Summary Background Bone metastases are a major cause of morbidity in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Abiraterone acetate potently disrupts intracrine androgen receptor signalling ...pathways implicated in the progression of the disease, including bone metastases. We assessed data for pain control and skeletal-related events prospectively collected as part of the randomised, phase 3 COU-AA-301 trial of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone versus placebo plus prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after docetaxel chemotherapy. Methods The COU-AA-301 trial enrolled patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in whom one or two lines of chemotherapy (one docetaxel based) had been unsuccessful and who had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance statuses of 2 or less. Pain intensity and interference of pain with daily activities were assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form questionnaire at baseline, day 15 of cycle 1, and day 1 of each treatment cycle thereafter until discontinuation. We assessed, with prospectively defined response criteria that incorporated analgesic use, clinically meaningful changes in pain intensity and interference with daily living. We measured time to first occurrence of skeletal-related events, which we defined as pathological fracture, spinal cord compression, palliative radiation to bone, or bone surgery, and regularly assessed them throughout the study. Pain palliation was assessed in patients who had clinically significant baseline pain, whereas all other analyses were done in the overall intention-to-treat population. COU-AA-301 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00638690. Findings Median follow-up was 20·2 months (IQR 18·4–22·1). In patients with clinically significant pain at baseline, abiraterone acetate and prednisone resulted in significantly more palliation (157 of 349 45·0% patients vs 47 of 163 28·8%; p=0·0005) and faster palliation (median time to palliation 5·6 months 95% CI 3·7–9·2 vs 13·7 months 5·4–not estimable; p=0·0018) of pain intensity than did prednisone only. Palliation of pain interference (134 of 223 60·1% vs 38 of 100 38·0%, p=0·0002; median time to palliation of pain interference 1·0 months 95% CI 0·9–1·9 vs 3·7 months 2·7–not estimable, p=0·0004) and median duration of palliation of pain intensity (4·2 months 95% CI 3·0–4·9 vs 2·1 months 1·4–3·7; p=0·0056) were significantly better with abiraterone acetate and prednisone than with prednisone only. In the overall population, median time to occurrence of first skeletal-related event was significantly longer with abiraterone acetate and prednisone than with prednisone only (25·0 months 95% CI 25·0–not estimable vs 20·3 months 16·9–not estimable; p=0·0001). Interpretation In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel, abiraterone acetate and prednisone offer significant benefits compared with prednisone alone in terms of pain relief, delayed pain progression, and prevention of skeletal-related events. Funding Janssen Research & Development and Janssen Global Services.
Patient-reported outcomes may help inform treatment choice in advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), particularly between approved targeted therapies with similar efficacy. This double-blind ...cross-over study evaluated patient preference for pazopanib or sunitinib and the influence of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and safety factors on their stated preference.
Patients with metastatic RCC were randomly assigned to pazopanib 800 mg per day for 10 weeks, a 2-week washout, and then sunitinib 50 mg per day (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off, 4 weeks on) for 10 weeks, or the reverse sequence. The primary end point, patient preference for a specific treatment, was assessed by questionnaire at the end of the two treatment periods. Other end points and analyses included reasons for preference, physician preference, safety, and HRQoL.
Of 169 randomly assigned patients, 114 met the following prespecified modified intent-to-treat criteria for the primary analysis: exposure to both treatments, no disease progression before cross over, and completion of the preference questionnaire. Significantly more patients preferred pazopanib (70%) over sunitinib (22%); 8% expressed no preference (P < .001). All preplanned sensitivity analyses, including the intent-to-treat population, statistically favored pazopanib. Less fatigue and better overall quality of life were the main reasons for preferring pazopanib, with less diarrhea being the most cited reason for preferring sunitinib. Physicians also preferred pazopanib (61%) over sunitinib (22%); 17% expressed no preference. Adverse events were consistent with each drug's known profile. Pazopanib was superior to sunitinib in HRQoL measures evaluating fatigue, hand/foot soreness, and mouth/throat soreness.
