Explore the vast range of titles available.

Up to 30% of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have deleterious mutations in genes involved in homologous recombination repair of DNA damage. The use of the PARP inhibitor olaparib in such patients was associated with longer progression-free survival and a longer time to pain progression than control therapy.

A randomized trial involving patients with metastatic prostate cancer whose disease progressed after receipt of docetaxel and hormonal therapy showed that cabazitaxel was superior to an androgen-signaling–targeted agent in extending imaging-based progression-free survival, overall survival, and PSA response.

PROpel met its primary endpoint showing statistically significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in patients with first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) unselected by homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) status, with benefit observed in all prespecified subgroups. Here we report the final prespecified overall survival analysis. This was a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial done at 126 centres in 17 countries worldwide. Patients with mCRPC aged at least 18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1, a life expectancy of at least 6 months, with no previous systemic treatment for mCRPC and unselected by HRRm status were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by means of an interactive voice response system–interactive web response system to abiraterone acetate (orally, 1000 mg once daily) plus prednisone or prednisolone with either olaparib (orally, 300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The patients, the investigator, and study centre staff were masked to drug allocation. Stratification factors were site of metastases and previous docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive cancer stage. Radiographic progression-free survival was the primary endpoint and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint with alpha-control (alpha-threshold at prespecified final analysis: 0·0377 [two-sided]), evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03732820, and is completed and no longer recruiting. Between Oct 31, 2018 and March 11, 2020, 1103 patients were screened, of whom 399 were randomly assigned to olaparib plus abiraterone and 397 to placebo plus abiraterone. Median follow-up for overall survival in patients with censored data was 36·6 months (IQR 34·1–40·3) for olaparib plus abiraterone and 36·5 months (33·8–40·3) for placebo plus abiraterone. Median overall survival was 42·1 months (95% CI 38·4–not reached) with olaparib plus abiraterone and 34·7 months (31·0–39·3) with placebo plus abiraterone (hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·67–1·00; p=0·054). The most common grade 3–4 adverse event was anaemia reported in 64 (16%) of 398 patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone and 13 (3%) of 396 patients in the placebo plus abiraterone group. Serious adverse events were reported in 161 (40%) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and 126 (32%) in the placebo plus abiraterone group. One death in the placebo plus abiraterone group, from interstitial lung disease, was considered treatment related. Overall survival was not significantly different between treatment groups at this final prespecified analysis. Supported by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

In the CARD study, cabazitaxel significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. Here, we report the quality-of-life outcomes from the CARD study. CARD was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study involving 62 clinical sites across 13 European countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2) with confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of an interactive voice–web response system to receive cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks, 10 mg daily prednisone, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg orally once daily plus 5 mg prednisone twice daily) or enzalutamide (160 mg orally daily). Stratification factors were ECOG performance status, time to disease progression on the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor, and timing of the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival; here, we present more detailed analyses of pain (assessed using item 3 on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF]) and symptomatic skeletal events, alongside preplanned patient-reported outcomes, assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire and the EuroQoL—5 dimensions, 5 level scale (EQ-5D-5L). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Pain response was analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of BPI-SF item 3, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of either FACT-P or EQ-5D-5L (PRO population). Analyses of skeletal-related events were also done in the intention-to-treat population. The CARD study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02485691, and is no longer enrolling. Between Nov 17, 2015, and Nov 28, 2018, of 303 patients screened, 255 were randomly assigned to cabazitaxel (n=129) or abiraterone or enzalutamide (n=126). Median follow-up was 9·2 months (IQR 5·6–13·1). Pain response was observed in 51 (46%) of 111 patients with cabazitaxel and 21 (19%) of 109 patients with abiraterone or enzalutamide (p<0·0001). Median time to pain progression was not estimable (NE; 95% CI NE–NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·5 months (4·9–NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·55, 95% CI 0·32–0·97; log-rank p=0·035). Median time to symptomatic skeletal events was NE (95% CI 20·0–NE) with cabazitaxel and 16·7 months (10·8–NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·35–1·01; log-rank p=0·050). Median time to FACT-P total score deterioration was 14·8 months (95% CI 6·3–NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·9 months (6·3–NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·72, 95% CI 0·44–1·20; log-rank p=0·21). There was a significant treatment effect seen in changes from baseline in EQ-5D-5L utility index score in favour of cabazitaxel over abiraterone or enzalutamide (p=0·030) but no difference between treatment groups for change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (p=0·060). Since cabazitaxel improved pain response, time to pain progression, time to symptomatic skeletal events, and EQ-5D-5L utility index, clinicians and patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer can be reassured that cabazitaxel will not reduce quality of life when compared with treatment with a second androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. Sanofi.

