalutamide treatment in patients with mHSPC, nmCRPC, or chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC, as well as improvement in the HRQoL in patients with later-stage symptomatic mCRPC. Efficacy data from clinical trials are also briefly discussed., Expert Opinion: We aim to provide clinicians with a better understanding of how to properly interpret enzalutamide clinical trial safety data. This knowledge may help clinicians guide their patients with PC to achieve optimal clinical benefit from enzalutamide therapy, and to properly manage their patients to mitigate any potential risk.

Background: We previously reported that olaparib led to significantly longer imaging-based progression-free survival than the physician's choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had qualifying alterations in homologous recombination repair genes and whose disease had progressed during previous treatment with a next-generation hormonal agent. The results of the final analysis of overall survival have not yet been reported., Methods: In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive olaparib (256 patients) or the physician's choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone as the control therapy (131 patients). Cohort A included 245 patients with at least one alteration in BRCA1 , BRCA2 , or ATM , and cohort B included 142 patients with at least one alteration in any of the other 12 prespecified genes. Crossover to olaparib was allowed after imaging-based disease progression for patients who met certain criteria. Overall survival in cohort A, a key secondary end point, was analyzed with the use of an alpha-controlled, stratified log-rank test at a data maturity of approximately 60%. The primary and other key secondary end points were reported previously., Results: The median duration of overall survival in cohort A was 19.1 months with olaparib and 14.7 months with control therapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.97; P = 0.02). In cohort B, the median duration of overall survival was 14.1 months with olaparib and 11.5 months with control therapy. In the overall population (cohorts A and B), the corresponding durations were 17.3 months and 14.0 months. Overall, 86 of 131 patients (66%) in the control group crossed over to receive olaparib (56 of 83 patients [67%] in cohort A). A sensitivity analysis that adjusted for crossover to olaparib showed hazard ratios for death of 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19 to 0.91) in cohort A, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.11 to 5.98) in cohort B, and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.29 to 1.06) in the overall population., Conclusions: Among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had tumors with at least one alteration in BRCA1 , BRCA2 , or ATM and whose disease had progressed during previous treatment with a next-generation hormonal agent, those who were initially assigned to receive olaparib had a significantly longer duration of overall survival than those who were assigned to receive enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone as the control therapy, despite substantial crossover from control therapy to olaparib. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp and Dohme; PROfound ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02987543.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Cellular senescence is a natural tumor suppression mechanism defined by a stable proliferation arrest. In the context of cancer treatment, cancer cell therapy-induced senescence (TIS) is emerging as an omnipresent cell fate decision that can be pharmacologically targeted at the molecular level to enhance the beneficial aspects of senescence. In prostate cancer (PCa), TIS has been reported using multiple different model systems, and a more systematic analysis would be useful to identify relevant senescence manipulation molecular targets. Here we show that a spectrum of PCa senescence phenotypes can be induced by clinically relevant therapies. We found that DNA damage inducers like irradiation and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase1 (PARP) inhibitors triggered a stable PCa-TIS independent of the p53 status. On the other hand, enzalutamide triggered a reversible senescence-like state that lacked evidence of cell death or DNA damage. Using a small senolytic drug panel, we found that senescence inducers dictated senolytic sensitivity. While Bcl-2 family anti-apoptotic inhibitor were lethal for PCa-TIS cells harboring evidence of DNA damage, they were ineffective against enzalutamide-TIS cells. Interestingly, piperlongumine, which was described as a senolytic, acted as a senomorphic to enhance enzalutamide-TIS proliferation arrest without promoting cell death. Overall, our results suggest that TIS phenotypic hallmarks need to be evaluated in a context-dependent manner because they can vary with senescence inducers, even within identical cancer cell populations. Defining this context-dependent spectrum of senescence phenotypes is key to determining subsequent molecular strategies that target senescent cancer cells.

Background: Multiple loss-of-function alterations in genes that are involved in DNA repair, including homologous recombination repair, are associated with response to poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition in patients with prostate and other cancers., Methods: We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial evaluating the PARP inhibitor olaparib in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had disease progression while receiving a new hormonal agent (e.g., enzalutamide or abiraterone). All the men had a qualifying alteration in prespecified genes with a direct or indirect role in homologous recombination repair. Cohort A (245 patients) had at least one alteration in BRCA1 , BRCA2 , or ATM ; cohort B (142 patients) had alterations in any of 12 other prespecified genes, prospectively and centrally determined from tumor tissue. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) to receive olaparib or the physician's choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone (control). The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival in cohort A according to blinded independent central review., Results: In cohort A, imaging-based progression-free survival was significantly longer in the olaparib group than in the control group (median, 7.4 months vs. 3.6 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.47; P<0.001); a significant benefit was also observed with respect to the confirmed objective response rate and the time to pain progression. The median overall survival in cohort A was 18.5 months in the olaparib group and 15.1 months in the control group; 81% of the patients in the control group who had progression crossed over to receive olaparib. A significant benefit for olaparib was also seen for imaging-based progression-free survival in the overall population (cohorts A and B). Anemia and nausea were the main toxic effects in patients who received olaparib., Conclusions: In men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had disease progression while receiving enzalutamide or abiraterone and who had alterations in genes with a role in homologous recombination repair, olaparib was associated with longer progression-free survival and better measures of response and patient-reported end points than either enzalutamide or abiraterone. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme; PROfound ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02987543.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Our objective was to test whether the rates of perioperative chemotherapy (CHT) administration in patients with urothelial bladder cancer (UCUB) with prostatic stromal invasion (pT4a) changed over time. Moreover, we tested the effect of CHT on overall mortality (OM), as well as on cancer-specific mortality (CSM) in this patient population., Materials and Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004-2016), we identified 1513 men with non-metastatic UCUB with prostatic stromal invasion who underwent radical cystectomy with lymph node dissection, with or without CHT administration. Estimated annual percentage change analyses, inverse probability of treatment-weighting (IPTW), Kaplan-Meier plots, Cox regression models, and landmark analyses were performed., Results: Overall, 732 (48.4%) patients with pT4a UCUB disease underwent radical cystectomy with perioperative CHT administration between 2004 and 2016. The CHT administration rate increased from 29.0% in 2004 to 64.8% in 2016 (P < .001). In IPTW-adjusted analyses, the 5-year overall survival was 47.7% versus 39.8%, and cancer-specific survival was 53.6 versus 50.1%, for with versus without CHT administration, respectively. After multivariable and IPTW-adjusted Cox regression models, administration of CHT independently predicted lower OM (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.73), as well as lower CSM (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80). even after 3-month landmark analyses (OM HR, 0.64; 95% CI 0.54-0.76; CSM HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.85)., Conclusions: The use of CHT in patients with pT4a UCUB increased from low to moderate in the most contemporary era. However, based on its impressive reduction in OM, as well as in CSM, further increases in CHT administration rates should be highly encouraged in this patient population., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Historical data demonstrated similar survival outcomes in patients with stage I nonseminoma germ-cell tumor of the testis (NSGCTT) subjected to either surveillance or active treatment (AT) after orchiectomy. However, data with long-term follow-up are unavailable. We tested contemporary treatment rates and their effect on cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and other-cause mortality (OCM) relative to surveillance, as well as after stratification between chemotherapy (CHT) versus retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND)., Patients and Methods: We identified patients with stage I NSGCTT with initial orchiectomy within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database (1988-2015). Subsequent surveillance versus CHT versus RPLND use rates were reported. Cumulative incidence plots and multivariable competing-risks regression (CRR) models were used after propensity score (PS) matching. These tests first compared surveillance versus AT (CHT vs. RPLND) and subsequently CHT versus RPLND., Results: Of 5034 patients with stage I NSGCTT, 61.2%, 24.9%, and 13.9%, respectively, underwent surveillance, CHT, and RPLND. Between 1988 and 2015, surveillance (estimated annual percentage change [EAPC]: +1.1%, P < .001) and CHT (EAPC: +2.3%, P < .001) rates increased. RPLND rates decreased (EAPC: -5.7%; P < .001). After PS matching, CRR models failed to identify AT as an independent predictor of lower mortality relative to surveillance. However, after PS matching, CRR models identified RPLND as an independent predictor of lower CSM (hazard ratio, 0.26; P = .002) relative to CHT. No difference in OCM rates was recorded (hazard ratio, 1.25; P = .2)., Conclusion: Surveillance and CHT use rates increased while RPLND decreased in the last two decades. Virtually the same outcomes were recorded between surveillance and AT. However, within AT, RPLND was associated with lower CSM than CHT., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In the last years, there have been significant developments in the therapeutic armamentarium of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). New evidence shows that the addition of bone-targeted agents (BTA) to "life-prolonging agents" result in improved clinical benefit. This review aims to give an overview of data for the use of BTAs in a new era of mCRPC where new agents are used in daily practice., Evidence Acquisition: A non-systematic review of the literature was performed combining the keywords: "castration-resistant prostate cancer" and "bone-targeted therapy". The primary objective was to provide a critical assessment of data for the use of BTAs in mCRPC, and the secondary objective was to assess novel targeted therapy., Evidence Synthesis: Zoledronic acid and denosumab have shown to be effective in reducing the risk of SREs in patients with mCRPC. The point at which treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab should be initiated during PCa evolution has yet to be determined. The EMA has restricted the usage of Ra-223 to patients who have had two previous treatments for mCRPC to the bone or who cannot receive other treatments. Ra-223 should only be used as monotherapy or in combination with ADT for the treatment of mCRPC, symptomatic bone metastases and without visceral metastases. With recent developments in PSMA-targeted radiopharmaceuticals, PSMA RLT agents are now under investigation for the treatment of mCRPC., Conclusions: Reducing skeletal-related morbidity remains a crucial goal of palliative life-extending therapy in mCRPC. New data about dosing schedules and combinations of different treatments will continue to refine the optimal strategy for incorporating BTAs into the new treatment paradigms for PCa. Novel molecules such as PSMA-targeted small molecules promise theranostic agents in the management of PCa patients.