This innovative cross-over trial demonstrated a significant patient preference for pazopanib over sunitinib, with HRQoL and safety as key influencing factors.
Summary Background Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival compared with placebo plus prednisone in men with chemotherapy-naive ...castration-resistant prostate cancer at the interim analyses of the COU-AA-302 trial. Here, we present the prespecified final analysis of the trial, assessing the effect of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone on overall survival, time to opiate use, and use of other subsequent therapies. Methods In this placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised phase 3 study, 1088 asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients with chemotherapy-naive prostate cancer stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology performance status (0 vs 1) were randomly assigned with a permuted block allocation scheme via a web response system in a 1:1 ratio to receive either abiraterone acetate (1000 mg once daily) plus prednisone (5 mg twice daily; abiraterone acetate group) or placebo plus prednisone (placebo group). Coprimary endpoints were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00887198. Findings At a median follow-up of 49·2 months (IQR 47·0–51·8), 741 (96%) of the prespecified 773 death events for the final analysis had been observed: 354 (65%) of 546 patients in the abiraterone acetate group and 387 (71%) of 542 in the placebo group. 238 (44%) patients initially receiving prednisone alone subsequently received abiraterone acetate plus prednisone as crossover per protocol (93 patients) or as subsequent therapy (145 patients). Overall, 365 (67%) patients in the abiraterone acetate group and 435 (80%) in the placebo group received subsequent treatment with one or more approved agents. Median overall survival was significantly longer in the abiraterone acetate group than in the placebo group (34·7 months 95% CI 32·7–36·8 vs 30·3 months 28·7–33·3; hazard ratio 0·81 95% CI 0·70–0·93; p=0·0033). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events of special interest were cardiac disorders (41 8% of 542 patients in the abiraterone acetate group vs 20 4% of 540 patients in the placebo group), increased alanine aminotransferase (32 6% vs four <1%), and hypertension (25 5% vs 17 3%). Interpretation In this randomised phase 3 trial with a median follow-up of more than 4 years, treatment with abiraterone acetate prolonged overall survival compared with prednisone alone by a margin that was both clinically and statistically significant. These results further support the favourable safety profile of abiraterone acetate in patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Funding Janssen Research & Development.
Summary Background Several targeted drugs are approved for treatment of patients with metastatic renal-cell cancer, but no validated biomarkers are available for prediction of clinical outcome. We ...aimed to assess the prognostic and predictive associations of pretreatment plasma concentrations of cytokine and angiogenic factors (CAFs) with data from a phase 2 and a phase 3 trial of pazopanib treatment. Methods We used a three-step approach for screening, confirmation, and validation of prospective CAF biomarkers. We screened 17 CAFs in 129 patients who had the greatest or least tumour shrinkage in a phase 2 trial of 215 patients treated with pazopanib. We confirmed associations of candidate CAFs (those identified in the screening and from previous studies) with tumour response and progression-free survival (PFS) in 215 patients from this phase 2 trial with an independent analytical platform. We validated confirmed markers in 344 patients from a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical study of pazopanib. Findings Five candidate markers emerged from initial screening—interleukin 6, interleukin 8, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases (TIMP)-1, and E-selectin. Confirmatory analyses identified associations of interleukin 6, interleukin 8, VEGF, osteopontin, E-selectin, and HGF with continuous tumour shrinkage or PFS in patients treated with pazopanib. In the validation set of samples from the phase 3 trial, patients treated with pazopanib who had high concentrations (relative to median) of interleukin 8 (p=0·006), osteopontin (p=0·0004), HGF (p=0·010), and TIMP-1 (p=0·006) had shorter PFS than did those with low concentrations. In the placebo group, high concentrations of interleukin 6 (p<0·0001), interleukin 8 (p=0·002), and osteopontin (p<0·0001) were all prognostically associated with shorter PFS. These factors were stronger prognostic markers than were standard clinical classifications (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and Heng criteria). High concentrations of interleukin 6 were predictive of improved relative PFS benefit from pazopanib compared with placebo (pinteraction =0·009); standard clinical classifications were not predictive of PFS benefit. Interpretation CAF profiles could provide prognostic information beyond that of standard clinical classification and identify markers predictive of pazopanib benefit in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Further studies of the predictive effects of these markers in different populations and with different drugs (eg, mTOR inhibitors) are warranted. Funding GlaxoSmithKline.
