Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Arun Azad , Arnauld Villers , Boris Alekseev , Russell Zelig Szmulewitz , Antonio Alcaraz , Neal D. Shore , Daniel Peter Petrylak , Jeffrey Holzbeierlein , Francisco Gomez-Veiga , Brad Rosbrook , Fabian Zohren , Ho-Jin Lee , Gabriel P. Haas , Taro Iguchi , Arnulf Stenzl , Andrew J. Armstrong
Background: In ARCHES (NCT02677896) ENZA + ADT reduced the risk of radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) events, primary endpoint, and improved key secondary endpoints vs PBO + ADT in men with mHSPC (also known as metastatic castration-sensitive PC). Given the progressive nature of PC, this exploratory analysis evaluated efficacy of ENZA + ADT in patients (pts) who progressed to M1 HSPC following initial diagnosis (M0) vs pts who presented with de novo mHSPC at diagnosis (M1). Methods: mHSPC pts (n=1150) were randomized 1:1 to ENZA (160 mg/day) + ADT or PBO + ADT, stratified by disease volume and prior docetaxel use. In this post hoc analysis, pts previously centrally categorized as MX/unknown metastasis at initial diagnosis (n=213) were adjudicated as either M0 or M1 disease following review of their medical profiles; efficacy outcomes were compared according to M0 vs M1 disease at initial diagnosis. Results: In this analysis, 246 pts (ENZA n=117; PBO n=129) had M0 and 890 pts (ENZA n=448; PBO n=442) had M1 disease at initial diagnosis; metastatic status of 14 pts (ENZA n=9; PBO n=5) were unknown (data not shown). Baseline characteristics were generally comparable between treatment arms; however, a greater proportion of M1 pts had high disease volume (n=606; 68.1% vs n=116; 47.2% [M0]) and prior docetaxel (n=173, 19.4% vs n=29, 11.8% [M0]). ENZA + ADT improved rPFS vs PBO + ADT irrespective of M0 or M1 disease at diagnosis; similar improvements were observed for secondary endpoints including prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and objective responses, time to PSA progression, time to new antineoplastic therapy (Table). Safety profiles were generally similar between subgroups and the overall population; exceptions include higher fatigue in M0 ENZA and PBO treatment arms. Conclusions: This post hoc analysis demonstrates clinical benefit of ENZA + ADT vs PBO + ADT based on rPFS and secondary endpoints in men who progressed from M0 to M1 HSPC and those with de novo M1 HSPC. Clinical trial information: NCT02677896
M0 at diagnosis (progressed to M1) (ENZAa n=117; PBOb n=129) | M1 at diagnosis (de novo) (ENZAa n=448; PBOb n=442) | |
---|---|---|
rPFSc events, n (%) | 16 (13.7);a 34 (26.4)b | 73 (16.3);a 166 (37.6)b |
HR (95% CI)d | 0.42 (0.23, 0.76) | 0.38 (0.29, 0.50) |
Time to PSA progression, HR (95% CI)d | 0.12 (0.04, 0.34) | 0.20 (0.14, 0.28) |
Time to new antineoplastic therapy, HR (95% CI)d | 0.32 (0.15, 0.66) | 0.27 (0.18, 0.40) |
PSA undetectable rate (<0.2 ng/mL),e,f % difference (95% CI) | 45.4 (33.9, 56.9) | 53.6 (48.1, 59.1) |
Objective response rate,e,f % difference (95% CI) | 18.5 (-7.4, 44.4) | 20.1 (10.9, 29.4) |
aENZA + ADT; bPBO + ADT; cAssessed by independent central review or death within 24 wks of treatment discontinuation; dHR <1 favors ENZA; eOf those with detectable PSA or measurable soft tissue disease at baseline; fDifference >0 favors ENZA CI=confidence interval; HR=hazard ratio.
Disclaimer
This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org
Abstract Disclosures
2022 ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium
First Author: Andrew J. Armstrong
2022 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Andrew J. Armstrong
2020 ASCO Virtual Scientific Program
First Author: Neal D. Shore
2021 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Andrew J. Armstrong