Delayed-start contraception may reduce the risk of unintended pregnancy; however, data on newer formulations, such as estetrol (E4)-containing pills are limited. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of delayed start combined oral contraceptives (COCs) containing 15 mg E4 and 3 mg drospirenone (E4/DRSP). In this randomized, single-blind, non-inferiority trial, 36 healthy women aged 18–45 years with regular menstrual cycles were assigned to receive either E4/DRSP or 20 µg ethinyl estradiol/75 µg gestodene (EE/GS), starting treatment between cycle day 7 and 9. The primary outcome was ovulation inhibition, assessed using the modified Hoogland score. The secondary outcomes included cervical mucus changes and adverse effects. Baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups. The mean age and menstrual cycle length were 38.75 ± 5.8 years and 28.67 ± 1.96 days, respectively. More than half (55.56%) of the participants began COC use on day 9, with 50% of them showing active follicular development at baseline (Hoogland score of 4). Ovulation was inhibited in 61.11% of participants in both groups (adjusted relative risks: 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56–1.59, p  = 0.841, and absolute risk difference: −0.03, 95% CI: −0.39 to 0.33). Approximately half of the participants who ovulated showed ovarian activity that was not associated with theoretical pregnancy risk. Cervical mucus profiles and adverse events, including unscheduled bleeding, did not differ significantly between the groups. Initiating E4/DRSP on cycle day 7–9 appears comparable to that of EE/GS for ovulation inhibition; however, high ovulation rates limit the confirmation of non-inferiority. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Registration on April 25, 2024 (ID: NCT06396221; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06396221 ).

Progestin-only pills are associated with irregular bleeding pattern including amenorrhea. Desogestrel 75mcg even being a pill that inhibits ovulation shows a poor cycle control that limits a more common use. A drospirenone (DRSP)-only pill was developed to improve the bleeding profile. A phase III study in healthy women aged 18 to 45 years was performed to compare the bleeding profile and safety of women taking a DRSP only pill in a regime of 24 days of 4 mg of DRSP tablets followed by 4 days of placebo versus desogestrel 0.075 mg per day continuously over 9 cycles. A total of 858 women with 6691 drospirenone and 332 women with 2487 desogestrel treatment cycles were analyzed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of women with bleeding/spotting days in each cycle from cycles 2 to 9 and cumulative in cycles 2 to 4 and cycles 7 to 9 including and excluding those with amenorrhea. In each cycle, up to cycle 7, the proportion of women with unscheduled bleeding including those which did not bleed was statistically significantly lower in the DRSP group than in the DSG group (p = 0.0001, chi-square test). The mean [SD] number of unscheduled bleeding and spotting days during cycles 2-9 was statistically significantly lower in the DRSP group than in the DSG group (21.5 [22.86] days vs. 34.7 [33.73] days, p = 0.0003, Wilcoxon-rank-sum-test). Excluding amenorrhoeic women following results were obtained: In the cycles 2-6, the proportion of women with unscheduled bleeding was statistically significantly lower in the DRSP group than in the DSG group (p = 0.0001, chi-square test). The mean [SD] number of bleeding days was 8.6 [8.52] days vs. 12.9 [16.47] days, p = 0.0233. This report describes the improvement in bleeding profile of women using the new DRSP only oral contraceptive in comparison to DSG providing a better quality of live and adherence to the contraceptive method. EudraCT registration number: 2011-002396-42.

In the phase 3 PROpel trial (NCT03732820) patients with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with olaparib plus abiraterone in the first‐line setting showed significantly prolonged radiographic progression‐free survival (rPFS; primary data cutoff [DCO]: 30 July 2021; hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54–0.81; p < 0.001), and at prespecified final OS analysis DCO (12 October 2022) numerically prolonged overall survival (OS; HR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.67–1.00; p = 0.054), versus placebo plus abiraterone for the global population. Here, we report efficacy, safety, and patient‐reported outcome data for the Asian subset in PROpel. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo in combination with abiraterone (1000 mg once daily). The primary endpoint was investigator‐assessed rPFS, and a key secondary endpoint was OS. In the Asian subset (n = 133) at primary analysis, median rPFS was 27.6 months in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm (n = 63), compared with 19.3 months in the placebo plus abiraterone arm (n = 70; HR 0.55, 95% CI, 0.32–0.95). Median OS at the final analysis was not reached in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm versus 43.7 months in the placebo plus abiraterone arm (HR 0.59, 95% CI, 0.32–1.06). The safety profile was generally similar in the Asian subset and the global population. Efficacy and safety results for olaparib plus abiraterone in the Asian subset were generally consistent with the global PROpel population supporting the combination of olaparib plus abiraterone as an important first‐line treatment for consideration in Asian patients with mCRPC. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03732820 In the phase 3 PROpel trial (NCT03732820), first‐line treatment with olaparib plus abiraterone significantly prolonged radiographic progression‐free survival (rPFS) and numerically prolonged overall survival (OS) versus placebo plus abiraterone in patients with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Results of preplanned subgroup analyses of efficacy and safety in the Asian subset of PROpel (n = 133; rPFS hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.32–0.95; OS HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.32–1.06) were generally consistent with the global population. Our findings support consideration of the combination of olaparib plus abiraterone as an important first‐line treatment for Asian patients with mCRPC.