Summary Front-line platinum-based combination chemotherapy leads to high response rates but suboptimum overall survival for patients with advanced transitional-cell carcinoma of the urothelium. ...Bevacizumab is being assessed in combination with platinum-based first-line chemotherapy in a large phase 3 trial. Current second-line systemic therapies, including taxanes, yield disappointing outcomes. Vinflunine, a novel vinca alkaloid, showed some activity and was recently approved in Europe based on results of the first completed phase 3 trial in the second-line setting. Better understanding of molecular biology and the emergence of novel biological agents now offer the possibility of improved outcomes. Neoadjuvant therapy before cystectomy and consolidation therapy with biological agents after first-line therapy provide a framework for the development of new drugs. We propose that trials to approve new drugs target two separate populations; multicentre non-randomised phase 2 trials should include patients with chemotherapy-resistant disease progressing within 6 months of first-line therapy, and randomised trials might be appropriate for chemotherapy-sensitive disease progressing more than 6 months after first-line therapy. A multidisciplinary approach is necessary to make therapeutic advances. This review discusses current second-line therapy and emerging drugs for advanced transitional-cell carcinoma.
The classification of the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group (IGCCCG) plays a pivotal role in the management of metastatic germ cell tumors but relies on data of patients treated ...between 1975 and 1990.
Data on 9,728 men with metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumors treated with cisplatin- and etoposide-based first-line chemotherapy between 1990 and 2013 were collected from 30 institutions or collaborative groups in Europe, North America, and Australia. Clinical trial and registry data were included. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The survival estimates were updated for the current era. Additionally, a novel prognostic model for PFS was developed in 3,543 patients with complete information on potentially relevant variables. The results were validated in an independent data set.
Compared with the original IGCCCG publication, 5-year PFS remained similar in patients with good prognosis with 89% (87%-91%) versus 90% (95% CI, 89 to 91), but the 5-year OS increased from 92% (90%-94%) to 96% (95%-96%). In patients with intermediate prognosis, PFS remained similar with 75% (71%-79%) versus 78% (76%-80%) and the OS increased from 80% (76%-84%) to 89% (88%-91%). In patients with poor prognosis, the PFS increased from 41% (95% CI, 35 to 47) to 54% (95% CI, 52 to 56) and the OS from 48% (95% CI, 42 to 54) to 67% (95% CI, 65 to 69). A more granular prognostic model was developed and independently validated. This model identified a new cutoff of lactate dehydrogenase at a 2.5 upper limit of normal and increasing age and presence of lung metastases as additional adverse prognostic factors. An online calculator is provided (https://www.eortc.org/IGCCCG-Update).
The IGCCCG Update model improves individual prognostication in metastatic nonseminomatous germ cell tumors. Increasing age and lung metastases add granularity to the original IGCCCG classification as adverse prognostic factors.
Clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of several life-prolonging therapies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC); however, real-world data on their use, survival ...effect, and safety are limited. Using electronic health record data from the Flatiron Health database, we studied real-world treatment patterns and health outcomes in patients with mCRPC.
We conducted a retrospective, non-interventional cohort analysis of electronic health record data of patients with confirmed mCRPC between January 2013 and September 2017. The primary objective was to describe real-world treatment patterns, including treatment type, duration, and sequencing. Secondary objectives included describing patient characteristics and clinical outcomes.
Of 2559 patients with mCRPC, 1980 (77%) received at least 1 line of life-prolonging therapy (abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, cabazitaxel, sipuleucel-T, or radium-223). Of patients receiving first-line therapy, 49% received second-line therapy, and of these, 43% received third-line therapy. Abiraterone/prednisone and enzalutamide accounted for 65% of first-line therapies and 54% of second-line therapies. Docetaxel was the most common third-line therapy (24%). Back-to-back use of abiraterone/prednisone and enzalutamide was common. Radium-223 monotherapy use was 2% in the first-line setting, 3% in the second-line setting, and 8% in the third-line setting. The median overall survival was longer in patients who received life-prolonging therapies (23.7 months; 95% confidence interval: 22.3-25.1 months) than in those who did not (10.1 months; 95% confidence interval: 9.1-11.5 months).
