Vaishampayan UN, Heilbrun LK, Monk P, 3rd, Tejwani S, Sonpavde G, Hwang C, Smith D, Jasti P, Dobson K, Dickow B, Heath EI, Semaan L, Cher ML, Fontana JA, and Chinni S. Clinical Efficacy of Enzalutamide vs Bicalutamide Combined With Androgen Deprivation Therapy in Men With Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4(1):e2034633.
JAMA Netw Open
Importance: Black patients have been underrepresented in prospective clinical trials of advanced prostate cancer. This study evaluated the efficacy of enzalutamide compared with bicalutamide, with planned subset analysis of Black patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), which is a disease state responsive to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).
Objective: To compare the efficacy of enzalutamide vs bicalutamide in combination with ADT in men with mHSPC, with a subset analysis of Black patients.
Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial, a phase 2 screening design enabled a nondefinitive comparison of the primary outcome by treatment. Patients were stratified by race (Black or other) and bone pain (present or absent). Accrual of at least 30% Black patients was required. This multicenter trial was conducted at 4 centers in the US. Men with mHSPC with no history of seizures and adequate marrow, renal, and liver function were eligible. Data analysis was performed from February 2019 to March 2020.
Interventions: Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive oral enzalutamide (160 mg daily) or bicalutamide (50 mg daily) in addition to ADT.
Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the 7-month prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (SMPR) rate, a previously accepted surrogate for overall survival (OS) outcome. Secondary end points included adverse reactions, time to PSA progression, and OS.
Results: A total of 71 men (median [range] age, 65 [51-86] years) were enrolled; 29 (41%) were Black, 41 (58%) were White, and 1 (1%) was Asian. Thirty-six patients were randomized to receive enzalutamide, and 35 were randomized to receive bicalutamide. Twenty-six patients (37%) had bone pain and 37 patients (52%) had extensive disease. SMPR was achieved in 30 of 32 patients (94%; 95% CI, 80%-98%) taking enzalutamide and 17 of 26 patients (65%; 95% CI, 46%-81%) taking bicalutamide (P = .008) (difference, 29%; 95% CI, 5%-50%). Among Black patients, the SMPR was 93% (95% CI, 69%-99%) among those taking enzalutamide and 42% (95% CI, 19%-68%) among those taking bicalutamide (P = .009); among non-Black patients, the SMPR was 94% (95% CI, 74%-99%) among those taking enzalutamide and 86% (95% CI, 60%-96%) among those taking bicalutamide. The 12-month PSA response rates were 84% with enzalutamide and 34% with bicalutamide.
Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this randomized clinical trial comparing enzalutamide with bicalutamide suggest that enzalutamide is associated with improved outcomes compared with bicalutamide, in terms of the rate and duration of PSA response, in Black patients with mHSPC.
Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02058706.