Clinical outcomes of volume of disease on patients receiving enzalutamide versus abiraterone acetate plus prednisone as first-line therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

• Published in: Therapeutic advances in medical oncology Vol. 15; p. 17588359231156147
• Main Authors: Nuzzo, Pier Vitale, Ravera, Francesco, Saieva, Calogero, Zanardi, Elisa, Fotia, Giuseppe, Malgeri, Andrea, Rossetti, Sabrina, Valença, Loana Bueno, El Zarif, Talal, Davidsohn, Matthew P., McClure, Heather, Oliveira, Thiago Martins, Vauchier, Charles, Pereira Mestre, Ricardo, Modesti, Mikol, Ravi, Praful, Patrikidou, Anna, Pignata, Sandro, Procopio, Giuseppe, Fornarini, Giuseppe, De Giorgi, Ugo, Russo, Antonio, Francini, Edoardo
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01-01-2023; Sage Publications Ltd
• Subjects: Acetic acid; Androgen receptors; Biomarkers; Castration; Medical prognosis; Metastases; Metastasis; Multivariate analysis; Original Research; Patients; Prednisone; Prostate cancer; Survival; metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; overall survival; volume of disease; abiraterone acetate; enzalutamide
• ISSN: 1758-8359; 1758-8340; 1758-8359
• DOI: 10.1177/17588359231156147

Background:
Androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSis) abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisone and enzalutamide (Enza), are currently the most administered first-line treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). AA and Enza have shown similar overall survival (OS) benefits and there is no consensus upon the best option for mCRPC first-line treatment. Volume of disease may represent a useful biomarker to predict response to therapy in such patients.
Objectives:
In this study, we seek to evaluate the impact of volume of disease on patients treated with first-line AA versus Enza for mCRPC.
Design and methods:
We retrospectively evaluated a cohort of consecutive patients with mCRPC categorized by volume of disease [high volume (HV) or low volume (LV) per E3805 criteria] at ARSi onset and treatment type (AA or Enza), assessing OS and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), from therapy start, as co-primary endpoints.
Results:
Of the 420 patients selected, 170 (40.5%) had LV and received AA (LV/AA), 76 (18.1%) LV and had Enza (LV/Enza), 124 (29.5%) HV and were given AA (HV/AA), and 50 (11.9%) HV and received Enza (HV/Enza). Among patients with LV, OS was significantly longer when treated with Enza [57.2 months; 95% confidence interval (CI): 52.1–62.2 months] versus AA (51.6 months; 95% CI, 42.6–60.6 months; p = 0.003). Consistently, those with LV receiving Enza showed increased rPFS (40.3 months; 95 CI, 25.0–55.7 months) than those having AA (22.0 months; 95% CI, 18.1–26.0 months; p = 0.004). No significant difference in OS or rPFS was observed in those with HV treated with AA versus Enza (p = 0.51 and p = 0.73, respectively). In multivariate analysis of patients with LV, treatment with Enza was independently associated with better prognosis than AA.
Conclusion:
Within the intrinsic limitations of a retrospective design and small population, our report suggests that volume of disease could be a useful predictive biomarker for patients starting first-line ARSi for mCRPC.