Objectives: To analyze the potential survival benefit of perioperative chemotherapy (CHT) in patients treated with nephroureterectomy (NU) for non-metastatic locally advanced upper tract urothelial carcinoma., Methods: Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004-2014), we identified 1286 patients with T3 or T4, N 0-3 M0 UTUC. Kaplan-Meier plots, as well as multivariable Cox regression models (MCRMs) relying on inverse probability after treatment weighting (IPTW) and landmark analyses, were used to test the effect of CHT vs no CHT on overall mortality (OM) in the overall population (n =1286), as well as after stratification according to lymph node invasion (LNI)., Results: Overall, 37.4% patients received CHT. The CHT rate was higher with LNI (62.2% vs 35.2%, p < 0.001). In MCRMs, testing for OM in the overall population, CHT was associated with lower rates of OM (HR 0.71, CI 0.58-0.87; p = 0.001). Similarly, in MCRMs testing for OM in patients with LNI, CHT achieved independent predictor status for lower OM (HR 0.61, CI 0.48-0.78; p < 0.001). Conversely, in MCRMs testing for OM in patients without LNI, no CHT effect was recorded (HR 0.72, CI 0.52-1.01; p = 0.05). All results were confirmed after IPTW adjustment and in landmark analyses., Conclusions: Our results represent a contemporary North American report indicating lower OM after CHT for patients with locally advanced non-metastatic upper tract urothelial carcinoma, specifically in patients with T3-T4, N1-N3, M0 disease. Validation of the current and of the previous study is required within a randomized prospective design.

