OBJECTIVE: To assess toxicity and patient quality of life after stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) to oligoprogressive disease (OPD) in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) on androgen receptor targeted agents (ARTA).
METHODS: This phase II trial enrolled patients with metastatic CRPC with ≤ 2 oligoprogressive lesions in bone, lymph node, lung, or prostate. All patients were receiving systemic treatment with abiraterone or enzalutamide at the time of oligoprogression. All patients received SBRT to the OPD site(s) and continued the current ARTA. Patients received 30 Gy in 5 fractions (alternate days) to the OPD site. The primary endpoint of the trial is to assess if SBRT to OPD sites results in progression free survival of >6 months. The primary endpoint for this toxicity analysis is the rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events at any timepoint up to 6 months after SBRT. Secondary endpoints included comparing pre- and post-SBRT patient-related outcomes reported using visual analogue scale scores and EQ-5D health questionnaire.
RESULTS: Forty enrolled patients had at least 6 months of follow-up at the time of analysis. Grade 3 or higher toxicity from any cause recorded using common terminology criteria for adverse events and radiation therapy oncology group was found in 8/40 (20%) of patients, but only 1/40 (2.5%) was deemed possibly related to SBRT. There was no significant difference in mean EQ5D visual analogue scale score from baseline to each timepoint after SBRT (p = 0.449).
CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective phase II clinical trial for OPD whilst on ARTA in the CRPC setting, we report low grade ≥ 3 toxicity after SBRT. There is no discernible change in patient-reported quality of life due to SBRT treatment. The final results of progression-free survival and toxicity of SBRT treatment will be reported once further follow-up is complete.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) - performing dose adjustments based on measured drug levels and established pharmacokinetic (PK) targets - could optimise treatment with drugs that show large interpatient variability in exposure. We evaluated the feasibility of TDM for multiple oral targeted therapies. Here we report on drugs for which routine TDM is not feasible.
METHODS: We evaluated drug cohorts from the Dutch Pharmacology Oncology Group - TDM study. Based on PK levels taken at pre-specified time points, PK-guided interventions were performed. Feasibility of TDM was evaluated, and based on the success and practicability of TDM, cohorts could be closed.
RESULTS: For 10 out of 24 cohorts TDM was not feasible and inclusion was closed. A high incidence of adverse events resulted in closing the cabozantinib, dabrafenib/trametinib, everolimus, regorafenib and vismodegib cohort. The enzalutamide and erlotinib cohorts were closed because almost all PK levels were above target. Other, non-pharmacological reasons led to closing the palbociclib, olaparib and tamoxifen cohort.
CONCLUSIONS: Although TDM could help personalising treatment for many drugs, the above-mentioned reasons can influence its feasibility, usefulness and clinical applicability. Therefore, routine TDM is not advised for cabozantinib, dabrafenib/trametinib, enzalutamide, erlotinib, everolimus, regorafenib and vismodegib. Nonetheless, TDM remains valuable for individual clinical decisions.

Luminal androgen receptor (LAR)-enriched triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a distinct subtype. The efficacy of AR inhibitors and the relevant biomarkers in neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) are yet to be determined. We tested the combination of the AR inhibitor enzalutamide (120 mg daily by mouth) and paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 weekly intravenously) (ZT) for 12 weeks as NAT for LAR-enriched TNBC. Eligibility criteria included a percentage of cells expressing nuclear AR by immunohistochemistry (iAR) of at least 10% and a reduction in sonographic volume of less than 70% after four cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide. Twenty-four patients were enrolled. Ten achieved a pathologic complete response or residual cancer burden-I. ZT was safe, with no unexpected side effects. An iAR of at least 70% had a positive predictive value of 0.92 and a negative predictive value of 0.97 in predicting LAR-enriched TNBC according to RNA-based assays. Our data support future trials of AR blockade in early-stage LAR-enriched TNBC.

OBJECTIVE: Phase III clinical trials demonstrated the efficacy of enzalutamide and apalutamide in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) and PSA doubling time ≤10 months. Although these drugs have been shown to vary in their adverse event (AE) profiles, the differences in their efficacy profiles remain to be evaluated. Therefore, this retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of these drugs in patients with nmCRPC.
METHODS: This study evaluated 191 patients with nmCRPC treated with enzalutamide (n = 137) or apalutamide (n = 54) in the first-line setting at Jikei University Hospital or its affiliated hospitals between May 2014 and November 2022. Endpoints were defined as oncological outcomes (i.e., PSA response, PFS, PSA-PFS, MFS, CSS, and OS) and AEs.
RESULTS: No significant differences were noted in patient backgrounds between the two groups. Patients exhibiting a maximum PSA response of >50% and >90% accounted for 74.5% and 48.9% of patients in the enzalutamide group, and 75.9% and 42.6% of patients in the apalutamide group, respectively, with no significant difference between the groups. The median PSA-PFS was 10 months in the enzalutamide group but not in the apalutamide group, with no significant difference between the groups (P = 0.48). No significant differences were observed in MFS, CSS, or OS between the groups. Patients reporting AEs of all grades and grade 3 or higher accounted for 56.2% and 4.3% of those in the enzalutamide group and 57.4% and 7.4% of those in the apalutamide group, respectively. The most common AE was fatigue (26.3%) in the enzalutamide group and skin rash (27.8%) in the apalutamide group.
CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study of their efficacy and safety, enzalutamide and apalutamide were shown to exhibit comparable oncological outcomes but quite different AE profiles, suggesting that their differential use may be warranted based on these findings.

