Effectiveness and safety of enzalutamide and apalutamide in the treatment of patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC): a multicenter retrospective study

Objective Phase III clinical trials demonstrated the efficacy of enzalutamide and apalutamide in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) and PSA doubling time ≤10 months. Although these drugs have been shown to vary in their adverse event (AE) profiles, the differences in their efficacy profiles remain to be evaluated. Therefore, this retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of these drugs in patients with nmCRPC. Methods This study evaluated 191 patients with nmCRPC treated with enzalutamide ( n = 137) or apalutamide ( n = 54) in the first-line setting at Jikei University Hospital or its affiliated hospitals between May 2014 and November 2022. Endpoints were defined as oncological outcomes (i.e., PSA response, PFS, PSA-PFS, MFS, CSS, and OS) and AEs. Results No significant differences were noted in patient backgrounds between the two groups. Patients exhibiting a maximum PSA response of >50% and >90% accounted for 74.5% and 48.9% of patients in the enzalutamide group, and 75.9% and 42.6% of patients in the apalutamide group, respectively, with no significant difference between the groups. The median PSA-PFS was 10 months in the enzalutamide group but not in the apalutamide group, with no significant difference between the groups ( P = 0.48). No significant differences were observed in MFS, CSS, or OS between the groups. Patients reporting AEs of all grades and grade 3 or higher accounted for 56.2% and 4.3% of those in the enzalutamide group and 57.4% and 7.4% of those in the apalutamide group, respectively. The most common AE was fatigue (26.3%) in the enzalutamide group and skin rash (27.8%) in the apalutamide group. Conclusion In this retrospective study of their efficacy and safety, enzalutamide and apalutamide were shown to exhibit comparable oncological outcomes but quite different AE profiles, suggesting that their differential use may be warranted based on these findings.