Background: Locally advanced muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) patients who are candidates for radical cystectomy (RC) should receive perioperative chemotherapy (CHT). However, the adherence to CHT guidelines is low. Thus, we tested contemporary CHT use rates and associated cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and overall mortality (OM) rates., Materials and Methods: Within the SEER database (2004-2015), we identified pT3N0/+ MIBC patients, who underwent RC, with or without perioperative CHT. Estimated annual percentage changes (EAPCs) analyses were used. After inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), Kaplan-Meier (KM) analyses and Cox regression models (CRMs) tested the association of CHT on survival in the overall population (n = 3817), as well as after stratification according to stage, gender and age. Landmark analyses tested for immortal time bias., Results: Overall, 44.3% of patients received CHT. Between 2004 and 2015, CHT administration rates increased from 32.1% to 55.6% (EAPC: +6.0%; p < 0.001). In CRMs, CHT was associated with lower CSM (HR 0.73, CI 0.65-0.81) and OM (HR 0.69, CI 0.62-0.76). In sensitivity analyses, CHT was also associated with lower CSM and OM in N0 patients (CSM: HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.88; OM: HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60-0.79) and in N+ patients (CSM: HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59-0.80; OM: HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58-0.77), as well as according to gender and age. Landmark analyses confirmed the above results., Conclusions: Perioperative CHT was associated with better survival and its rate of use increased in locally-advanced MIBC RC patients. The latter confirm one large observational study and several small prospective studies., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the PROSPER trial, enzalutamide significantly improved metastasis-free survival in patients with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. Here, we report the results of patient-reported outcomes of this study., Methods: In the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 PROSPER trial, done at 254 study sites worldwide, patients aged 18 years or older with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of up to 10 months were randomly assigned (2:1) via an interactive voice web recognition system to receive oral enzalutamide (160 mg per day) or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by prostate-specific antigen doubling time and baseline use of a bone-targeting agent. The primary endpoint was metastasis-free survival, reported elsewhere. Secondary efficacy endpoints, reported here, were pain progression (assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form [BPI-SF] questionnaire) and health-related quality of life (assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire [EORTC QLQ-PR25], the EuroQoL 5-Dimensions 5-Levels health questionnaire visual analogue scale [EQ-5D-FL, EQ-VAS], and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate [FACT-P] questionnaires). Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, week 17, and every 16 weeks thereafter until treatment discontinuation. We used predefined questionnaire thresholds to identify clinically meaningful changes. Enrolment for PROSPER is complete and follow-up continues. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02003924., Findings: Between Nov 26, 2013, and June 28, 2017, 1401 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive enzalutamide (n=933) or placebo (n=468). Median follow-up was 18·5 months (IQR 10·7-29·2) in the enzalutamide group and 15·1 months (7·4-25·9) in the placebo group. Patient-reported outcome scores at baseline were similar between groups. Changes in least squares mean from baseline to week 97 favoured enzalutamide versus placebo for FACT-P social and family wellbeing (0·30 [95% CI -0·25 to 0·85] vs -0·64 [-1·51 to 0·24]; difference 0·94 [95% CI 0·02 to 1·85]; p=0·045) and disfavoured enzalutamide versus placebo for EORTC QLQ-PR25 hormonal treatment-related symptoms (1·55 [0·26 to 2·83) vs -1·83 [-3·86 to 0·20]; difference 3·38 [1·24 to 5·51]; p=0·0020); neither of these changes were clinically meaningful. No significant differences were observed between treatments for changes from baseline to week 97 in any other patient-reported outcome score. Time to clinically meaningful pain progression as assessed by BPI-SF pain severity was longer with enzalutamide than with placebo (median 36·83 months, [95% CI 34·69 to not reached [NR] vs NR; hazard ratio [HR] 0·75 [95% CI 0·57 to 0·97]; p=0·028); there was no significant difference for BPI-SF item 3 or pain interference. Time to clinically meaningful symptom worsening was longer with enzalutamide than with placebo for EORTC QLQ-PR25 urinary symptoms (median 36·86 months [95% CI 33·35 to NR] vs 25·86 [18·53 to 29·47]; HR 0·58 [95% CI 0·46 to 0·72]; p<0·0001) and bowel symptoms (33·15 [29·50 to NR] vs 25·89 [18·43 to 29·67]; 0·72 [0·59 to 0·89]; p=0·0018), and clinically meaningful health-related quality of life as assessed by FACT-P total score (22·11 [18·63 to 25·86] vs 18·43 [14·85-19·35]; 0·83 [0·69 to 0·99]; p=0·037), emotional wellbeing (36·73 [33·12 to 38·21] vs 29·47 [22·18 to 33·15]; 0·69 [0·55 to 0·86]; p=0·0008), and prostate cancer subscale (18·43 [14·85 to 18·66] vs 14·69 [11·07 to 16·20]; 0·79 [0·67 to 0·93]; p=0·0042), although there was no significant difference for other FACT-P scores. Time to clinically meaningful deterioration in EORTC QLQ-PR25 hormonal treatment-related symptoms was shorter with enzalutamide than with placebo (median 33·15 months [95% CI 29·60 to NR] vs 36·83 [29·47 to NR]; HR 1·29 [95% CI 1·02 to 1·63]; p=0·035). Time to deterioration of EQ-VAS was significantly longer for enzalutamide than for placebo (median 22·11 months [95% CI 18·46 to 25·66] vs 14·75 [11·07 to 18·17]; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·63 to 0·90]; p=0·0013)., Interpretation: Patients with non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving enzalutamide had longer metastasis-free survival than did those who received placebo, while maintaining low pain levels and prostate cancer symptom burden and high health-related quality of life. Enzalutamide showed a clinical benefit by delaying pain progression, symptom worsening, and decrease in functional status, compared with placebo. These findings suggest that enzalutamide is a treatment option that should be discussed with patients presenting with high-risk, non- metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer., Funding: Astellas Pharma Inc, Medivation LLC (a Pfizer Company)., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the SPARTAN trial, addition of apalutamide to androgen deprivation therapy, as compared with placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy, significantly improved metastasis-free survival in men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were at high risk for development of metastases. We aimed to investigate the effects of apalutamide versus placebo added to androgen deprivation therapy on health-related quality of life (HRQOL)., Methods: SPARTAN is a multicentre, international, randomised, phase 3 trial. Participants were aged 18 years or older, with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of 10 months or less, and a prostate-specific antigen concentration of 2 ng/mL or more in serum. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to 240 mg oral apalutamide per day plus androgen deprivation therapy, or matched oral placebo plus androgen deprivation therapy, using an interactive voice randomisation system. Permuted block randomisation was used according to the three baseline stratification factors: prostate-specific antigen doubling time (>6 months vs ≤6 months), use of bone-sparing drugs (yes vs no), and presence of local-regional nodal disease (N0 vs N1). Each treatment cycle was 28 days. The primary endpoint was metastasis-free survival. The trial was unblinded in July, 2017. In this prespecified exploratory analysis we assessed HRQOL using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires, which we collected at baseline, day 1 of cycle 1 (before dose), day 1 of treatment cycles 1-6, day 1 of every two cycles from cycles 7 to 13, and day 1 of every four cycles thereafter. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01946204., Findings: Between Oct 14, 2013, and Dec 15, 2016, we randomly assigned 1207 patients to receive apalutamide (n=806) or placebo (n=401). The clinical cutoff date, as for the primary analysis, was May 19, 2017. Median follow-up for overall survival was 20·3 months (IQR 14·8-26·6). FACT-P total and subscale scores were associated with a preservation of HRQOL from baseline to cycle 29 in the apalutamide group; there were similar results for EQ-5D-3L. At baseline, the mean for FACT-P total score in both the apalutamide and placebo groups were consistent with the FACT-P general population norm for US adult men. Group mean patient-reported outcome scores over time show that HRQOL was maintained from baseline after initiation of apalutamide treatment and was similar over time among patients receiving apalutamide versus placebo. Least-squares mean change from baseline shows that HRQOL deterioration was more apparent in the placebo group., Interpretation: In asymptomatic men with high-risk non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, HRQOL was maintained after initiation of apalutamide treatment. Considered with findings from SPARTAN, patients who received apalutamide had longer metastasis-free survival and longer time to symptomatic progression than did those who received placebo, while preserving HRQOL., Funding: Janssen Research & Development., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a rapidly rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level are at high risk for metastasis. We hypothesized that enzalutamide, which prolongs overall survival among patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer, would delay metastasis in men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a rapidly rising PSA level., Methods: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a PSA doubling time of 10 months or less who were continuing androgen-deprivation therapy to receive enzalutamide (at a dose of 160 mg) or placebo once daily. The primary end point was metastasis-free survival (defined as the time from randomization to radiographic progression or as the time to death without radiographic progression)., Results: A total of 1401 patients (median PSA doubling time, 3.7 months) underwent randomization. As of June 28, 2017, a total of 219 of 933 patients (23%) in the enzalutamide group had metastasis or had died, as compared with 228 of 468 (49%) in the placebo group. The median metastasis-free survival was 36.6 months in the enzalutamide group versus 14.7 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.24 to 0.35; P<0.001). The time to the first use of a subsequent antineoplastic therapy was longer with enzalutamide treatment than with placebo (39.6 vs. 17.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.21; P<0.001; such therapy was used in 15% vs. 48% of patients) as was the time to PSA progression (37.2 vs. 3.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.07; P<0.001; progression occurred in 22% vs. 69% of patients). At the first interim analysis of overall survival, 103 patients (11%) receiving enzalutamide and 62 (13%) receiving placebo had died. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 31% of the patients receiving enzalutamide, as compared with 23% of those receiving placebo., Conclusions: Among men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer with a rapidly rising PSA level, enzalutamide treatment led to a clinically meaningful and significant 71% lower risk of metastasis or death than placebo. Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profile of enzalutamide. (Funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma; PROSPER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02003924 .).

