AzTrials
AzTrials

Prostate CancerPhase 2NCT01547299

Study of Enzalutamide (Formerly MDV3100) as a Neoadjuvant Therapy for Patients Undergoing Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer

A Phase 2 study testing Enzalutamide, Leuprolide and Dutasteride in people with Prostate Cancer, run by Pfizer at 4 sites in 2 countries.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The purpose of this study is to determine if enzalutamide is an effective therapy in treating localized prostate cancer prior to prostatectomy. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older, men only
Conditions the study is for
Prostate Cancer
What is being tested?
Enzalutamide, Leuprolide and Dutasteride
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
52 participants
Where
4 sitesin 2 countries
Study dates
31 Mar 2012to 30 Nov 2013
Phase
Phase 2
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • Men only
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Willing to provide informed consent
  • 18 years of age or older
  • Histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate
  • Must be a candidate for radical prostatectomy and considered surgically resectable

Who cannot join

  • Stage T4 prostate cancer by clinical or radiologic evaluation
  • Treatment with an investigational agent within 4 weeks prior to randomization
  • Received therapy for other neoplastic disorders within 5 years
  • Hypogonadism or severe androgen deficiency

Trial locations and contacts

4 sites in 2 countries.

4 sites in 2 countries

United States2 sites
  • Study site

    Boston, Massachusetts, 02215

  • Study site

    Seattle, Washington, 98195

Other trials in United States

Canada2 sites
  • Study site

    Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2M9

  • Study site

    Vancouver, British Columbia, V5Z 1M9

Other trials in Canada

About this study

Official title: A Randomized, Open-label, Phase 2 Study Of Mdv3100 As A Neoadjuvant Therapy For Patients Undergoing Prostatectomy For Localized Prostate Cancer

The purpose of this study is to determine if enzalutamide is an effective therapy in treating localized prostate cancer prior to prostatectomy.

Conditions
Prostate Cancer
Being tested
Enzalutamide, Leuprolide, Dutasteride
Keywords
prostate cancer, prostatectomy, neoadjuvant
Medical subject headings
Prostatic Neoplasms

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • EnzalutamideDrug

    Also called MDV3100

  • LeuprolideDrug

  • DutasterideDrug

Study groups in NCT01547299
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Enzalutamide aloneExperimentalEnzalutamide 160 mg, orally, once daily
Receives: Drug: Enzalutamide
Enzalutamide & Leuprolide & DutasterideExperimentalEnzalutamide 160 mg, orally, once daily and leuprolide 22.5 mg, intramuscular injection, every 3 months, and dutasteride, 0.5 mg, orally, once daily
Receives: Drug: Enzalutamide; Drug: Leuprolide; Drug: Dutasteride

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Pathologic Complete Response Rate

    Pathologic complete response rate was defined as percentage of participants with pathologic complete response. Pathologic complete response rate following triplet therapy (enzalutamide in combination with leuprolide and dutasteride) and enzalutamide alone when administered as neoadjuvant therapy for 180 days prior to prostatectomy in participants with localized prostate cancer. Pathologic complete response was defined as the absence of morphologically identifiable carcinoma in the prostatectomy specimen, as assessed by the local and central pathologist.

    Measured: Day 180

Secondary outcomes (30)
  1. Percentage of Participants With Positive Surgical Margins

    To determine the percentage of participants with positive surgical margins at prostatectomy as assessed by the local and central pathologist. Surgical margin, also known as tumor free margin referred to the visible normal tissue or skin margin that was removed with the surgical excision of a tumor, growth, or malignancy. The margin was described as positive when the pathologist finds cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has not been removed.

    Measured: Day 180

  2. Percentage of Participants With Extracapsular Extension: Local Review

    To determine the percentage of participants with extracapsular extension at prostatectomy as assessed by the local pathologist. Extracapsular extension was defined as prostate cancer cells when extended into the prostate capsule or outer lining of the prostate gland.

    Measured: Day 180

  3. Percentage of Participants With Extracapsular Extension: Central Review

    To determine the percentage of participants with extracapsular extension at prostatectomy as assessed by the central pathologist. Extracapsular extension was defined as prostate cancer cells when extended into the prostate capsule or outer lining of the prostate gland.