These real-world insights on over 2500 patients with mCRPC supplement findings from randomized controlled trials and may help to inform clinical trial design, treatment guidelines, and clinical decision-making.
Information on real-world treatment of advanced prostate cancer is limited. We used a database of electronic medical records from over 2500 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer to identify real-world treatment patterns and demonstrate areas for improvement in guideline adherence to help health care professionals make decisions on how best to treat prostate cancer to improve outcomes.
•Recent approvals have provided a greater choice of treatments for prostate cancer.•Combining bisphosphonates or denosumab with new therapies may improve outcomes.•Post hoc data suggest that additive ...effects for such combinations are possible.•Further data are needed to fully evaluate the benefits of combining these therapies.
Most men with advanced prostate cancer will develop bone metastases, which have a substantial impact on quality of life. Bone metastases can lead to skeletal-related events (SREs), which place a burden on patients and healthcare systems. For men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and bone metastases, the treatment landscape has evolved rapidly over the past few years. The relatively recent approvals of the hormonal agents abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide, second-line chemotherapy cabazitaxel, and the radiopharmaceutical radium-223 dichloride (radium-223), have provided clinicians with a greater choice of treatments. These compounds have benefits in terms of overall survival based on the results of pivotal phase 3 studies. The bisphosphonate zoledronic acid and the RANK ligand inhibitor denosumab are indicated for the prevention of SREs in men with metastatic CRPC but studies of these compounds have not demonstrated a survival benefit. The important question of the role of bisphosphonates or denosumab in combination with these new agents has thus materialised. Current and emerging evidence from clinical studies of abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide and radium-223, suggest that addition of bisphosphonates or denosumab to these new therapies may provide further clinical benefits for patients with prostate cancer and bone metastases. This evidence may help to shape clinical practice but are based largely on post hoc analyses of clinical trial data. It is therefore apparent that further data are required from both clinical studies and real-world settings to enable physicians to understand the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with the new agents plus bisphosphonates or denosumab.
The landscape of local and systemic therapy of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is rapidly changing. The increase in the incidental finding of small renal tumors has increased the application of ...nephron‐sparing procedures, while ten novel agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) or the mammalian target of rapamycin pathways, or inhibiting the interaction of the programmed death 1 receptor with its ligand, have been approved since 2006 and have dramatically improved the prognosis of metastatic RCC (mRCC). These rapid developments have resulted in continuous changes in the respective Clinical Practice Guidelines/Expert Recommendations. We conducted a systematic review of the existing guidelines in MEDLINE according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analyses statement, aiming to identify areas of agreement and discrepancy among them and to evaluate the underlying reasons for such discrepancies. Data synthesis identified selection criteria for nonsurgical approaches in renal masses; the role of modern laparoscopic techniques in the context of partial nephrectomy; selection criteria for cytoreductive nephrectomy and metastasectomy in mRCC; systemic therapy of metastatic non‐clear‐cell renal cancers; and optimal sequence of available agents in mRCC relapsed after anti‐VEGF therapy as the major areas of uncertainty. Agreement or uncertainty was not always correlated with the availability of data from phase III randomized controlled trials. Our review suggests that the combination of systematic review and critical evaluation can define practices of wide applicability and areas for future research by identifying areas of agreement and uncertainty among existing guidelines.
Implications for Practice
Currently, there is uncertainity on the role of surgery in MRCC and on the choice of available guidelines in relapsed RCC. The best practice is individualization of targeted therapies. Systematic review of guidelines can help to identify unmet medical needs and areas of future research.
Therapy options for renal cell carcinoma are developing rapidly. This systematic review focuses on the current guidelines for treatment of renal cell carcinoma.