Purpose of Review: Bone-targeted agents (BTAs), such as zoledronic acid and denosumab, delay the occurrence of skeletal-related events (SREs) in metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) patients. Recently, several agents, such as abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide and radium-223, were approved for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC). These agents resulted in improved overall survival (OS), pain control and had positive effects on bone health. Combining BTAs to the newly approved agents demonstrates additional benefits that warrant a review of available evidence looking at appropriate combination therapies and timing of BTAs for optimizing the management of advanced and metastatic PCa., Recent Findings: Post-hoc analyses of randomized trials demonstrated some benefits from combination therapy, such as increased OS when denosumab was used concurrently with radium-223 and when BTAs were used with abiraterone acetate. BTAs were not beneficial for the prevention of bone metastases., Summary: There is a suggestion of synergy or additive effects between BTAs and new agents approved for the treatment of metastatic PCa, resulting in potential clinical benefits. Therefore, prospective randomized studies evaluating the safety and benefits of combination therapies to address gaps in the literature are needed to optimize treatment of mCRPC.

Background: In the AFFIRM trial, enzalutamide significantly increased overall survival (OS) for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after chemotherapy versus placebo and significantly decreased prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. The goal of this post hoc analysis was to associate levels of PSA decline from baseline after enzalutamide with clinical outcomes in the postchemotherapy mCRPC setting., Methods: Men in the AFFIRM trial (n = 1199) were grouped by maximal PSA decline in the first 90 days of treatment. Kaplan-Meier estimates evaluated the association of defined PSA changes from baseline with OS, progression-free survival (PFS), radiographic PFS (rPFS), and pain response. Each PSA decline category was assessed for OS surrogacy using Prentice criteria, proportion of treatment effect explained (PTE), and proportion of variation explained., Results: Men treated with enzalutamide had improved OS (hazard ratio, 0.63; P < .001) and higher rates of PSA decline (odds ratio, >19.0; P < .001) versus placebo. PSA declines of any, ≥30%, ≥50%, and ≥90% with enzalutamide were strongly associated with greater OS, PSA PFS, rPFS (P < .001), and pain response (P < .026) versus PSA increase/no decline. Any, ≥30%, and ≥50% declines in PSA resulted in the PTE range of 1.07-1.29, where treatment was no longer significant after adjustment for decline measures (P > .20)., Conclusions: PSA declines of any, ≥30%, and ≥50% following enzalutamide were associated with greater clinical and pain response and improvements in PFS and OS. Surrogacy of PSA decline for OS was not fully established, possibly due to lack of PSA declines with placebo, and discordant results between PSA and imaging responses over time, and because some declines were not durable due to rapid resistance development. However, a lack of PSA decline by 90 days following enzalutamide treatment was a poor prognosis indicator in this setting. Conclusions from sensitivity analyses of maximal PSA decline from baseline over the entire treatment period are consistent with PSA declines restricted to the first 90 days. Cancer 2017;123:2303-2311. © 2017 American Cancer Society., (© 2017 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Background: Treatment patterns for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) have changed substantially in the last few years. In trial COU-AA-302 (chemotherapy-naïve men with mCRPC), abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA) significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) when compared to placebo plus prednisone (P)., Objective: This post hoc analysis investigated clinical responses to docetaxel as first subsequent therapy (FST) among patients who progressed following protocol-specified treatment with AA, and characterized subsequent treatment patterns among older (≥75 yr) and younger (<75 yr) patient subgroups., Design, Setting, and Participants: Data were collected at the final OS analysis (96% of expected death events). Subsequent therapy data were prospectively collected, while response and discontinuation data were collected retrospectively following discontinuation of the study drug., Intervention: At the discretion of the investigator, 67% (365/546) of patients from the AA arm received subsequent treatment with one or more agents approved for mCRPC., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Efficacy analysis was performed for patients for whom baseline and at least one post-baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values were available., Results and Limitations: Baseline and at least one post-baseline PSA values were available for 100 AA patients who received docetaxel as FST. While acknowledging the limitations of post hoc analyses, 40% (40/100) of these patients had an unconfirmed ≥50% PSA decline with first subsequent docetaxel therapy, and 27% (27/100) had a confirmed ≥50% PSA decline. The median docetaxel treatment duration among these 100 patients was 4.2 mo. Docetaxel was the most common FST among older and younger patients from each treatment arm. However, 43% (79/185) of older patients who progressed on AA received no subsequent therapy for mCRPC, compared with 17% (60/361) of younger patients., Conclusions: Patients with mCRPC who progress with AA treatment may still derive benefit from subsequent docetaxel therapy. These data support further assessment of treatment patterns following AA treatment for mCRPC, particularly among older patients., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00887198., Patient Summary: Treatment patterns for advanced prostate cancer have changed substantially in the last few years. This additional analysis provides evidence of clinical benefit for subsequent chemotherapy in men with advanced prostate cancer whose disease progressed after treatment with abiraterone acetate. Older patients were less likely to be treated with subsequent therapy., (Copyright © 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Enzalutamide significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) among men with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer at the prespecified interim analysis of PREVAIL, a phase 3, double-blind, randomized study. We evaluated the longer-term efficacy and safety of enzalutamide up to the prespecified number of deaths in the final analysis, which included an additional 20 mo of follow-up for investigator-assessed rPFS, 9 mo of follow-up for OS, and 4 mo of follow-up for safety. Enzalutamide reduced the risk of radiographic progression or death by 68% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.37; p<0.0001) and the risk of death by 23% (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67-0.88; p=0.0002). Median investigator-assessed rPFS was 20.0 mo (95% CI 18.9-22.1) in the enzalutamide arm and 5.4 mo (95% CI 4.1-5.6) in the placebo arm. Median OS was 35.3 mo (95% CI 32.2-not yet reached) in the enzalutamide arm and 31.3 mo (95% CI 28.8-34.2) in the placebo arm. At the time of the OS analysis, 167 patients in the placebo arm had crossed over to receive enzalutamide. The most common adverse events in the enzalutamide arm were fatigue, back pain, constipation, and arthralgia. This final analysis of PREVAIL provides more complete assessment of the clinical benefit of enzalutamide. PREVAIL is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01212991., Patient Summary: According to data from longer follow-up, enzalutamide continued to provide benefit over placebo in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer., (Copyright © 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose Ipilimumab increases antitumor T-cell responses by binding to cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4. We evaluated treatment with ipilimumab in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer without visceral metastases. Patients and Methods In this multicenter, double-blind, phase III trial, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to four doses. Ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo maintenance therapy was administered to nonprogressing patients every 3 months. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results Four hundred patients were randomly assigned to ipilimumab and 202 to placebo; 399 were treated with ipilimumab and 199 with placebo. Median OS was 28.7 months (95% CI, 24.5 to 32.5 months) in the ipilimumab arm versus 29.7 months (95% CI, 26.1 to 34.2 months) in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95.87% CI, 0.88 to 1.39; P = .3667). Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the ipilimumab arm versus 3.8 with placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95.87% CI, 0.55 to 0.81). Exploratory analyses showed a higher prostate-specific antigen response rate with ipilimumab (23%) than with placebo (8%). Diarrhea (15%) was the only grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse event (AE) reported in ≥ 10% of ipilimumab-treated patients. Nine (2%) deaths occurred in the ipilimumab arm due to treatment-related AEs; no deaths occurred in the placebo arm. Immune-related grade 3 to 4 AEs occurred in 31% and 2% of patients, respectively. Conclusion Ipilimumab did not improve OS in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The observed increases in progression-free survival and prostate-specific antigen response rates suggest antitumor activity in a patient subset.

