Comparative real-world survival and prescription patterns of darolutamide versus apalutamide in non-metastatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer.

M Muhammad Umar Afzal (Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ) L Lanyu Mi (Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ) M Mehrdad Motamed (Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ) Z Zaryab Bin Riaz (Division of Internal Medicine, Creighton University School of Medicine – Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ) I Irbaz Bin Riaz (Irbaz Bin Riaz, MD, PhD; R. Bryan Rumble, MSc; Thomas A. Hope, MD; Giuseppe Procopio, MD; and Neha Vapiwala, MD; Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, Milan, Italy; and University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA) M Muhammad Ali Khan Y Yusra Saleem (Dow Medical College, Karachi, Pakistan) T Tarek Nahle (Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia, United States) I Ibrahim Asiri (Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ) M Muhammad Hussnain Sadiq (5Mayo Clinic, Pheonix, United States) Y Yashveer Chohan (Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ) V Viraj R. Shah (Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, GA) E Ewan Kemar Cobran (Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Scottsdale, AZ)

Abstract

129 Background: Androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) improve metastasis-free and overall survival in men with non-metastatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer (nmHRPC). Apalutamide and darolutamide were approved by the Federal Drug Administration in 2018 and 2019, respectively, based on pivotal clinical trials showing similar efficacy. However, no head-to-head comparisons exist in real-world settings. We compared prescription patterns and survival outcomes between apalutamide and darolutamide in men with nmHRPC using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Methods: We identified men aged ≥66 years with localized or locoregional prostate cancer between 2000 and 2021 using the SEER-Medicare linked database. Eligible patients initiated apalutamide or darolutamide between January 2019 and December 2021, defined by Medicare Part D claims. The index date was the first prescription of either agent. Men with distant metastases, prior malignancies and age ≤65 were excluded. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were compared using chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank tests. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality. Results: Among 582 men with nmHRPC, 435 (74.7%) received apalutamide and 147 (25.3%) received darolutamide. The mean age at diagnosis was 73.8 vs 74.1 years (p=0.95). Most patients were White (84.6% vs 81.0%, p=0.21) and resided in metropolitan areas (85.0% vs 88.4%, p=0.39). Darolutamide use was more frequent in the Northeast (42.9% vs 24.6%, p<0.001), while apalutamide was more common in the South (28.7% vs 15.6%, p<0.001). Patients receiving darolutamide had higher-grade tumors (68.0% grade III vs 51.3%, p=0.002) and a longer median time from diagnosis to prescription (93 vs 64 months, p<0.001). Kaplan-Meier curves and adjusted Cox models showed no significant difference in overall survival (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.51–1.98; p=1.00). Age was independently associated with mortality (HR 1.05 per year; 95% CI 1.00–1.10; p=0.04). Conclusions: Apalutamide and darolutamide demonstrated comparable real-world survival outcomes in nmHRPC. Geographic and clinical factors influenced prescribing patterns, but survival did not differ between agents. Treatment choice may therefore be guided by patient comorbidities, tolerability, and clinician preference. Variable Comparison HR (95% CI) P-Value Treatment Darolutamide vs Apalutamide 1.00 (0.51,1.98) 1.00 Age at Diagnosis 1.05 (1.00, 1.10) 0.04* Race White vs Non-White 0.71 (0.28, 1.80) 0.47 Marital Status Married vs Unmarried 1.29 (0.60, 2.75) 0.51 Geographic Region -Midwest vs West 1.18 (0.34, 4.15) 0.79 -Northeast vs West 1.92 (0.92, 3.88) 0.07 -South vs West 1.01 (0.43, 2.36) 0.99

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 44, Issue 7_suppl
Published March 01, 2026
Pages 129-129
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (13)

M

Muhammad Umar Afzal

Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ

L

Lanyu Mi

Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ

M

Mehrdad Motamed

Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ

Z

Zaryab Bin Riaz

Division of Internal Medicine, Creighton University School of Medicine – Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ

I

Irbaz Bin Riaz

Irbaz Bin Riaz, MD, PhD; R. Bryan Rumble, MSc; Thomas A. Hope, MD; Giuseppe Procopio, MD; and Neha Vapiwala, MD; Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ; American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA; University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano, Milan, Italy; and University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA

M

Muhammad Ali Khan

Y

Yusra Saleem

Dow Medical College, Karachi, Pakistan

T

Tarek Nahle

Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia, United States

I

Ibrahim Asiri

Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ

M

Muhammad Hussnain Sadiq

5Mayo Clinic, Pheonix, United States

Y

Yashveer Chohan

Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ

V

Viraj R. Shah

Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, GA

E

Ewan Kemar Cobran

Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Scottsdale, AZ