RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Impact of darolutamide (DARO) on pain and quality of life (QoL) in patients (PTS) with nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (NMCRPC) (#249)
Todenhoefer, T., Fizazi, K., Shore, N. D., Tarnmela, T., Kuss, I., Le Berre, M-A., Mohamed, A. F., Odom, D., Bartsch, J., Snapir, A., Sarapohja, T., & Smith, M. R. (2020). Impact of darolutamide (DARO) on pain and quality of life (QoL) in patients (PTS) with nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (NMCRPC) (#249). Oncology Research and Treatment, 43(Suppl. 1), 154-155. https://doi.org/10.1159/000506491
Purpose: DARO is a structurally distinct androgen receptor antagonist for which in vitro and phase 1/2 studies suggest low risk of adverse events (AEs) and drug–drug interaction. In the ARAMIS study of DARO in nmCRPC, metastasis-free survival (MFS) was significantly prolonged vs placebo (PBO) (40.4 vs 18.4 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34–0.50; P < 0.001) and interim overall survival (OS) favored DARO (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.50–0.99; P = 0.045).
Methods: 1509 pts were randomized 2:1 to DARO 600 mg (two 300 mg tablets) twice daily (n = 955) or PBO (n = 554) while continuing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Primary endpoint was MFS. Secondary endpoints included OS and time to pain progression. QoL was assessed by EORTC-QLQ-PR25 at baseline (BL) and every 16 wks until end of treatment. Analysis of time to deterioration (TTD) in EORTC-QLQ-PR25 subscales, defined as first occurrence of a minimally important difference.
Results: DARO significantly delayed pain progression vs PBO (40.3 vs 25.4 mo; HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.53–0.79; P < 0.001); this was maintained beyond end of study treatment. TTD showed statistically and clinically significant delays with DARO vs PBO for urinary symptoms (25.8 vs 14.8 mo; HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.54–0.76; P < 0.01). TTD of hormonal treatment-related symptoms was comparable with DARO vs PBO (18.9 vs 18.4 mo; HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.88–1.27; P = 0.52). DARO was well tolerated. Exposure-adjusted incidences of AEs of interest were similar/lower with DARO vs PBO (fatigue/asthenic conditions [11.3 vs 11.1], hypertension [4.7 vs 5.1], hot flush [3.7 vs 4.1], fracture [3.0 vs 3.5], falls [2.7 vs 4.1], cognitive disorder [0.3 vs 0.2], and seizure [0.2 vs 0.2]).
Conclusions: For nmCRPC pts, DARO prolongs MFS, is well tolerated, maintains QoL, and delays worsening of pain and disease-related symptoms compared with PBO.