Dr. Karsh on the TERRAIN Trial for Prostate Cancer

Lawrence Karsh, MD
Published: Monday, Jul 13, 2015



Lawrence Karsh, MD, FACS, director, Clinical Research Department, The Urology Center of Colorado, discusses the TERRAIN trial, which compared enzalutamide with bicalutamide for the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

The randomized TERRAIN trial, which enrolled 375 patients, compared the efficacy of the two single-agents, Karsh explains. In preclinical studies, enzalutamide demonstrated efficacy because it was tested against bicalutamide-resistant cells, he adds. The primary endpoint of the TERRAIN trial was progression-free survival (PFS), with secondary endpoints being change in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and quality of life indicators.

PFS was 15.7 months in the enzalutamide arm versus 5.8 months in the bicalutamide arm. A higher PSA response was also found in the enzalutamide cohort compared with the bicalutamide cohort. Patients had longer time to deterioration when treated with enzalutamide compared with bicalutamide by approximately 5 months. In summary, Karsh says, enzalutamide has a higher efficacy rate than bicalutamide.
 


Lawrence Karsh, MD, FACS, director, Clinical Research Department, The Urology Center of Colorado, discusses the TERRAIN trial, which compared enzalutamide with bicalutamide for the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

The randomized TERRAIN trial, which enrolled 375 patients, compared the efficacy of the two single-agents, Karsh explains. In preclinical studies, enzalutamide demonstrated efficacy because it was tested against bicalutamide-resistant cells, he adds. The primary endpoint of the TERRAIN trial was progression-free survival (PFS), with secondary endpoints being change in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and quality of life indicators.

PFS was 15.7 months in the enzalutamide arm versus 5.8 months in the bicalutamide arm. A higher PSA response was also found in the enzalutamide cohort compared with the bicalutamide cohort. Patients had longer time to deterioration when treated with enzalutamide compared with bicalutamide by approximately 5 months. In summary, Karsh says, enzalutamide has a higher efficacy rate than bicalutamide.
 

View Conference Coverage
Online CME Activities
TitleExpiration DateCME Credits
Clinical Interchange™: Translating Research to Inform Changing Paradigms: Assessment of Emerging Immuno-Oncology Strategies and Combinations across Lung, Head and Neck, and Bladder CancersOct 31, 20182.0
35th Annual Chemotherapy Foundation Symposium: Innovative Cancer Therapy for Tomorrow® Clinical Vignette SeriesJan 31, 20192.0
Publication Bottom Border
Border Publication
x