Phase II Randomized Study of Salvage Radiation Therapy (SRT) plus Enzalutamide or Blinded Placebo for High-Risk PSA-Recurrent Prostate Cancer after Radical Prostatectomy: The SALV-ENZA Trial

Abstract

<h3>Purpose/Objective(s)</h3> We sought to investigate whether enzalutamide (ENZA) treatment, without androgen deprivation therapy, increases freedom‐from‐PSA‐progression (FFPP) when combined with salvage radiation therapy (SRT) in men with recurrent prostate cancer post-radical prostatectomy (RP). <h3>Materials/Methods</h3> Men with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer after RP were enrolled into a randomized, double‐blind, phase II, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of SRT + placebo vs SRT + ENZA. The randomization (1:1) was stratified by center, surgical margin status (R0 vs R1), PSA prior to salvage treatment (PSA ≥0.5 vs <0.5 ng/mL), and pathologic Gleason sum (7 vs 8‐10) using a minimization algorithm. Following randomization, patients received either placebo or ENZA 160 mg PO once daily for 6 months. Following 2 months of study drug therapy, external beam radiotherapy to 66.6‐70.2 Gy was administered to the prostate bed (no pelvic nodes). The primary endpoint was FFPP. The trial design was powered for a HR 0.44 FFPP benefit with intended enrollment of 96 subjects and was closed as planned to enrollment on March 2020 short of that goal. Secondary endpoints were time to local recurrence (LR) within the radiation field, metastasis‐free survival (MFS), and safety as determined by frequency and severity of adverse events (AEs). <h3>Results</h3> A total of 86 patients were randomized with a median follow-up of 34 (range 0-52) months. The median pre-SRT PSA was 0.3 (range 0.06-4.6) ng/mL, 56/86 (65%) had extra-prostatic disease (pT3), 39/86 (45%) had Gleason Grade Group 4 or higher and 43/96 (50%) had positive surgical margins. Trial arms were well balanced. FFPP was significantly improved with ENZA vs placebo, for example 2-year FFPP was 87.1% vs 68.1%, respectively, and overall, with a HR 0.40 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.17-0.92, p-value =0.026]. Subgroup analyses demonstrate differential benefit (p-value of interaction=0.031) of ENZA in men with pT3 (HR 0.19, 95%CI 0.05-0.67) vs pT2 disease (HR 1.29, 95%CI 0.34-4.81). There were insufficient secondary endpoint events for analysis. The most common adverse events were grade 1-2 fatigue (13% ENZA vs 9%) and urinary frequency (6 % ENZA vs 8%). <h3>Conclusion</h3> SRT plus ENZA monotherapy for men with PSA recurrent high-risk prostate cancer following RP is safe and delays PSA progression relative to SRT alone. The impact of ENZA on distant metastasis or survival is unknown at this time. Additional molecular biomarker analyses are being pursued.