Background: Enzalutamide, an oral androgen receptor inhibitor, significantly improved overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) versus placebo in the PREVAIL trial of men with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer., Objective: To assess the effects of enzalutamide versus placebo in patients from PREVAIL based on site and extent of baseline disease., Design, Setting, and Participants: One thousand seven hundred and seventeen asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients were randomized to enzalutamide (n=872) or placebo (n=845). Subgroup analyses included nonvisceral (only bone and/or nodal; n=1513), visceral (lung and/or liver; n=204), low-volume bone disease (<4 bone metastases; n=867), high-volume bone disease (≥4 bone metastases; n=850), lymph node only disease (n=195)., Intervention: Oral enzalutamide (160mg) or placebo once daily while continuing androgen deprivation therapy., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Coprimary endpoints (rPFS, OS) were prospectively evaluated in nonvisceral and visceral subgroups. All other efficacy analyses were post hoc., Results and Limitations: Enzalutamide improved rPFS versus placebo in patients with nonvisceral disease (hazard ratio [HR], 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-0.22), visceral disease (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.16-0.49), low- or high-volume bone disease (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.11-0.22; HR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.16-0.29, respectively), and lymph node only disease (HR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.04-0.19). For OS, HRs favored enzalutamide (<1) across all disease subgroups, although 95% CI was >1 in patients with visceral disease (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.55-1.23). Enzalutamide was well tolerated in patients with or without visceral disease., Conclusions: Enzalutamide provided clinically significant benefits in men with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, with or without visceral disease, low- or high-volume bone disease, or lymph node only disease., Patient Summary: Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer-including those with or without visceral disease or widespread bone disease-benefitted from enzalutamide, an active well-tolerated therapy., (Copyright © 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Bone metastases in the advanced stages of prostate cancer have a detrimental effect on the quality of life, resulting in skeletal-related events and pain and place a significant burden on healthcare resources. Improvements in prostate cancer treatment have led to a longer survival of patients. Therefore, quality of life is of growing interest and importance. Successful management and prevention of the complications of bone metastasis in those patients remains, however, clinically challenging., Recent Findings: Recently, radium-223 was approved as a treatment for bone metastasis in patients with prostate cancer, joining zoledronic acid, denosumab and other radiopharmaceuticals in the clinical armamentarium. Radium-223 has shown to improve overall survival in patients with bone metastasis., Summary: This review focuses on the recent landmark studies on zoledronic acid, denosumab and radium-223 for patients with metastatic prostate cancer and gives a comprehensive overview of their mechanism of action, efficacy, dosage and safety profile.

Background: This analysis was performed to further characterise treatment-emergent hypocalcaemia in patients with bone metastases receiving denosumab., Methods: Laboratory abnormalities and adverse events of hypocalcaemia in patients with metastatic bone disease were analysed using data from three identically designed phase 3 trials of subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg (n = 2841) versus intravenous zoledronic acid 4 mg (n = 2836)., Results: The overall incidence of laboratory events of hypocalcaemia grade ⩾ 2 was higher with denosumab (12.4%) than with zoledronic acid (5.3%). Hypocalcaemia events were primarily grade 2 in severity and usually occurred within the first 6 months of treatment. Patients who reported taking calcium and/or vitamin D supplements had a lower incidence of hypocalcaemia. Prostate cancer or small-cell lung cancer, reduced creatinine clearance and higher baseline bone turnover markers of urinary N-telopeptide of type I collagen (uNTx; > 50 versus ⩽ 50 nmol/mmol) and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP; > 20.77 μg/L [median] versus ⩽ 20.77 μg/L) values were important risk factors for developing hypocalcaemia. The risk associated with increased baseline BSAP levels was greater among patients who had > 2 bone metastases at baseline versus those with ⩽ 2 bone metastases at baseline., Conclusion: Hypocalcaemia was more frequent with denosumab versus zoledronic acid, consistent with denosumab's greater antiresorptive effect. Low serum calcium levels and potential vitamin D deficiency should be corrected before initiating treatment with a potent osteoclast inhibitor, and corrected serum calcium levels should be monitored during treatment. Adequate calcium and vitamin D intake appears to substantially reduce the risk of hypocalcaemia., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We constructed a biomarker-survival modeling framework to explore the relationship between prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics and overall survival (OS) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients following oral administration of 1,000 mg/day of abiraterone acetate (AA)., Experimental Design: The PSA-survival modeling framework was based on data from two phase III studies, COU-AA-301 (chemotherapy pretreated, n = 1,184) and COU-AA-302 (chemotherapy naïve, n = 1,081), and included a mixed-effects tumor growth inhibition model and a Cox proportional hazards survival model., Results: The effect of AA on PSA kinetics was significant (P < 0.0001) and comparable between the chemotherapy-naïve and -pretreated patients. PSA kinetics [e.g., PSA nadir, PSA response rate (≥30%, 50%, and 90%), time to PSA progression, PSA doubling time (PSADT)] were highly associated with OS in both populations. The model-based posttreatment PSADT had the strongest association with OS (HR ∼0.9 in both populations). The models could accurately predict survival outcomes. After adjusting for PSA kinetic endpoints, the treatment effect of AA on survival was no longer statistically significant in both studies, and the Prentice criteria of surrogacy were met for the PSA kinetic endpoints. A strong correlation was also observed between PSA and radiographic progression-free survival., Conclusions: The analysis revealed a consistent treatment effect of AA on PSA kinetics and strong associations between PSA kinetics and OS in chemotherapy-pretreated and -naïve patients, thereby providing a rationale to consider PSA kinetics as surrogacy endpoints to indicate clinical benefit in AA-treated patients with mCRPC regardless of chemotherapy treatment., (©2015 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: The open-label, single-arm enzalutamide expanded access program (EAP) in the United States and Canada evaluated the safety of enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had previously received docetaxel., Methods: Patients (n = 507) received enzalutamide 160 mg/day until disease progression, intolerable adverse events (AEs), or commercial availability occurred. AEs and other safety variables were assessed on day 1, weeks 4 and 12, and every 12 weeks thereafter. Data following transition to commercial drug were not collected., Results: Median age was 71 years (range 43-97); 426 patients (83.9%) had a baseline ECOG score of ≤1. In addition to docetaxel, the majority of patients had received prior prostate cancer treatments such as abiraterone (76.1%) or cabazitaxel (28.6%). Median study treatment duration was 2.6 months (range 0.03-9.07). The most frequently reported reasons for discontinuation were commercial availability of enzalutamide (46.7%) and progressive disease (33.7%). A total of 88.2% of patients experienced AEs; 45.4% experienced AEs with a maximum grade of 1 or 2. Fatigue (39.1%), nausea (22.7%), and anorexia (14.8%) were the most commonly reported AEs. Seizure was reported in four patients (0.8%). The most commonly reported event leading to death was progression of metastatic prostate cancer (7.7%)., Conclusion: In this heavily pretreated EAP population with progressive mCRPC, enzalutamide was well tolerated and the safety profile was consistent with that of the AFFIRM trial., (© 2015 The Authors. The Prostate, published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Enzalutamide significantly prolonged the survival of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PCa) after docetaxel in the randomised, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational Patients with Progressive Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Previously Treated with Docetaxel-Based Chemotherapy (AFFIRM) trial (NCT00974311). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is commonly used as a marker of PCa disease burden, and the relationship of baseline PSA level to consequent treatment effect is of clinical interest., Objective: Exploratory analysis to evaluate any differences in patient characteristics and efficacy outcomes by baseline PSA level in the AFFIRM trial., Design, Setting, and Participants: Post hoc subanalysis of all randomised patients (n=1199) from the AFFIRM trial., Intervention: Participants were randomly assigned in a two-to-one ratio to receive oral enzalutamide 160 mg/d or placebo., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The major clinical efficacy end points were overall survival (OS), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and time to PSA progression (TTPP) versus placebo; baseline characteristics, treatment duration, and subsequent antineoplastic therapy were compared by baseline PSA quartile., Results and Limitations: Baseline PSA quartiles corresponded to the following PSA groups: <40 ng/ml (n=299), 40 to <111 ng/ml (n=300), 111 to <406 ng/ml (n=300), and ≥406 ng/ml (n=300). Enzalutamide consistently improved OS, rPFS, and TTPP compared with placebo across all subgroups, regardless of baseline PSA level. Hazard ratios for improvements in OS were 0.55 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.85), 0.69 (95% CI, 0.47-1.02), 0.73 (95% CI, 0.53-1.01), and 0.53 (95% CI, 0.39-0.73) for PSA groups 1-4, respectively. The post hoc design of this analysis was not statistically powered to assess the relationship between baseline PSA and clinical efficacy outcomes., Conclusions: This post hoc analysis of the AFFIRM trial demonstrates consistent benefits in OS, rPFS, and TTPP with enzalutamide regardless of baseline disease severity, as assessed by PSA., Patient Summary: Exploratory post hoc analysis of the AFFIRM trial showed that enzalutamide improves overall survival, radiographic progression-free survival, and time to prostate-specific antigen progression compared with placebo regardless of baseline disease severity, as assessed by prostate-specific antigen., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00974311., (Copyright © 2014 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: This review will describe the management of patients with prostate cancer and bone metastases with a particular emphasis on recent advances in this area., Recent Findings: Two osteoclast-targeted agents have been shown to decrease the incidence of skeletal-related events in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and bone metastases. These agents are the bisphosphonate zoledronic acid and the monoclonal antibody denosumab. Recent advances in the field include the approval of several agents shown to extend survival in mCRPC. Among these agents, the androgen-pathway inhibitors, abiraterone and enzalutamide, are shown to decrease the incidence of skeletal-related events, whereas the radiopharmaceutical radium-223 is shown to reduce the incidence of symptomatic skeletal event. Cabozantinib, an agent in development, has shown encouraging activity in patients with mCRPC and bone metastases; definitive phase III trials of this agent are underway. Phase III metastasis-prevention trials are also underway in nonmetastatic CRPC., Summary: Osteoclast-targeted agents reduce skeletal-related events in mCRPC. Disease-modifying agents also reduce the skeletal morbidity associated with mCRPC. Multiple agents are now available to reduce the skeletal morbidity of prostate cancer, whereas agents in development may provide additional options in the future.