BACKGROUND: PTEN loss and aberrations in PI3K/AKT signaling kinases associate with poorer response to abiraterone acetate (AA) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). In this study, we assessed antitumor activity of the AKT inhibitor capivasertib combined with enzalutamide in mCRPC with prior progression on AA and docetaxel.
METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase 2 trial, recruited men ≥ 18 years with progressing mCRPC and performance status 0-2 from 15 UK centers. Randomized participants (1:1) received enzalutamide (160 mg orally, once daily) with capivasertib (400 mg)/ placebo orally, twice daily on an intermittent (4 days on, 3 days off) schedule. Primary endpoint was composite response rate (RR): RECIST 1.1 objective response, ≥ 50 % PSA decrease from baseline, or circulating tumor cell count conversion (from ≥ 5 at baseline to < 5 cells/7.5 mL). Subgroup analyses by PTENIHC status were pre-planned.
RESULTS: Overall, 100 participants were randomized (50:50); 95 were evaluable for primary endpoint (47:48); median follow-up was 43 months. RR were 9/47 (19.1 %) enzalutamide/capivasertib and 9/48 (18.8 %) enzalutamide/placebo (absolute difference 0.4 % 90 %CI -12.8 to 13.6, p = 0.58), with similar results in the PTENIHC loss subgroup. Irrespective of treatment, OS was significantly worse for PTENIHC loss (10.1 months [95 %CI: 4.6-13.9] vs 14.8 months [95 %CI: 10.8-18]; p = 0.02). Most common treatment-emergent grade ≥ 3 adverse events for the combination were diarrhea (13 % vs 2 %) and fatigue (10 % vs 6 %).
CONCLUSIONS: Combined capivasertib/enzalutamide was well tolerated but didn\'t significantly improve outcomes from abiraterone pre-treated mCRPC.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common non-cutaneous tumor among American men. Androgen receptor signaling inhibitors such as abiraterone and enzalutamide have been approved for similar disease states among patients with advanced PCa. Existing data suggest using steroids is associated with an increased risk of infection. Because abiraterone is usually prescribed with prednisone, we sought to compare the risk of septicemia in patients using abiraterone vs. enzalutamide.
METHODS: We utilized the SEER-Medicare-linked data and used negative binomial regression models to compare the changes in the rates of septicemia-related hospitalizations six months pre- and post-abiraterone and enzalutamide initiation.
RESULTS: We found that the incidence of septicemia-related hospitalizations increased 2.77 fold within six months of initiating abiraterone (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 2.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.17-3.53) 1.97 fold within six months of starting enzalutamide (IRR: 1.97, 95% CI: 1.43-2.72). However, the difference in the changes did not reach statistical significance (interaction IRR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.48-1.06).
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that both abiraterone and enzalutamide are associated with an increased risk of septicemia-related hospitalizations. However, the difference in the increase of septicemia risk following the two treatments did not reach statistical significance. Further studies are warranted to understand the mechanisms at play.

