Overall survival and quality of life with [ <sup>177</sup> Lu] Lu-PSMA-617 plus enzalutamide versus enzalutamide alone in poor-risk, metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer in ENZA-p (ANZUP 1901).
Abstract
17 Background: Interim analysis of ENZA-p with median follow-up 20 months showed improved PSA-progression-free survival (PFS) and depth of PSA-response with the addition of [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (LuPSMA) to enzalutamide (enza) as first-line treatment of poor-risk, metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Here we report effects on overall survival (OS) and health-related quality of life (HRQL) with longer follow-up. Methods: We randomly assigned 162 participants (pts) to enza 160 mg daily alone, or in combination with (2 or 4 doses) LuPSMA 7.5 GBq. Eligible pts had mCRPC not previously treated with chemotherapy or an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor for mCRPC, 68 Ga-PSMA PET-avid disease, and at least 2 risk factors for early disease progression on enza-alone. HRQL was to be rated with the EORTC core quality-of-life questionnaire every 6 weeks until radiological progression. Deterioration-free survival was from random assignment until the earliest of death, clinical progression, discontinuation of study treatment, or a worsening of 10 points or more from baseline in physical function, or in overall health and quality of life (OHQL). HRQL scores were analyzed with repeated measures modelling to calculate group means and differences. HRQL scores range from 0 (lowest possible) to 100 (highest possible). Time to event data were analysed with the Kaplan-Meier method, stratified log rank test, and stratified Cox-proportional hazards regression. Analyses of these secondary endpoints were specified a priori and are by intention to treat. P-values and confidence intervals are 2-sided without adjustment for multiple comparisons. Results: A total of 96 deaths were reported after a median follow-up of 34 months (IQR 29-39): 53 among those assigned enza-alone and 43 among those assigned enza+LuPSMA. OS was longer in the enza +LuPSMA group than the enza-alone group (median months 34 vs 26; HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84; p=0.005). 30 of 79(38%) in the enza-alone arm received subsequent LuPSMA off trial. HRQL was rated by 154 of 162 pts (95%). Deterioration-free survival rates at 12 months, and stratified log-rank p-values favored enza+LuPSMA for both OHQL (40% v 13%; p <0.001), and for physical function (38% v 17%; p <0.001). Mean scores for pain until progression favoured the enza+LuPSMA group over the enza-alone group (difference 7.2, 95% CI 1.6 to 13; p=0.01). Mean scores for fatigue until progression favoured the enza+LuPSMA group over the enza-alone group (difference 5.9, 95% CI 1.1 to 10.7; p=0.02). The frequency of self-rated xerostomia was lower in the enza-alone group (74% vs. 57%; p=0.04). Conclusions: The addition of LuPSMA to enzalutamide in poor risk mCRPC improved overall survival, scores for both pain and fatigue, and deterioration-free survival for both physical function and for OHQL. Clinical trial information: NCT04419402 .
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (20)
Louise Emmett
Shalini Subramaniam
NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Megan Crumbaker
Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Andrew Nguyen
Anthony M. Joshua
Immunology Division, Garvan Institute of Medical Research
Andrew James Weickhardt
Austin Health, Heidelberg, Australia
Sze Ting Lee
13Austin Health, Department of Molecular Imaging and Therapy, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Siobhan Ng
Department of Oncology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
Roslyn J. Francis
Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia
Jeffrey C. Goh
ICON Research, South Brisbane & Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
David A. Pattison
Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
Thean Hsiang Tan
Icon Cancer Centre Kurralta Park, Kurralta Park, Australia
Ian David Kirkwood
Nuclear Medicine, PET and Bone Densitometry, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia
Shahneen Sandhu
From the Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center (J.D.W.) and the Department of Medicine (J.D.W., M.A.P.), Weill Cornell Medicine, and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (M.A.P.) — both in New York; Istituto Oncologico Veneto, IRCCS, Padua (V.C.-S.), European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan (P.Q.), Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori, IRCCS, Meldola (M.G.), University of Siena and the Center for Immuno-Oncology, University Hospital of Siena, Siena (M.M.), and Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione Pascale, Naples (P.A.A.) — all in Italy; Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland (P.R.); Texas Oncology–Baylor Charles A. Sammons Cancer Center, Dallas (C.L.C.); University Hospital Essen, the German Cancer Consortium, the National Center for Tumor Diseases–West, the Research Alliance Ruhr, Research Center One Health, and University Duisburg-Essen — all in Essen, Germany (D.S.); the College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea (J.W.), Brist...
Alison Yan Zhang
Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Michael S. Hofman
Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Hayley Thomas
Andrew James Martin
The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia
Ian D. Davis
School of Medicine, Monash University
Martin R Stockler
The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia