Rana R. McKay,Wanling Xie,Xiaoyu Yang,Andres Acosta,Dana Rathkopf,Vincent P. Laudone,Glenn J. Bubley,David J. Einstein,Peter Chang,Andrew A. Wagner,Christopher J. Kane,Mark A. Preston,Kerry Kilbridge,Steven L. Chang,Atish D. Choudhury,Mark M. Pomerantz,Quoc‐Dien Trinh,Adam S. Kibel,Mary‐Ellen Taplin

Abstract:Background Patients with localized, unfavorable intermediate–risk and high‐risk prostate cancer have an increased risk of relapse after radical prostatectomy (RP). The authors previously reported on part 1 of this phase 2 trial testing neoadjuvant apalutamide, abiraterone, prednisone, plus leuprolide (AAPL) or abiraterone, prednisone, and leuprolide (APL) for 6 months followed by RP. The results demonstrated favorable pathologic responses (tumor 200 ng/dL). Results Overall, 82 of 118 patients (69%) enrolled in part 1 were randomized to part 2. A higher proportion of patients who were not randomized to adjuvant therapy had a favorable prostatectomy pathologic response (32.3% in nonrandomized patients compared with 17.1% in randomized patients). In the intent‐to‐treat analysis, the 3‐year biochemical progression‐free survival rate was 81% for arm 2A and 72% for arm 2B (hazard ratio, 0.81; 90% confidence interval, 0.43–1.49). Of the randomized patients, 81% had testosterone recovery in the AAPL group compared with 95% in the observation group, with a median time to recovery of <12 months in both arms. Conclusions In this study, because 30% of patients declined adjuvant treatment, part B was underpowered to detect differences between arms. Future perioperative studies should be biomarker‐directed and include strategies for investigator and patient engagement to ensure compliance with protocol procedures.

Postradical prostatectomy prostate‐specific antigen outcomes after 6 versus 18 months of perioperative androgen‐deprivation therapy in men with localized, unfavorable intermediate–risk or high‐risk prostate cancer: Results of part 2 of a randomized phase 2 trial