Purpose: Denosumab, an anti-RANK ligand monoclonal antibody, significantly increases bone metastasis-free survival (BMFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; P = .028) and delays time to first bone metastasis in men with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥ 8.0 ng/mL and/or PSA doubling time (PSADT) ≤ 10.0 months. To identify men at greatest risk for bone metastasis or death, we evaluated relationships between PSA and PSADT with BMFS in the placebo group and the efficacy and safety of denosumab in men with PSADT ≤ 10, ≤ 6, and ≤ 4 months., Patients and Methods: A total of 1,432 men with nonmetastatic CRPC were randomly assigned 1:1 to monthly subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg or placebo. Enrollment began February 2006; primary analysis cutoff was July 2010, when approximately 660 men were anticipated to have developed bone metastases or died., Results: In the placebo group, shorter BMFS was observed as PSADT decreased below 8 months. In analyses by shorter baseline PSADT, denosumab consistently increased BMFS by a median of 6.0, 7.2, and 7.5 months among men with PSADT ≤ 10 (HR, 0.84; P = .042), ≤ 6 (HR, 0.77; P = .006), and ≤ 4 months (HR, 0.71; P = .004), respectively. Denosumab also consistently increased time to bone metastasis by PSADT subset. No difference in survival was observed between treatment groups for the overall study population or PSADT subsets., Conclusion: Patients with shorter PSADT are at greater risk for bone metastasis or death. Denosumab consistently improves BMFS in men with shorter PSADT and seems to have the greatest treatment effects in men at high risk for progression.

Purpose of Review: To present the recent advances in novel agents that target heat shock proteins (Hsps) to treat or delay the development of castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC)., Recent Findings: Multiple preclinical studies have shown that silencing Hsp27, Hsp90, or clusterin sensitizes prostate cancer cells to modern chemotherapy and radiation treatments; and overexpression of these chaperones confers resistance to these therapies. Antisense oligonucleotides targeting Hsp27 and clusterin have shown good biological activity in human phase II trials and phase III studies are ongoing. Despite promising preclinical efficacy, a number of phase I/II human trials with various Hsp90 inhibitors have been disappointing with negligible anticancer activity and dose-limiting toxicity profiles. Newer Hsp90 inhibitors with better toxicity profiles, and inhibitors that target Hsp90 cofactors, such as FKBP52, are currently being investigated in human studies., Summary: Many Hsp chaperone client proteins are key components of alternative growth factor pathways upregulated in CRPC and are involved in key resistance pathways to current chemotherapy and radiotherapy regimes. New treatments that inhibit Hsps are attractive anticancer strategies as they have the ability to simultaneously target multiple pathways involved in CRPC.

Background: Enzalutamide (formerly called MDV3100) targets multiple steps in the androgen-receptor-signaling pathway, the major driver of prostate-cancer growth. We aimed to evaluate whether enzalutamide prolongs survival in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy., Methods: In our phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we stratified 1199 men with castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy according to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance-status score and pain intensity. We randomly assigned them, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive oral enzalutamide at a dose of 160 mg per day (800 patients) or placebo (399 patients). The primary end point was overall survival., Results: The study was stopped after a planned interim analysis at the time of 520 deaths. The median overall survival was 18.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.3 to not yet reached) in the enzalutamide group versus 13.6 months (95% CI, 11.3 to 15.8) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death in the enzalutamide group, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.75; P<0.001). The superiority of enzalutamide over placebo was shown with respect to all secondary end points: the proportion of patients with a reduction in the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level by 50% or more (54% vs. 2%, P<0.001), the soft-tissue response rate (29% vs. 4%, P<0.001), the quality-of-life response rate (43% vs. 18%, P<0.001), the time to PSA progression (8.3 vs. 3.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.25; P<0.001), radiographic progression-free survival (8.3 vs. 2.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.40; P<0.001), and the time to the first skeletal-related event (16.7 vs. 13.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.69; P<0.001). Rates of fatigue, diarrhea, and hot flashes were higher in the enzalutamide group. Seizures were reported in five patients (0.6%) receiving enzalutamide., Conclusions: Enzalutamide significantly prolonged the survival of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy. (Funded by Medivation and Astellas Pharma Global Development; AFFIRM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00974311.).