We compared the efficacy of 4 mg drospirenone (DRSP) progestin-only pills (POPs) versus combined oral contraceptive pills (COCs) containing 0.02 mg of ethinyl estradiol (EE) and 0.075 mg of gestodene (GS) in ovulation inhibition and inducing unfavorable cervical mucus changes using a delayed-starting approach. This randomized controlled trial involved 36 participants aged 18–45 years. The major outcomes included ovulation inhibition assessed using the Hoogland and Skouby score, and cervical mucus permeability, assessed using the modified World Health Organization score. The results demonstrated ovulation inhibition rates of 77.8% for the EE/GS group and 88.9% for the DRSP group. The risk ratio and absolute risk reduction were 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10, 2.40) and − 0.11 (95% CI: − 0.35, 0.13), respectively, satisfying the 20% non-inferiority margin threshold. The median time to achieve unfavorable cervical mucus changes was comparable between the DRSP (3 days, interquartile range [IQR]: 6 days) and EE/GS (3.5 days, IQR: 4 days) groups. However, the DRSP group had a higher incidence of unscheduled vaginal bleeding (55.56% vs. 11.11%; p = 0.005). DRSP-only pills, initiated on days 7–9 of the menstrual cycle, were non-inferior to EE/GS pills in ovulation inhibition. However, they exhibited delayed unfavorable cervical mucus changes compared to the standard two-day backup recommendation. Clinical trial registration: Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20220819001) https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20220819001 .

Background Both enzalutamide and abiraterone have demonstrated improved radiographic progression-free and overall survival for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) compared with placebo controls before docetaxel treatment in phase III studies. These oral agents target androgen and androgen receptor signaling and are thought to be less toxic than chemotherapy. Cross-resistance to these agents was recently reported because of their similar mechanism of action, and it is important to assess which agent is more effective to use initially for CRPC. Methods/design The present study is a phase III, investigator-initiated, multicenter, head-to-head, randomized controlled trial investigating enzalutamide vs. abiraterone as a first-line treatment for CRPC patients. Patients will be randomly assigned to an enzalutamide or an abiraterone treatment group. The primary endpoint is the time to prostate-specific antigen progression. The target sample size is set at 100 patients per group (total, 200 patients). The study duration is 5 years, and the duration for recruitment is 2 years and 6 months. Discussion Thus far, there have been no prospective head-to-head studies comparing enzalutamide and abiraterone. This ENABLE study will clarify which agent should be prioritized for CRPC patients and enable clinicians to decide the appropriate treatment before chemotherapy. Trial registration University hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Center identifier UMIN000015529 . Registrated 11/1/2014.

IntroductionEnzalutamide and abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (AAP) are used in combination with androgen-deprivation therapy to further suppress the androgen stimulation of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). First-line mCRPC treatment with enzalutamide and AAP yields similar overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival in phase III trials. Thus, treatment selection relies on patient choice, cost and side effects. The aim of this randomised trial is to investigate differences in fatigue, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and metabolic side effects in men with mCRPC treated with first-line enzalutamide versus AAP.Methods and analysisIn this ongoing open-label randomised (1:1) clinical trial, enzalutamide is compared with AAP as first-line treatment for men with mCRPC. The primary endpoint is fatigue assessed with the questionnaire Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue version 4. Secondary endpoints are changes in body composition (ie, fat mass, visceral adipose tissue, subcutaneous adipose tissue and lean body mass assessed with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry), glucose metabolism assessed with a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test, serum lipids, blood pressure and HRQoL assessed with the questionnaire Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P). All study endpoints are assessed at baseline and 12-week postintervention. Blood and urine samples are collected at baseline and at time of progression on allocated treatment for future investigation of predictive and prognostic biomarkers in prostate cancer treatment. The planned sample size is 170 participants. All participants are recruited from Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Denmark. Estimated last patient’s last visit is February 2020.Ethics and disseminationThe study received project approval from the National Committee on Health Research Ethics and Danish Data Protection Agency and Danish Medicines Agency (EudraCT no.: 2017-000027-99). The results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed international journals and will be presented at national and international conferences and symposiums.Trial registration numberClinicaltrialsregister.eu (2017-000099-27).