Enzalutamide Yielded Significant Benefit Vs Surveillance in Low-/Intermediate-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer


Enzalutamide monotherapy could be a promising alternative to active surveillance for patients with low- and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer.

Treatment with enzalutamide (Xtandi) resulted in significant treatment responses in patients with low- and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer vs active surveillance alone, according to findings from the phase 2 ENACT trial (NCT02799745).

Treatment with the monotherapy resulted in a significant 46% reduction in disease progression vs active surveillance alone (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33-0.89; P = .02). Moreover, odds of a negative biopsy were 3.5 times higher in the active-therapy arm.

The multicenter, open-label trial enrolled patients with low- and intermediate-risk disease from June 2016 to August 2020. Patients who enrolled on the study were randomized 1:1 to undergo treatment with enzalutamide at 160 mg and active surveillance for 1 year or active surveillance alone. Stratification factors included disease risk and type of follow-up biopsy.

The trial included patients who were 18 years or older with histologically confirmed low- or intermediate-risk disease within 6 months of screening who were eligible for active surveillance.

The primary end point was time to pathological or therapeutic disease progression, with secondary end points including negative biopsy results at 1 and 2 years, percentage of cancer-positive cores at 1 and 2 years, time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, and incidence of secondary serum PSA level increase at 1 and 2 years.

A total of 227 patients were randomized at 66 sites. Of those, 114 were treated with enzalutamide, with 74.6% completing 1 year of active surveillance, 61.4% completing 1 year of follow-up, and 50.9% completing a year of continued follow-up. Among those who were placed under active surveillance (n = 113), 70.8% completed 1 year of treatment, 45.1% completed 1 year of follow-up, and 36.3% completed a year of continued follow-up. All study periods were completed in 47.4% of patients in the enzalutamide arm and 35.4% of those in the active surveillance arm.

The most common reasons for discontinuation were disease progression and patient withdrawal. The study had a median follow-up of 492.5 days in the monotherapy arm and 270.5 days in the active surveillance arm. Additionally, 53.3% of patients had low-risk disease and 75.8% received follow-up biopsies.

A total of 28.1% of patients progressed in the enzalutamide arm compared with 37.2% of patients in the active surveillance arm. Median time to pathological/therapeutic progression was not reached in either group. Additionally, pathological/therapeutic progression was reported in 7.9% of patients in the active treatment arm compared with 23.0% of those in the active surveillance arm (odds ratio [OR], 0.3; 95% CI, 0.11-0.60; P <.01). Incidence of progression at 2 years was comparable between cohorts at 16.0% and 16.4%, respectively (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.36-2.24; P = .81).

Additional findings from the trial indicated that 1-year odds of a negative biopsy significantly increased following treatment with enzalutamide compared with active surveillance (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.76-6.92; P <.001). Despite a higher rate of negative biopsies at 2 years in the enzalutamide arm vs active surveillance, the difference was not statistically significant. The treatment arm also had a significantly lower mean rate of cancer-positive cores at 1 year vs active surveillance (difference in least squares mean, –10.07 [2.40]; 95% CI, –14.79 to –5.34; P <.001). The difference in cancer-positive cores between groups at 2 years was not statistically significant, although the enzalutamide had a statistically significant reduction of 6.7% (95% CI, −11.36 to −2.00) from baseline to year 2. Enzalutamide also significantly delayed time to PSA progression by 6 months compared with active surveillance (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.97; P = .03).

The most common adverse effects (AEs) in the enzalutamide arm included fatigue (55.4%), gynecomastia (36.6%), nipple pain (30.4%), breast tenderness (25.9%), and erectile dysfunction (17.9%). A total of 88.4% of patients experienced drug-related AEs, 2.7% of which were serious and 7.1% resulted in treatment discontinuation. The majority of AEs in year 1 were grade 1 or 2 in severity. Grade 3 or higher AEs were reported in 9.8% of patients in the treatment arm with grade 3 fatigue being the only event reported in 2 patients. There were no grade 4 AEs and 1 reported grade 5 AE. Moreover, 5.4% of patients had grade 3 AEs that were considered drug related, with 1 event each of gait disturbance, gynecomastia, myocardial infarction, and syncope and 2 occurrences of fatigue.


Shore ND, Renzulli J, Fleshner NE, et al. Active surveillance plus enzalutamide monotherapy vs active surveillance alone in patients with low-risk or intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer. Published online June 16, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.1641

Related Videos
An artificial intelligence algorithm appears to create accurate focal treatment margins in patients with prostate cancer, according to Wayne G. Brisbane, MD.
Artificial intelligence may be useful in screening for prostate cancer in patients with elevated prostate specific antigen levels who have undergone MRI, according to Wayne G. Brisbane, MD.
Alicia K. Morgans, MD, MPH, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute indicates that patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer are able to stay on treatment for long periods of time with darolutamide vs enzalutamide and apalutamide.
Andrew J. Armstrong, MD, MSc, spoke about the recent approval of olaparib plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone in patients with BRCA-mutant metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
Expert on prostate cancer
Expert on prostate cancer
Experts on prostate cancer
Expert on prostate cancer
Expert on prostate cancer
Expert on prostate cancer
Related Content