Secondary outcomes by prior definitive treatment (tx) in patients (pts) with high-risk biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (hrBCR) treated with enzalutamide (enza) monotherapy (mono): EMBARK post hoc analysis.

S Stephen J. Freedland (Department of Urology, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars–Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles) U Ugo De Giorgi (Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori Dino Amadori, Meldola, Italy) R Ronald F. Tutrone (Chesapeake Urology Research Associates, Towson, MD) L Lawrence Ivan Karsh (AdventHealth Urology, Denver, CO) M Miguel Ramirez-Backhaus (Servicio de Urología, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain) E Edward M. Uchio (University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA) Y Yiyun Tang (Oncology Division, Pfizer, South San Francisco, CA) R Ruslan Croitoru (Astellas Pharma Inc., Northbrook, IL) M Matt Rosales (Oncology Global Development, Astellas Pharma, Northbrook, IL) M Matko Kalac (Oncology Division, Pfizer, New York) F Fong Wang (Pfizer, South San Francisco, CA) N Neal D. Shore (START Carolinas/Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, SC)

Abstract

5103 Background: The phase 3 EMBARK trial demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in metastasis-free survival and secondary efficacy endpoints with enza mono vs leuprolide alone. Herein, we descriptively report secondary endpoints for enza mono vs leuprolide alone across prior definitive tx subgroups. Methods: Eligible pts had hrBCR, with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time of ≤9 months. Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to enza + leuprolide, leuprolide alone, or enza mono. Secondary endpoints included time to PSA progression, first use of new antineoplastic tx, distant metastasis, resumption of any hormonal therapy after tx suspension, and symptomatic progression. Post hoc subgroup analyses descriptively compared secondary endpoints for enza mono vs leuprolide alone in pts with radical prostatectomy (RP) only, radiotherapy (RT) only, or RP + RT. Results: In both tx groups (enza mono and leuprolide alone), nearly half of pts had prior RP + RT (Table). Enza mono vs leuprolide alone numerically reduced the risk of PSA progression, first use of new antineoplastic tx, distant metastasis, and symptomatic progression in all prior definitive tx subgroups (Table). Time to resumption of any hormonal therapy favored leuprolide alone vs enza mono across all prior definitive tx subgroups. Conclusions: Tx with enza mono showed improvements in all secondary endpoints except time to resumption of any hormonal therapy vs leuprolide alone, regardless of prior definitive tx. The small sample sizes of the nonrandomized prior tx subgroups and low event numbers should be considered when interpreting the results. Interaction analyses of secondary endpoints across prior definitive tx subgroups will be reported in the presentation. Disclosure: A genAI tool (10/01/24; Pfizer; GPT-4o) developed the 1st draft; authors assume content responsibility. Clinical trial information: NCT02319837 . Secondary endpoints Mono(n=355) Leuprolide alone(n=358) † RP only(n=99) RT only(n=90) RP + RT(n=166) RP only(n=75) RT only(n=104) RP + RT(n=179) Time to: Event, n HR (95% CI) Event, n HR (95% CI) Event, n HR (95% CI) Event, n Event, n Event, n PSA progression 12 0.62(0.28, 1.34) 18 0.53(0.30, 0.95) 7 0.14(0.06, 0.33) 17 37 39 First use of new antineoplastic tx 23 0.68(0.38, 1.22) 33 0.76(0.48, 1.20) 28 0.37(0.23, 0.58) 25 48 67 Distant metastasis 10 0.81(0.32, 2.08) 14 0.65(0.31, 1.34) 16 0.45(0.24, 0.85) 9 20 30 Resumption of any hormonal therapy 77 1.68(1.14, 2.46) 60 2.23(1.46, 3.39) 142 1.58(1.22, 2.03) 54 47 116 Symptomatic progression 28 0.61(0.36, 1.03) 38 0.79(0.52, 1.22) 51 0.56(0.39, 0.80) 32 52 85 † Leuprolide alone was the comparator. CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 43, Issue 16_suppl
Published June 01, 2025
Pages 5103-5103
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (12)

S

Stephen J. Freedland

Department of Urology, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars–Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

U

Ugo De Giorgi

Department of Medical Oncology, IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori Dino Amadori, Meldola, Italy

R

Ronald F. Tutrone

Chesapeake Urology Research Associates, Towson, MD

L

Lawrence Ivan Karsh

AdventHealth Urology, Denver, CO

M

Miguel Ramirez-Backhaus

Servicio de Urología, Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain

E

Edward M. Uchio

University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA

Y

Yiyun Tang

Oncology Division, Pfizer, South San Francisco, CA

R

Ruslan Croitoru

Astellas Pharma Inc., Northbrook, IL

M

Matt Rosales

Oncology Global Development, Astellas Pharma, Northbrook, IL

M

Matko Kalac

Oncology Division, Pfizer, New York

F

Fong Wang

Pfizer, South San Francisco, CA

N

Neal D. Shore

START Carolinas/Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, SC