Although dissemination may occur early in the course of many cancers, the development of overt metastases depends upon a variety of factors inherent to the cancer cells and the tissue(s) they colonize. The time lag between initial dissemination and established metastases could be several years, during which period the bone marrow may provide an unwitting sanctuary for disseminated tumor cells (DTCs). Survival in a dormant state within the bone marrow may help DTCs weather the effects of anticancer therapies and seed posttreatment relapses. The importance of the bone marrow for facilitating DTC survival may vary depending on the type of cancer and mechanisms of tumor cell dissemination. By altering the bone microenvironment, bisphosphonates may reduce DTC viability. Moreover, some bisphosphonates have demonstrated multiple anticancer activities. These multiple mechanisms may help explain the improvement in disease outcomes with the use of zoledronic acid in malignancies like breast cancer and multiple myeloma., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Anticancer therapies have traditionally been targeted directly against cancer cell growth. However, newer treatment strategies also target the microenvironment that supports metastatic cancer cell growth. Bisphosphonates are the standard of care for maintaining bone health in patients with bone metastases from solid tumors and bone lesions from multiple myeloma, and emerging evidence supports potential anticancer activity of bisphosphonates. Zoledronic acid (ZOL), a third-generation nitrogen-containing bisphosphonate, is currently advised for reducing the risk of skeletal morbidity in patients with bone metastases from prostate cancer and other genitourinary cancers, such as renal cell carcinoma and bladder cancer. Clinical studies indicate that ZOL can normalize bone marker levels (a potential measure of skeletal disease burden), which may improve survival in patients with aggressive bone disease from prostate and other genitourinary cancers, supporting a broader therapeutic role for ZOL in genitourinary malignancies. This review examines the rationale and emerging evidence supporting the anticancer activity of bisphosphonates, especially ZOL, against prostate and other genitourinary cancers.

While responsive to androgen ablation in its early stages, prostate cancer eventually becomes castration-resistant and metastasizes preferentially to bone. Once this happens, the disease carries considerable morbidity and is incurable. The process of bone metastasis involves a complex interplay between tumour and bone tissue. The eventual characteristic clinical presentation of disorganized osteoblastic bone lesions is preceded by a facilitatory osteoblastic phase; an osteoblastic component then continues to underlie the process. Increasing evidence has shown a ubiquitous role for Src (a proto-oncogene tyrosine-protein kinase) in multiple tumour and bone-signalling processes involved in prostate tumour progression, driving proliferation, survival, migration and transition to androgen-independent growth. It is also intimately involved in positively regulating osteoclast physiology. As such, this molecule represents an attractive target for managing progressing prostate cancer. Encouraging results have been obtained in preclinical and clinical studies using Src inhibitors like AZD0530 and dasatinib. Both compounds reduced markers of bone resorption, in patients with cancer and those with advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer, respectively. Moreover, because Src is central to many mechanisms thought to be responsible for the development of castration resistance, adding Src inhibitors to a treatment regimen might reverse this phenomenon. As a result, many Src inhibitors are in preclinical development. This review explores Src inhibition as a strategy for managing bone metastasis in prostate cancer, with a particular focus on targeting the critical osteoclastic response. Other emerging and novel approaches are also considered.

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of atrasentan (Xinlay), a selective endothelin-A receptor antagonist, in patients with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC)., Methods: This multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled 809 men with metastatic HRPC. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either atrasentan 10 mg per day or placebo. The primary endpoint was time to disease progression (TTP), which was determined according to radiographic and clinical measures. Analyses of overall survival and changes in biomarkers also were performed., Results: Atrasentan did not reduce the risk of disease progression relative to placebo (hazards ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.04; P = .136). Most patients progressed radiographically at the first 12-week bone scan without concomitant clinical progression. In exploratory analyses, increases from baseline to final bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were significantly lower with atrasentan treatment (P < .05 for each). The median time to BAP progression (>/=50% increase from nadir) was twice as long with atrasentan treatment (505 days vs 254 days; P < .01). The delay in time to PSA progression did not reach statistical significance. Atrasentan generally was tolerated well, and the most common adverse events associated with treatment were headache, rhinitis, and peripheral edema, reflecting the vasodilatory and fluid-retention properties of endothelin-A receptor antagonism., Conclusions: Atrasentan did not delay disease progression in men with metastatic HRPC despite evidence of biologic effects on PSA and BAP as markers of disease burden.

A 66-year-old previously healthy female was diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) metastic to the 4th, 6th and 12th thoracic vertebrae. Despite external beam radiotheraphy (20G in 5 fractions), she progressed to spinal cord compression within 4 weeks and was wheelchair bound. Radiation and surgery were not considered suitable, but sunitinib was initiated. After two 6-week sunitinib cycles, she is fully ambulatory. She reports grade I fatigue and occasional epistaxis, as sole side effects. This case demonstrates that despite the rapid progression of the disease, which escaped the effect of radiation within four weeks, sunitinib resulted in complete clinical symptom resolution, which was confirmed radiographically. Moreover, it appears that the novel therapies for metastatic RCC may restore quality and quantity of life to many of those, whose disease previously appeared too advanced to treat.

Bisphosphonates are widely used to stabilize the bone and prevent devastating skeletal complications in patients with malignant bone disease from breast cancer or multiple myeloma. Bisphosphonates work by inhibiting osteoclast-mediated bone resorption and have also demonstrated antitumor activity in preclinical models. Of the available bisphosphonates, intravenous zoledronic acid has demonstrated the broadest clinical activity and is approved for the treatment of bone metastases from any solid tumor in many countries throughout the world. Clinical trials in breast and prostate cancer are also investigating zoledronic acid for the prevention of bone metastasis and bone loss associated with hormonal therapy. Due to its unique pharmacologic profile, zoledronic acid has activity in a variety of clinical settings at low doses and with infrequent intravenous dosing.

Men with advanced prostate cancer are at high risk for developing bone metastases, which result in clinically significant skeletal morbidity. Treatments that prevent skeletal complications in these patients could considerably improve their quality of life. Therefore, this paper reviews the role of bisphosphonates in the treatment of hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC). Published studies were identified through MEDLINE searches, review of bibliographies of relevant articles, and review of abstracts from scientific meetings. Metastatic bone disease in men with HRPC results in skeletal complications such as pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, and debilitating bone pain. First- and second-generation bisphosphonates, clodronate and pamidronate, had transient palliative effects that were not durable and did not prevent skeletal events in these patients. A small open-label study of ibandronate demonstrated significant reductions in pain, but these results have not been confirmed in a larger, randomized, controlled trial. To date, zoledronic acid is the only bisphosphonate that has demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in skeletal morbidity in this patient population. In a large, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, treatment of men with HRPC and bone metastases with zoledronic acid significantly reduced skeletal-related events and provided a durable reduction of bone pain over 24 months compared with placebo. Zoledronic acid is the only bisphosphonate that has demonstrated efficacy for preventing skeletal complications in patients with HRPC and bone metastases. Therefore, initiation of zoledronic acid therapy should be considered to prevent skeletal morbidity and improve the quality of life of these patients.

