Efficacy of enzalutamide (ENZA) plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in men with de novo (M1) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) versus progression to mHSPC (M0): Post hoc analysis of the phase III ARCHES trial.

Authors

null

Arun Azad

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

Organizations

Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, University Hospital Centre, Lille University, Lille, France, Hertzen Moscow Cancer Research Institute, Moscow, Russian Federation, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, SC, Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, Hospital Universitario de Salamanca, GITUR-IBSAL, Salamanca, Spain, Pfizer Inc., San Diego, CA, Astellas Pharma Inc., Northbrook, Osaka City University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan, University Hospital, Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Germany, Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Durham, NC

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company
This study was funded by Astellas Pharma Inc. and Pfizer Inc., the co-developers of enzalutamide. Medical writing and editorial assistance were provided by Beatrice Vetter-Ceriotti and Jane Beck from Complete HealthVizion, funded by the study sponsors

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)b73 (16.3);a 166 (37.6)b
    HR (95% CI)d0.42 (0.23, 0.76)0.38 (0.29, 0.50)
Time to PSA progression, HR (95% CI)d0.12 (0.04, 0.34)0.20 (0.14, 0.28)
Time to new antineoplastic therapy, HR (95% CI)d0.32 (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 Details

Meeting

2021 Genitourinary Cancers Symposium

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Poster Session: Prostate Cancer - Advanced Disease

Track

Prostate Cancer - Advanced

Sub Track

Therapeutics

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT02677896

Citation

J Clin Oncol 39, 2021 (suppl 6; abstr 102)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2021.39.6_suppl.102

Abstract #

102

Poster Bd #

Online Only

Abstract Disclosures