In the present prospective study, all the patients received the planned administration of enzalutamide. Enzalutamide was tolerable and all patients were able to complete the planed treatment, although four patients experienced mild treatment-related AEs, but AEs with grade 2 or more were not observed. However, no objective response was observed in the six patients after four weeks of enzalutamide administration.
This study protocol required at least one objective response during treatment for the initial six patients. Although enzalutamide was tolerated by this patient group, this trial was closed earlier because no objective response was observed in the initial six patients per study protocol.
There are several explanations for the insufficient efficacy noted here. First, because the adequate treatment period is largely unknown, and four weeks of administration might have been inadequate for NMIBC patients treated with enzalutamide. We planned this schedule by referring to the results of the clinical study on enzalutamide monotherapy in hormone-naïve prostate cancer, where a favorable prostate specific antigen response was observed during the first five weeks [19]. Patients with NMIBC might have a different response pattern to enzalutamide. However, this was considered appropriate, and a safety treatment plan was made because three out of the six patients showed PD after four weeks of treatment.
Second, more importantly, immunohistochemical expression of AR was not detected in all the examined tumors. This was an unexpected result. Although evidences of immunohistochemical expression of AR are available, its positive rate in NMIBC highly varies between 9.0 to 75.0% [20]. Despite differences in staining methodology, the positive rate was known to depend on clinicopathological features of the examined tumors. Although previous studies have shown that a high AR expression was associated with low grade tumor and low risk of recurrence [21, 22], some studies have reported conflicting results [12, 23]. The recently published meta-analysis of immunohistochemical studies demonstrated that AR positivity was significantly associated with low-grade tumors and showed better recurrence free survival [24]. Chemoprevention is one of the future directions of AR-targeted therapy for BC. As the participants of the present study were recurrent NMIBC patients, AR-targeted therapy could not be effective in this setting. Furthermore, as shown in Table 2, most of the enrolled patents had high-grade tumor and high-risk clinicopathological features for recurrence with a median EAU score of 5 (range: 3 to 7). Therefore, the unfavorable features resulted in an unexpectedly low positive rate of AR expression in the present study.
There was a phase II clinical trial conducted to test the chemo-preventive effect of enzalutamide in NMIBC (NCT02605863). Unfortunately, the trial was terminated early because of low enrollment. In this study, similar to the present study, AR expression of tumor was not included in the eligibility criteria. Based on the results presented here, we strongly recommend that AR expression status should be included in the eligibility criteria in a clinical trial of BC. Recently, a phase II study of enzalutamide, gemcitabine and cisplatin in metastatic BC was completed [19], in which, AR expression in tumor tissues and circulating tumor cells were tested.
In conclusion, four weeks of enzalutamide administration was well tolerated, however showed no clinical response in patients with negative AR-staining NMIBC. Results from this first report showed enzalutamide to be ineffective in NMIBC patients after incomplete resection or early recurrence. When considering the enzalutamide administration for NMIBC, the AR-staining are thought to be mandatory, and treatment duration is needed for more than four weeks.
Limitations
In this study, a phase I trial was conducted to investigate the safety of enzalutamide in NIMBC patients as well as tumor effects regardless of AR staining. Although unexpected AEs were observed in the initial six patients, no objective tumor response were observed. Immunohistochemical staining revealed no AR staining in any tumors, confirming that all drug-related effects were non-AR-related. Consequently, enzalutamide demonstrated ineffectiveness in AR-negative NIMBC patients, suggesting a treatment target to AR-positive NMIBC patients, should be necessary.