In a placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial, zoledronic acid (4 mg via a 15-minute infusion every 3 weeks for 15 months) reduced the incidence of skeletal-related events (SREs) in men with hormone-refractory metastatic prostate cancer. Among 122 patients who completed a total of 24 months on study, fewer patients in the 4-mg zoledronic acid group than in the placebo group had at least one SRE (38% versus 49%, difference = -11.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -20.2% to -1.3%; P =.028), and the annual incidence of SREs was 0.77 for the 4-mg zoledronic acid group versus 1.47 for the placebo group (P=.005). The median time to the first SRE was 488 days for the 4-mg zoledronic acid group versus 321 days for the placebo group (P =.009). Compared with placebo, 4 mg of zoledronic acid reduced the ongoing risk of SREs by 36% (risk ratio = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.485 to 0.845; P =.002). Patients in the 4-mg zoledronic acid group had a lower incidence of SREs than did patients in the placebo group, regardless of whether they had an SRE prior to entry in the study. Long-term treatment with 4 mg of zoledronic acid is safe and provides sustained clinical benefits for men with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Background: Bone metastases are a common cause of morbidity in patients with prostate carcinoma. We studied the effect of a new bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid, which blocks bone destruction, on skeletal complications in prostate cancer patients with bone metastases., Methods: Patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer and a history of bone metastases were randomly assigned to a double-blind treatment regimen of intravenous zoledronic acid at 4 mg (N = 214), zoledronic acid at 8 mg (subsequently reduced to 4 mg; 8/4) (N = 221), or placebo (N = 208) every 3 weeks for 15 months. Proportions of patients with skeletal-related events, time to the first skeletal-related event, skeletal morbidity rate, pain and analgesic scores, disease progression, and safety were assessed. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: Approximately 38% of patients who received zoledronic acid at 4 mg, 28% who received zoledronic acid at 8/4 mg, and 31% who received placebo completed the study. A greater proportion of patients who received placebo had skeletal-related events than those who received zoledronic acid at 4 mg (44.2% versus 33.2%; difference = -11.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -20.3% to -1.8%; P =.021) or those who received zoledronic acid at 8/4 mg (38.5%; difference versus placebo = -5.8%, 95% CI = -15.1% to 3.6%; P =.222). Median time to first skeletal-related event was 321 days for patients who received placebo, was not reached for patients who received zoledronic acid at 4 mg (P =.011 versus placebo), and was 363 days for those who received zoledronic acid at 8/4 mg (P =.491 versus placebo). Compared with urinary markers in patients who received placebo, urinary markers of bone resorption were statistically significantly decreased in patients who received zoledronic acid at either dose (P =.001). Pain and analgesic scores increased more in patients who received placebo than in patients who received zoledronic acid, but there were no differences in disease progression, performance status, or quality-of-life scores among the groups. Zoledronic acid at 4 mg given as a 15-minute infusion was well tolerated, but the 8-mg dose was associated with renal function deterioration., Conclusion: Zoledronic acid at 4 mg reduced skeletal-related events in prostate cancer patients with bone metastases.

BackgroundAbiraterone acetate (an androgen biosynthesis inhibitor) plus prednisone is approved for treating patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Study COU-AA-302 evaluated abiraterone acetate plus prednisone versus prednisone alone in mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic patients with progressive mCRPC without prior chemotherapy.ObjectiveReport the prespecified third interim analysis (IA) of efficacy and safety outcomes in study COU-AA-302.Design, setting, and participantsStudy COU-AA-302, a double-blind placebo-controlled study, enrolled patients with mCRPC from April 2009 to June 2010. A total of 1088 patients were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1).InterventionPatients were randomised 1:1 to abiraterone 1000mg plus prednisone 5mg twice daily by mouth versus prednisone.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisCo-primary end points were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS). Median times to event outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived using the Cox model, and treatment comparison used the log-rank test. The O'Brien-Fleming Lan-DeMets α-spending function was used for OS. Adverse events were summarised descriptively.Results and limitationsWith a median follow-up duration of 27.1 mo, improvement in rPFS was statistically significant with abiraterone treatment versus prednisone (median: 16.5 vs 8.2 mo; HR: 0.52 [95% CI, 0.45-0.61]; p2 yr.

BackgroundEnzalutamide is an oral androgen-receptor inhibitor that prolongs survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in whom the disease has progressed after chemotherapy. New treatment options are needed for patients with metastatic prostate cancer who have not received chemotherapy, in whom the disease has progressed despite androgen-deprivation therapy.MethodsIn this double-blind, phase 3 study, we randomly assigned 1717 patients to receive either enzalutamide (at a dose of 160 mg) or placebo once daily. The coprimary end points were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival.ResultsThe study was stopped after a planned interim analysis, conducted when 540 deaths had been reported, showed a benefit of the active treatment. The rate of radiographic progression-free survival at 12 months was 65% among patients treated with enzalutamide, as compared with 14% among patients receiving placebo (81% risk reduction; hazard ratio in the enzalutamide group, 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15 to 0.23; P

BackgroundAbiraterone acetate, an androgen biosynthesis inhibitor, improves overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy. We evaluated this agent in patients who had not received previous chemotherapy.MethodsIn this double-blind study, we randomly assigned 1088 patients to receive abiraterone acetate (1000 mg) plus prednisone (5 mg twice daily) or placebo plus prednisone. The coprimary end points were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival.ResultsThe study was unblinded after a planned interim analysis that was performed after 43% of the expected deaths had occurred. The median radiographic progression-free survival was 16.5 months with abiraterone-prednisone and 8.3 months with prednisone alone (hazard ratio for abiraterone-prednisone vs. prednisone alone, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.62; P

Simple Summary: PARP inhibitors (PARPi; olaparib) are presently in clinical trials for advanced prostate cancer (PC). Resistance mechanisms are not fully understood in PC compared to ovarian and breast cancers. Our study aimed to identify new molecular mechanisms that affect acquired olaparib-resistance. We developed new resistant PC cell line models derived from original PC cell lines. We identified that DNA repair, autophagy, and the Rho-associated coiled-coil containing protein kinase 2 (ROCK2) could be potential targets to reverse the acquired olaparib-resistance. Background: Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) were initially deployed to target breast and ovarian tumors with mutations in DNA damage response genes. Recently, PARPi have been shown to be beneficial in the treatment of prostate cancer (PC) patients having exhausted conventional therapeutics. Despite demonstrating promising response rates, all patients treated with PARPi eventually develop resistance. However, PARPi resistance in PC is not well understood, and further studies are required to understand PARPi resistance in PC to propose strategies to circumvent resistance. Methods: Starting from well-established olaparib-sensitive PC cell lines (LNCaP, C4-2B and DU145), we derived olaparib-resistant (OR) PC cell lines and performed a microarray analysis. Results: The olaparib IC50 values of OR cell lines increased significantly as compared to the parental cell lines. Gene expression analyses revealed that different pathways, including DNA repair, cell cycle regulation and autophagy, were affected by acquired resistance. A total of 195 and 87 genes were significantly upregulated and downregulated, respectively, in all three OR cell lines compared to their parental counterparts. Among these genes, we selected BRCC3, ROCK2 and ATG2B for validation. We showed that ROCK2 expression, basal autophagy and homologous recombination (HR) efficiency were increased in all OR cell lines. Conclusions: Our study provides a new in vitro model to study PARPi resistance in PC and suggests new possible targets to reverse resistance and prolong the benefits of PARPi treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]