The Effect of Corticosteroids on Prostate Cancer Outcome Following Treatment with Enzalutamide: A Multivariate Analysis of the Phase III AFFIRM Trial

Jimmy L. Zhao, Karim Fizazi, Fred Saad, Kim N. Chi, Mary Ellen Taplin, Cora N. Sternberg, Andrew J. Armstrong, Johann S. de Bono, William T. Duggan, Howard I. Scher

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    3 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Purpose: The clinical impact of concurrent corticosteroid use (CCU) on enzalutamide-treated patients with metastatic castrationresistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is unknown. We investigated the association of CCU with overall survival (OS), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and time to prostate-specific antigen progression (TTPP) in post-chemotherapy, enzalutamide- treated patients with mCRPC. Patients and Methods: Post hoc analysis of AFFIRM (NCT00974311) with patients (n = 1,199) randomized 2:1 to enzalutamide 160 mg/day or placebo. Treatment group, CCU, and known prognostic factors were evaluated for impact on OS, rPFS, and TTPP using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. CCU was defined as "baseline"(use started at baseline) or "on-study"(baseline plus use that was started during the trial). Results: Enzalutamide significantly improved OS, rPFS, and TTPP independent of baselineCCUbut was associated with inferior clinical outcomes when compared with no baseline CCU, including a shorter OS [10.8 months vs. not reached (NR); HR for use vs. no use, 2.13;95%confidence interval (CI), 1.79-2.54], rPFS (5.2 months vs. 8.0 months; HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.29-1.72], and TTPP (4.6 months vs. 5.7 months; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.25-1.81). These findings held in a multivariate analysis adjusting for baseline prognostic factors wherein baselineCCUwas independently associated with decreased OS (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.43-2.04; P < 0.0001) and rPFS (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11-1.48; P = 0.0007). Conclusions: Patients with mCRPC benefited from enzalutamide treatment independent of CCU, but CCU was associated with worse baseline prognostic factors and outcomes.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)860-869
    Number of pages10
    JournalClinical Cancer Research
    Volume28
    Issue number5
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2022

    Cite this