    Measured: Day 180

  4. Percentage of Participants With Positive Seminal Vesicles

    To determine the percentage of participants with positive seminal vesicles at prostatectomy as assessed by the local and central pathologist. Seminal vesicles or seminal glands, were defined as a pair of simple tubular glands located within the pelvis. They secrete fluid that partly composes the semen. Seminal vesicles with cancer cells in them were called positive seminal vesicles.

    Measured: Day 180

  5. Percentage of Participants With Positive Lymph Nodes

    To determine the percentage of participants with positive lymph nodes at prostatectomy as assessed by the local and central pathologist. Lymph nodes were small clumps of immune cells that act as filters for the lymphatic system. Lymph nodes with cancer cells in them were called positive lymph nodes.

    Measured: Day 180

  6. Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Nadir

    To determine the effects on PSA as measured by the lowest post baseline PSA value prior to prostatectomy. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was a protein produced by normal, as well as malignant, cells of the prostate gland. The PSA nadir was the participant's lowest observed post baseline PSA value.

    Measured: Day 195

  7. Time to Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Nadir

    To determine the effects on PSA as measured by the time to the lowest post baseline PSA value prior to prostatectomy. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was a protein produced by normal, as well as malignant, cells of the prostate gland. The PSA nadir was the participant's lowest observed post baseline PSA value.

    Measured: Day 195

  8. Percentage of Participants With Reduction in Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA)

    To determine the effects on PSA as measured by the percentage of participants with PSA less than (<) 0.2 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL), and a 50 percent (%) and 90% decrease in PSA value prior to prostatectomy. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was a protein produced by normal, as well as malignant, cells of the prostate gland.

    Measured: Day 195

  9. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL): Number of Participants With The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) Sexual Domain Summary Score

    EPIC sexual domain was HRQoL instrument that measured the effects of prostate cancer treatment on a participant's sexual function and sexual satisfaction. Sexual domain summary score was measured on a scale ranged from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) with higher scores representing better sexual function and satisfaction. Best change from baseline category in EPIC sexual domain summary score ranged from worsened to improved where worsened indicated decrease of at least 1 minimally important difference, stable indicated changed by less than 1 minimally important difference and improved indicated increase of at least 1 minimally important difference. Minimally important difference was defined as one-half of the standard deviation of baseline score. Number of participants within each category are reported below.

    Measured: Day 180

  10. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL): Number of Participants With Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) Sexual Function Subscale Score

    EPIC sexual function subscale was HRQoL instrument that measured the effects of prostate cancer treatment on a participant's sexual function and sexual satisfaction. EPIC sexual function subscale was a component of sexual domain that was evaluated on a distinct set of questions. It was measured on a scale ranged from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) with higher scores representing better sexual function. Best change from baseline category in EPIC sexual function subscale score ranged from worsened to improved where worsened indicated decrease of at least 1 minimally important difference, stable indicated changed by less than 1 minimally important difference and improved indicated increase of at least 1 minimally important difference. Minimally important difference was defined as one-half of the standard deviation of baseline score. Number of participants within each category are reported below.

    Measured: Day 180

  11. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL): Number of Participants With Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) Sexual Bother Subscale Score

    EPIC sexual bother subscale was HRQoL instrument that measured the effects of prostate cancer treatment on a participant's sexual function and sexual satisfaction. EPIC sexual bother subscale was a component of sexual domain that was evaluated on a distinct set of questions. It was measured on a scale ranged from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) with higher scores representing less sexual bother and difficulty. Best change from baseline category in EPIC sexual bother subscale score ranged from worsened to improved where worsened indicated decrease of at least 1 minimally important difference, stable indicated changed by less than 1 minimally important difference and improved indicated increase of at least 1 minimally important difference. Minimally important difference was defined as one-half of the standard deviation of baseline score. Number of participants within each category are reported below.

    Measured: Day 180

  12. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL): Number of Participants With Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) Hormonal Domain Summary Score

    EPIC Hormonal Domain was HRQoL instrument that measured the effects of prostate cancer treatment on a participant's hormonal function. It was measured on a scale ranged from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) scale with higher scores representing better hormonal function. Best change from baseline category in EPIC hormonal domain summary score ranged from worsened to improved where worsened indicated decrease of at least 1 minimally important difference, stable indicated changed by less than 1 minimally important difference and improved indicated increase of at least 1 minimally important difference. Minimally important difference was defined as one-half of the standard deviation baseline score. Number of participants within each category are reported below.