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

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide and lutetium-177 [177Lu]Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-617 both improve overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Androgen and PSMA receptors have a close intracellular relationship, with data suggesting complementary benefit if targeted concurrently. In this study, we assessed the activity and safety of enzalutamide plus adaptive-dosed [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus enzalutamide alone as first-line treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
METHODS: ENZA-p was an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial done at 15 hospitals in Australia. Participants were men aged 18 years or older with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer not previously treated with docetaxel or androgen receptor pathway inhibitors for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, gallium-68 [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-PET-CT (PSMA-PET-CT) positive disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and at least two risk factors for early progression on enzalutamide. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by a centralised, web-based system using minimisation with a random component to stratify for study site, disease burden, use of early docetaxel, and previous treatment with abiraterone acetate. Patients were either given oral enzalutamide 160 mg daily alone or with adaptive-dosed (two or four doses) intravenous 7·5 GBq [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 every 6-8 weeks dependent on an interim PSMA-PET-CT (week 12). The primary endpoint was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression-free survival, defined as the interval from the date of randomisation to the date of first evidence of PSA progression, commencement of non-protocol anticancer therapy, or death. The analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population, using stratified Cox proportional hazards regression. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04419402, and participant follow-up is ongoing.
RESULTS: 162 participants were randomly assigned between Aug 17, 2020, and July 26, 2022. 83 men were assigned to the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group, and 79 were assigned to the enzalutamide group. Median follow-up in this interim analysis was 20 months (IQR 18-21), with 32 (39%) of 83 patients in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 16 (20%) of 79 patients in the enzalutamide group remaining on treatment at the data cutoff date. Median age was 71 years (IQR 64-76). Median PSA progression-free survival was 13·0 months (95% CI 11·0-17·0) in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 7·8 months (95% CI 4·3-11·0) in the enzalutamide group (hazard ratio 0·43, 95% CI 0·29-0·63, p<0·0001). The most common adverse events (all grades) were fatigue (61 [75%] of 81 patients), nausea (38 [47%]), and dry mouth (32 [40%]) in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and fatigue (55 [70%] of 79), nausea (21 [27%]), and constipation (18 [23%]) in the enzalutamide group. Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 32 (40%) of 81 patients in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 32 (41%) of 79 patients in the enzalutamide group. Grade 3 events that occurred only in the enzalutamide plus [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group included anaemia (three [4%] of 81 participants) and decreased platelet count (one [1%] participant). No grade 4 or 5 events were attributed to treatment on central review in either group.
CONCLUSIONS: The addition of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 to enzalutamide improved PSA progression-free survival providing evidence of enhanced anticancer activity in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with risk factors for early progression on enzalutamide and warrants further evaluation of the combination more broadly in metastatic prostate cancer.
BACKGROUND: Prostate Cancer Research Alliance (Movember and Australian Federal Government), St Vincent\'s Clinic Foundation, GenesisCare, Roy Morgan Research, and Endocyte (a Novartis company).

BACKGROUND: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) remains incurable and develops from biochemically recurrent PC treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) following definitive therapy for localized PC, or from metastatic castration-sensitive PC (mCSPC). In the mCSPC setting, treatment intensification of ADT plus androgen receptor (AR)-signaling inhibitors (ARSIs), with or without chemotherapy, improves outcomes vs ADT alone. Despite multiple phase 3 trials demonstrating a survival benefit of treatment intensification in PC, there remains high use of ADT monotherapy in real-world clinical practice. Prior studies indicate that co-inhibition of AR and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) may result in enhanced benefit in treating tumors regardless of alterations in DNA damage response genes involved either directly or indirectly in homologous recombination repair (HRR). Three recent phase 3 studies evaluated the combination of a PARP inhibitor (PARPi) with an ARSI as first-line treatment for mCRPC: TALAPRO-2, talazoparib plus enzalutamide; PROpel, olaparib plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP); and MAGNITUDE, niraparib plus AAP. Results from these studies have led to the recent approval in the United States of talazoparib plus enzalutamide for the treatment of mCRPC with any HRR alteration, and of both olaparib and niraparib indicated in combination with AAP for the treatment of mCRPC with BRCA alterations.
CONCLUSIONS: Here, we review the newly approved PARPi plus ARSI treatments within the context of the mCRPC treatment landscape, provide an overview of practical considerations for the combinations in clinical practice, highlight the importance of HRR testing, and discuss the benefits of treatment intensification for patients with mCRPC.

UNASSIGNED: The majority of patients with metastatic prostate cancer who receive androgen-deprivation therapy and androgen receptor (AR) signaling inhibitors (ARSI) progress. Activation of the glucocorticoid receptor (GR) is associated with ARSI resistance. This single-arm phase I trial assessed safety and pharmacokinetic (PK) feasibility of a combined AR antagonist (enzalutamide) and selective GR modulator (relacorilant) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
UNASSIGNED: This was a phase I trial (NCT03674814) of relacorilant and enzalutamide in patients with refractory mCRPC enrolled using a 6+3 design. The enzalutamide dose was kept constant at 120 mg/d with escalating doses of relacorilant based on safety and PK measures in cohorts of ≥6 patients. The primary objective was safety and establishment of pharmacologically active doses. Secondary objectives were related to antitumor activity.
UNASSIGNED: Thirty-five patients with mCRPC were enrolled. Twenty-three were accrued across three dose cohorts in the dose-escalation phase, and 12 enrolled at the recommended phase II dose. The combination was generally well tolerated, safe, and achieved desirable enzalutamide PK. RP2D of 120 + 150 mg/d, respectively, was established. Median time on study was 2.2 months with four patients remaining on study for longer than 11 months. Four of 12 evaluable patients had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) partial response.
UNASSIGNED: This is the first prospective trial combining an AR antagonist and a nonsteroidal selective GR modulator. The combination was safe and well tolerated with PSA response and prolonged disease control observed in a limited subset of patients. Further prospective trials are justified to evaluate efficacy and identify predictive biomarkers of response.