Further discussion on details of EMBARK study on another HU forum bears restating here (IMO). For high risk BCR (and beyond) ADT combined with ARSI (in this case enzalutamide) is clearly superior to either monotherapy. However, development of castrate resistance between ADT + Enza vs. Enz monotherapy which can be FOLLOWED by ADT when Enza fails is not answered in this study. Longer term follow up of the subgroups is needed. Here is my analysis:
"Yes, if they had an undetectable PSA at week 36 then they could go onto suspended treatment ("vacation"). 91% in the ADT + Enza group suspended for a mean of 20.2 months and were "on" the treatment or 32.4 mo. 44% did not receive Tx for 24 months.
For ADT mono only 68% qualified for suspension which averaged 16.8 months (On treatment 35.4 mo. 32% did not receive Tx for 24 months.
Eza mono was again intermediate: 86% qualified for treatment suspension which averaged 11.1 months. 20.4% did not receive treatment for 24 months. So they had the longest time-on-treatment of 45.9 mo average.
But the other question is how did these hormonal treatments affect emergence of castrate resistance? They formally report this as 3.9% (14/355) for ADT+ E vs 34% for ADT mono. (!) They cannot report it for Enza mono as they could always add Lupron, and these had supra-physiologic Testosterone levels, so do not meet criteria for CR. It is an additional unmeasured possible advantage of ARSI monotherapy as it could be followed with ADT when monotherapy fails.
Another measure is PSA progression which is available for all groups as a proxy for regimen failure: This is 2.3% (8/355) for ADT+E combo; 26% (93/358) for ADT mono; and 10% (37/355) for Enzalutamide monotherapy.
Paul/MateoBeach