    Measured: Day 180

  13. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL): Number of Participants With Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) Hormonal Function Subscale Score

    EPIC hormonal function subscale score was HRQoL instrument that measured the effects of prostate cancer treatment on a participant's hormonal function. EPIC hormonal function subscale was a component of hormonal domain that was evaluated on a distinct set of questions. It was measured on a scale ranged from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) scale with higher scores representing better hormonal function. Best change from baseline category in EPIC hormonal function subscale score ranged from worsened to improved where worsened indicated decrease of at least 1 minimally important difference, stable indicated changed by less than 1 minimally important difference and improved indicated increase of at least 1 minimally important difference. Minimally important difference was defined as one-half of the standard deviation baseline score. Number of participants within each category are reported below.

    Measured: Day 180

  14. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL): Number of Participants With Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) Hormonal Bother Subscale Score

    EPIC hormonal bother subscale score was HRQoL instrument that measured the effects of prostate cancer treatment on a participant's hormonal function. EPIC hormonal bother subscale was a component of hormonal domain that was evaluated on a distinct set of questions. It was measured on a scale ranged from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) scale with higher scores representing less hormonal bothering. Best change from baseline category in EPIC hormonal bother subscale score ranged from worsened to improved where worsened indicated decrease of at least 1 minimally important difference, stable indicated changed by less than 1 minimally important difference and improved indicated increase of at least 1 minimally important difference. Minimally important difference was defined as one-half of the standard deviation baseline score. Number of participants within each category are reported below.

    Measured: Day 180

  15. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL): Number of Participants With Twelve-Item Short Form Version 2 General Health Domain Score

    The Twelve-Item Short Form Version 2 was HRQoL instrument that measured general health and well-being across physical and mental components. The general health domain score contained 1 item scored on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1=excellent to 5=poor health, where higher score indicated worse health status. Best change from baseline category in general health domain score ranged from worsened (decrease of at least 1 minimally important difference), stable (changed by less than 1 minimally important difference), or improved (increase of at least 1 minimally important difference). Minimally important difference was defined as one-half the standard deviation of the score of interest at baseline.

    Measured: Day 180

  16. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL): Number of Participants With Twelve-Item Short Form Version 2 Physical Functioning Domain Score

    The Twelve-Item Short Form Version 2 was HRQoL instrument that measured general health and well-being across physical and mental components. The physical functioning domain score contained 2 items each scored on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1=excellent physical functioning to 5=poor physical functioning. Physical functioning domain total score ranged from 1 to 10, where higher scores indicated poor physical functioning. Best change from baseline category in physical functioning domain score ranged from worsened (decrease of at least 1 minimally important difference), stable (changed by less than 1 minimally important difference), or improved (increase of at least 1 minimally important difference). Minimally important difference was defined as one-half the standard deviation of the score of interest at baseline.

    Measured: Day 180

  17. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL): Number of Participants With Twelve-Item Short Form Version 2 Role-Emotional Domain Score

    The Twelve-Item Short Form Version 2 was HRQoL instrument that measured general health and well-being across physical and mental components. The mental health domain score had 2 items scored on a scale of 1 to 5, where higher scores indicated worse mental status. The total score ranged from 1 to 10, where higher scores indicated worse mental status. Best change from baseline category in mental component summary ranged from worsened (decrease of at least 1 minimally important difference), stable (changed by less than 1 minimally important difference), or improved (increase of at least 1 minimally important difference). Minimally important difference was defined as one-half the standard deviation of the score of interest at baseline.

