S'abonner

Efficacy and safety of enzalutamide versus bicalutamide for patients with metastatic prostate cancer (TERRAIN): a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 study - 04/02/16

Doi : 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00518-5 
Neal D Shore, DrMD a, , Simon Chowdhury, MD b, Arnauld Villers, ProfMD c, Laurence Klotz, MD d, D Robert Siemens, ProfMD e, De Phung, BSc f, Steve van Os, MD f, Nahla Hasabou, MD g, Fong Wang, MD h, Suman Bhattacharya, PhD h, Axel Heidenreich, ProfMD i
a Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, SC, USA 
b King’s College London, and Guy’s, King’s and St Thomas’ Hospitals, London, UK 
c Department of Urology, Lille University, Lille, France 
d Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada 
e Centre for Applied Urological Research, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada 
f Astellas Pharma, Leiden, Netherlands 
g Astellas Pharma, Northbrook, IL, USA 
h Medivation, San Francisco, CA, USA 
i Department of Urology, Aachen University, Aachen, Germany 

* Correspondence to: Dr Neal Shore, Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, SC 29572, USA Carolina Urologic Research Center Myrtle Beach SC 29572 USA

Summary

Background

Enzalutamide is an oral androgen-receptor inhibitor that has been shown to improve survival in two placebo-controlled phase 3 trials, and is approved for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The objective of the TERRAIN study was to compare the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide with bicalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Methods

TERRAIN was a double-blind, randomised phase 2 study, that recruited asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic men with prostate cancer progression on androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) from academic, community, and private health-care provision sites across North America and Europe. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system to receive enzalutamide 160 mg/day or bicalutamide 50 mg/day, both taken orally, in addition to ADT, until disease progression. Patients were stratified by a permutated block method (block size of four), by whether bilateral orchiectomy or receipt of luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonist or antagonist therapy started before or after the diagnosis of metastases, and by study site. Participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, analysed in all randomised patients. Safety outcomes were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The open-label period of the trial is in progress, wherein patients still on treatment at the end of the double-blind treatment period were offered open-label enzalutamide at the discretion of the patient and study investigator. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01288911.

Findings

Between March 22, 2011, and July 11, 2013, 375 patients were randomly assigned, 184 to enzalutamide and 191 to bicalutamide. 126 (68%) and 168 (88%) patients, respectively, discontinued their assigned treatment before study end, mainly due to progressive disease. Median follow-up time was 20·0 months (IQR 15·0–25·6) in the enzalutamide group and 16·7 months (10·2–21·9) in the bicalutamide group. Patients in the enzalutamide group had significantly improved median progression-free survival (15·7 months [95% CI 11·5–19·4]) compared with patients in the bicalutamide group (5·8 months [4·8–8·1]; hazard ratio 0·44 [95% CI 0·34–0·57]; p<0·0001). Of the most common adverse events, those occurring more frequently with enzalutamide than with bicalutamide were fatigue (51 [28%] of 183 patients in the enzalutamide group vs 38 [20%] of 189 in the bicalutamide group), back pain (35 [19%] vs 34 [18%]), and hot flush (27 [15%] vs 21 [11%]); those occurring more frequently with bicalutamide were nausea (26 [14%] vs 33 [17%]), constipation (23 [13%] vs 25 [13%]), and arthralgia (18 [10%] vs 30 [16%]). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the enzalutamide or bicalutamide treatment groups, respectively, were hypertension (13 [7%] vs eight [4%]), hydronephrosis (three [2%] vs seven [4%]), back pain (five [3%] vs three [2%]), pathological fracture (five [3%] vs two [1%]), dyspnoea (four [2%] vs one [1%]), bone pain (one [1%] vs four [2%]), congestive cardiac failure (four [2%] vs two [1%]), myocardial infarction (five [3%] vs none), and anaemia (four [2%] vs none]). Serious adverse events were reported by 57 (31%) of 183 patients and 44 (23%) of 189 patients in the enzalutamide and bicalutamide groups, respectively. One of the nine deaths in the enzalutamide group was thought to be possibly related to treatment (due to systemic inflammatory response syndrome) compared with none of the three deaths in the bicalutamide group.

Interpretation

The data from the TERRAIN trial support the use of enzalutamide rather than bicalutamide in patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Funding

Astellas Pharma, Inc and Medivation, Inc.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Plan


© 2016  Elsevier Ltd. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 17 - N° 2

P. 153-163 - février 2016 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Happygram
  • Talha Khan Burki
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Pretreatment with anti-thymocyte globulin versus no anti-thymocyte globulin in patients with haematological malignancies undergoing haemopoietic cell transplantation from unrelated donors: a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3, multicentre trial
  • Irwin Walker, Tony Panzarella, Stephen Couban, Felix Couture, Gerald Devins, Mohamed Elemary, Geneviève Gallagher, Holly Kerr, John Kuruvilla, Stephanie J Lee, John Moore, Thomas Nevill, Gizelle Popradi, Jean Roy, Kirk R Schultz, David Szwajcer, Cynthia Toze, Ronan Foley, Canadian Blood and Marrow Transplant Group

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.