Clinical activity of enzalutamide versus docetaxel in men with castration‐resistant prostate cancer progressing after abiraterone. Issue 13 (22nd July 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Suzman, Daniel L.; Luber, Brandon; Schweizer, Michael T.; Nadal, Rosa; Antonarakis, Emmanuel S.
• Is Part Of: Prostate. Volume 74:Issue 13(2014)
• Page Start: 1278
• Page End: 1285
• Publication Date: 2014-07-22
• Subjects: Prostate -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616
• DOI: 10.1002/pros.22844
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0270-4137

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <sec id="pros22844-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>BACKGROUND</title> <p>The optimal sequencing of the multiple active agents now available for metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is unclear. Prior reports have suggested diminished responses to sequential lines of androgen receptor (AR)‐targeted therapies, but it is unknown whether subsequent taxane‐based chemotherapy may be more effective than sequential AR‐targeting treatment. We sought to evaluate the clinical activity of enzalutamide versus docetaxel in men with mCRPC who progressed on abiraterone.</p> </sec> <sec id="pros22844-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>METHODS</title> <p>We performed a single‐institution retrospective analysis of consecutive mCRPC patients who had progressed on abiraterone therapy and subsequently received either enzalutamide (n = 30) or docetaxel (n = 31). We evaluated clinical outcomes including prostate‐specific antigen decline of >30% (PSA<sub>30</sub>) or >50% (PSA<sub>50</sub>), PSA‐progression‐free survival (PSA‐PFS), and clinical/radiographic PFS. We performed multivariable modeling to control for baseline and on‐treatment differences between groups.</p> </sec> <sec id="pros22844-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>RESULTS</title> <p>Compared to subjects who received enzalutamide post‐abiraterone, subjects who received docetaxel post‐abiraterone had more bone metastases, more visceral metastases, higher baseline PSA, and had more frequent PSA tests while on‐treatment. There were no significant differences in PSA<sub>30</sub> (41% for enzalutamide vs. 53% for docetaxel) or PSA<sub>50</sub> (34% vs. 40%) response rates between the two groups; there remained no difference after stratifying by presence/absence of prior response to abiraterone. Median PSA‐PFS was 4.1 versus 4.1 months for the enzalutamide and docetaxel cohorts, respectively (HR 1.35, 95% CI, 0.53–3.66, <italic>P</italic> = 0.502). Median PFS was 4.7 versus 4.4 months, respectively (HR 1.44, 95% CI, 0.77–2.71, <italic>P</italic> = 0.257). PSA‐PFS and PFS did not differ after stratifying by prior response to abiraterone. In multivariable analyses, there were no significant differences in PSA‐PFS or PFS between the two groups.</p> </sec> <sec id="pros22844-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> <p>Treatment with either enzalutamide or docetaxel produced modest PSA responses and PFS intervals in this abiraterone‐pretreated mCRPC population. In this retrospective study with small sample size, no significant differences in outcomes were observed between groups. Therefore, either enzalutamide or docetaxel may be a reasonable option in men who have progressed on abiraterone. <italic>Prostate 74: 1278–1285, 2014</italic>. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</p> </sec> </abstract>