    Measured: Day 180

  18. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL): Number of Participants With Twelve-Item Short Form Version 2 Mental Component Summary

    The Twelve-Item Short Form Version 2 was HRQoL instrument that measured general health and well-being across physical and mental components. The mental health domain score had 2 items scored on a scale of 1 to 5 where for 1 item 1=all of the time person felt calm and peaceful to 5=none of the time person felt calm and peaceful. The score ranged from 1 to 5, where higher scores meant worse mental status. For other item 1=all of the time person felt downhearted and blue to 5=none of the time person felt downhearted and blue. The score ranged from 1 to 5, where higher scores meant better mental status. Best change from baseline category in mental component summary ranged from worsened (decrease of at least 1 minimally important difference), stable (changed by less than 1 minimally important difference), or improved (increase of at least 1 minimally important difference). Minimally important difference was defined as one-half the standard deviation of the score of interest at baseline.

    Measured: Day 180

  19. Pharmacodynamic Effects: Tissue Dihydrotestosterone (DHT)

    To determine pharmacodynamic effects as measured by the amount of tissue DHT in prostatectomy specimens following radical prostatectomy.

    Measured: Day 180

  20. Pharmacodynamic Effects: Tissue Testosterone

    To determine pharmacodynamic effects as measured by the amount of tissue testosterone in prostatectomy specimens following radical prostatectomy.

    Measured: Day 180

  21. Pharmacodynamic Effects: Assessment of Apoptosis

    To determine the effects of triplet therapy and enzalutamide alone on apoptosis in prostatectomy specimens. Apoptosis was a process of biochemical events that lead to characteristic cell changes and death.

    Measured: Day 180

  22. Pharmacodynamic Effects: Assessment of Mitotic Index

    Assessment was performed to determine the effects of triplet therapy and enzalutamide alone on mitotic index. Mitotic index was defined as the ratio between the numbers of cells in a population undergoing mitosis to the number of cells in a population not undergoing mitosis in prostatectomy specimens.

    Measured: Day 180

  23. Pharmacodynamic Effects: Assessment of Androgen Receptor Signaling as Measured by Intensity of Androgen Receptor Immunohistochemical (IHC) Staining

    To determine the effects of triplet therapy and enzalutamide alone on androgen receptor signaling in prostatectomy specimens. Androgen receptor (AR) was a type of nuclear receptor that was activated by binding either of the androgenic hormones, testosterone, or dihydrotestosterone in the cytoplasm and then translocating into the nucleus. Androgen receptor (AR) signaling represented the major therapeutic target for treating metastatic prostate cancer. Assessment of androgen receptor signaling was measured by intensity of androgen receptor IHC staining and were graded as 0 (absent), 1 (weak), 2 (moderate) and 3 (strong). Percentage of participants within each grade are reported below.

    Measured: Day 180

  24. Serum Dihydrotestosterone (DHT): Baseline

    Measured: Baseline

  25. Serum Dihydrotestosterone (DHT): Day 180

    Measured: Day 180

  26. Change From Baseline in Serum Dihydrotestosterone (DHT) at Day 180

    To determine serum hormone effects as measured by change in DHT values from baseline to the completion of therapy.

    Measured: Day 180

  27. Serum Testosterone: Baseline

    Measured: Baseline

  28. Serum Testosterone: Day 180

    Measured: Day 180

  29. Change From Baseline in Serum Testosterone at Day 180

    To determine serum hormone effects as measured by change in testosterone at baseline and at completion of therapy.

    Measured: Day 180

  30. Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) That Led to Dose Interruption, Dose Reduction, and Study Drug Discontinuation

    An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship.

    Measured: From baseline up to 210 days

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted7 Mar 2012 (estimated)
  2. Study start31 Mar 2012
  3. Primary completion30 Nov 2013
  4. Study completion30 Nov 2013

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase 2
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
52 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT01547299
Sponsor's protocol ID
MDV3100-07
Other IDs
C3431019
Status last verified
Oct 2018
First submitted
27 Feb 2012
Last updated
23 Oct 2018
Data monitoring committee
No
Individual data sharing
Yes: Information relating to our policy on data sharing and the process for requesting data can be found at the following link: http://www.pfizer.com/research/clinical\_trials/trial\_data\_and\_results/data\_requests

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A Phase 2 study testing Enzalutamide, Leuprolide and Dutasteride in people with Prostate Cancer, run by Pfizer at 4 sites in 2 countries.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 23 Oct 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 4 sites in United States, Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

What does this phase mean?

Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.

Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 10 Apr 2015). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Pathologic Complete Response Rate (time frame: Day 180). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 23 Oct 2018.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in