The EMBARK trial showed that enzalutamide monotherapy was superior to standard ADT monotherapy for metastasis-free survival. This suggests potent AR antagonism may be a more effective strategy than simply depleting the testosterone ligand, challenging the long-held dogma of ADT being the fundamental building block for systemic prostate cancer therapy.
Related Insights
Unlike bladder cancer, prostate cancer has highly effective androgen-pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) that extend survival. This success has pushed chemotherapy and, by extension, ADC development to later treatment lines as clinicians prioritize other novel mechanisms of action first.
After years of successfully intensifying hormonal therapy, the focus in prostate cancer is shifting toward de-intensification. Researchers are exploring intermittent therapy for top responders and developing non-hormonal approaches like radioligands to spare patients the chronic, life-altering side effects of permanent castration.
The enzalutamide arms saw discontinuation rates of 20-25% due to adverse events. This high rate reflects a different risk calculation for patients who feel healthy and are asymptomatic. Unlike in advanced disease where patients tolerate more toxicity, this population has a very low threshold for side effects, making early intervention a significant trade-off.
The term "hormone resistance" was misleading. Researchers discovered that even in a castrate state, prostate cancer tumors produce their own testosterone locally. This maintained androgen receptor signaling, proving the disease was still "androgen addicted" and opening the door for new targeted therapies.
The rapid advancement of ARPIs wasn't just a scientific breakthrough. It was a rare convergence of FDA interest in new endpoints, a deeper biological understanding of castration resistance, and intense industry and academic collaboration that created a uniquely fertile ground for innovation.
The control arm in the EMBARK study was blinded to PSA results, preventing physicians from intervening with standard-of-care AR antagonists at PSA progression. This design likely delayed subsequent effective therapies, making the control arm underperform and potentially exaggerating the overall survival benefit of the experimental arms.
Even when an ARPI is no longer effective as a standalone therapy, continuing it may be beneficial. By maintaining pressure on the androgen receptor pathway, the drug can upregulate downstream targets like PSMA, potentially enhancing the efficacy of subsequent PSMA-targeted therapies like radioligands or ADCs.
Clinical trials combining potent ARPIs like abiraterone and enzalutamide have consistently failed. Once the androgen receptor pathway is maximally suppressed by one agent, adding another with a similar mechanism provides no further clinical advantage, much like hammering a nail that is already flush with the wood.
The EMBARK trial demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit, yet experts argue this doesn't automatically make treatment mandatory. For asymptomatic patients with a long life expectancy, factors like treatment-free survival and quality of life are critical considerations, challenging the primacy of OS as the sole decision-driver in this population.
The IMbark trial demonstrated that an ARPI (enzalutamide), either alone or with ADT, outperformed ADT monotherapy in high-risk patients. This pivotal finding raises the question of whether giving ADT alone in any setting, such as with radiation for localized disease, is now an outdated and inferior approach.