Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Efficacy and safety of enzalutamide (ENZ) vs placebo (PL) in chemotherapy-naïve patients (pts) with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) following androgen deprivation therapy (ADT): An Asian multinational study

Date

09 Oct 2016

Session

Poster display

Presenters

Dingwei Ye

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2016) 27 (6): 243-265. 10.1093/annonc/mdw372

Authors

D. Ye1, H. Ahn2, Y. Pu3, H. Weiqing4, L. Xie5, S. Huang6, H. Wu7, L. Ma8, S. Yamada9, S. Noda10, Y. Sun11

Author affiliations

  • 1 Urology, Fudan University, 200032 - Shanghai/CN
  • 2 Urology, University of Ulsan, Asan Medical Centre, Seoul/KR
  • 3 Urology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei/TW
  • 4 Urology, Hunan Cancer Hospital, Hunan/CN
  • 5 Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zheijing University, Hangzhou/CN
  • 6 Urology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung/TW
  • 7 Urology, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung/TW
  • 8 Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing/CN
  • 9 Japan-asia Data Science, Astellas Pharma Inc., Tokyo/JP
  • 10 Astellas Pharma Global Development, Astellas Pharma Inc., Tokyo/JP
  • 11 Urology, Changhai Hospital, Shanghai/CN
More

Resources

Background

In PREVAIL, pts with progressive mCRPC following ADT had significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) on ENZ vs PL (Beer TM et al, N Engl J MED, 2014). In the current study, the efficacy and safety of ENZ vs PL were evaluated in a similar patient population in China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea.

Methods

Pts with asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic progressive mCRPC following ADT were randomised 1:1 to ENZ (160 mg/day) or PL. The primary endpoint was time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (time from randomisation to PSA progression or death). The secondary endpoints were OS (time from randomisation to death) and rPFS (time from randomisation to radiographic progression). An interim analysis was planned following 169 PSA progression events. The unstratified Cox proportional hazards model (covariate = treatment group) and log-rank test (2-sided significance level = 0.011, primary; 0.05, secondary) were used. Safety was assessed by recording adverse events (AE).

Results

409 pts from 49 centres were randomised (209 ENZ, 200 PL). Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. 169 PSA progression events occurred. Median time to PSA progression was 7.5 months in the ENZ arm vs 2.9 for PL (HR 0.36; 95% CI 0.27, 0.50; p 

Conclusions

ENZ showed significantly improved time to PSA progression over PL and was generally well tolerated. The trial was stopped as it had reached its primary objective.

Clinical trial identification

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02294461; First received: November 13, 2014; Last updated: November 25, 2015

Legal entity responsible for the study

Astellas Pharma, Inc.

Funding

Astellas Pharma, Inc. and Medivation, Inc.

Disclosure

Y-S. Pu: The author discloses that they received funding from Astellas Pharma Inc. for clinical studies.

S. Yamada, S. Noda: The author declares that they own stocks in, and are an employee of, Astellas Pharma Inc.

All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Resources from the same session

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings