Prognostic models for overall survival (OS) for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are dated and do not reflect significant advances in treatment options available ...for these patients. This work developed and validated an updated prognostic model to predict OS in patients receiving first-line chemotherapy.
Data from a phase III trial of 1,050 patients with mCRPC were used (Cancer and Leukemia Group B CALGB-90401 Alliance). The data were randomly split into training and testing sets. A separate phase III trial served as an independent validation set. Adaptive least absolute shrinkage and selection operator selected eight factors prognostic for OS. A predictive score was computed from the regression coefficients and used to classify patients into low- and high-risk groups. The model was assessed for its predictive accuracy using the time-dependent area under the curve (tAUC).
The model included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, disease site, lactate dehydrogenase, opioid analgesic use, albumin, hemoglobin, prostate-specific antigen, and alkaline phosphatase. Median OS values in the high- and low-risk groups, respectively, in the testing set were 17 and 30 months (hazard ratio HR, 2.2; P < .001); in the validation set they were 14 and 26 months (HR, 2.9; P < .001). The tAUCs were 0.73 (95% CI, 0.70 to 0.73) and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.76) in the testing and validation sets, respectively.
An updated prognostic model for OS in patients with mCRPC receiving first-line chemotherapy was developed and validated on an external set. This model can be used to predict OS, as well as to better select patients to participate in trials on the basis of their prognosis.
PURPOSE As part of the ENTHUSE (Endothelin A Use) program, the efficacy and safety of zibotentan (ZD4054), an oral specific endothelin A receptor antagonist, has been investigated in combination with ...docetaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study, patients received intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 of 21-day cycles plus oral zibotentan 10 mg or placebo once daily. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to pain and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, pain and PSA response, progression-free survival, health-related quality of life, and safety. Results A total of 1,052 patients received study treatment (docetaxel-zibotentan, n = 524; docetaxel-placebo, n = 528). At the time of data cutoff, there had been 277 and 280 deaths, respectively. There was no difference in OS for patients receiving docetaxel-zibotentan compared with those receiving docetaxel-placebo (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.18; P = .963). No significant differences were observed on secondary end points, including time to pain progression (median 9.3 v 10.0 months, respectively) or pain response (odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.16; P = .283). The median time to death was 20.0 and 19.2 months for the zibotentan and placebo groups, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events in zibotentan-treated patients were peripheral edema (52.7%), diarrhea (35.4%), alopecia (33.9%), and nausea (33.3%). CONCLUSION Docetaxel plus zibotentan 10 mg/d did not result in a significant improvement in OS compared with docetaxel plus placebo in patients with metastatic CRPC.
Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many ...areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence.
To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022.
The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions.
The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions.
The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer.
These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.
The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer.
At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here.
•At APCCC 2022, controversies in advanced prostate cancer management were discussed.•More than 100 international experts voted on 198 predefined consensus questions.•APCCC addresses questions with lack of, low-level or conflicting evidence.•The areas covered in this manuscript include: Management of mHSPC, nmCRPC and mCRPC.
Serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) is a well-known prognostic parameter in men with prostate cancer. The treatment of men with very high PSA values and apparently no detectable metastases is not ...fully established.
Ancillary analysis from the GETUG 12 phase 3 trial. Patients with non-metastatic high-risk prostate cancer by bone and computerized tomography (CT) scan were randomly assigned to receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and docetaxel plus estramustine or ADT alone. Relapse-free survival (RFS), clinical RFS, metastases-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), and prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method for different levels of PSA (50 ng/mL, 75 ng/mL, and 100 ng/mL). The relationship between PSA and outcomes was studied using residual-based approaches and spline functions.
The median follow-up was 12 years (range: 0-15.3). Baseline PSA (<50 ng/mL, n = 328; ≥50ng/mL, n = 85) was associated with improved RFS (P = .0005), cRFS (P = .0024), and MFS (P = .0068). The 12-year RFS rate was 46.33% (CI 40.59-51.86), 33.59% (CI 22.55-44.97), and 11.76% (1.96-31.20) in men with PSA values <50 ng/mL (n = 328), 50-100 ng/mL (n = 68), and ≥100 ng/mL (n = 17), respectively. Exploratory analyses revealed no deviation from the linear relationship assumption between PSA and the log hazard of events.
Men with apparently localized prostate cancer and a high baseline PSA value have a reasonable chance of being long-term disease-free when treated with curative intent combining systemic and local therapy.
In this report we looked at survival outcomes in men with localized prostate cancer and high baseline prostate specific antigen values. At a long follow-up we found that a significant proportion never experience cancer relapse when they received treatment with curative intent.
Multiple loss-of-function alterations in genes that are involved in DNA repair, including homologous recombination repair, are associated with response to poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) ...polymerase (PARP) inhibition in patients with prostate and other cancers.
We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial evaluating the PARP inhibitor olaparib in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had disease progression while receiving a new hormonal agent (e.g., enzalutamide or abiraterone). All the men had a qualifying alteration in prespecified genes with a direct or indirect role in homologous recombination repair. Cohort A (245 patients) had at least one alteration in
,
, or
; cohort B (142 patients) had alterations in any of 12 other prespecified genes, prospectively and centrally determined from tumor tissue. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) to receive olaparib or the physician's choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone (control). The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival in cohort A according to blinded independent central review.
In cohort A, imaging-based progression-free survival was significantly longer in the olaparib group than in the control group (median, 7.4 months vs. 3.6 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.47; P<0.001); a significant benefit was also observed with respect to the confirmed objective response rate and the time to pain progression. The median overall survival in cohort A was 18.5 months in the olaparib group and 15.1 months in the control group; 81% of the patients in the control group who had progression crossed over to receive olaparib. A significant benefit for olaparib was also seen for imaging-based progression-free survival in the overall population (cohorts A and B). Anemia and nausea were the main toxic effects in patients who received olaparib.
In men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had disease progression while receiving enzalutamide or abiraterone and who had alterations in genes with a role in homologous recombination repair, olaparib was associated with longer progression-free survival and better measures of response and patient-reported end points than either enzalutamide or abiraterone. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme; PROfound ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02987543.).
The efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel, as compared with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who ...were previously treated with docetaxel and had progression within 12 months while receiving the alternative inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) are unclear.
We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had previously received docetaxel and an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) to receive cabazitaxel (at a dose of 25 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously every 3 weeks, plus prednisone daily and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) or the other androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (either 1000 mg of abiraterone plus prednisone daily or 160 mg of enzalutamide daily). The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival. Secondary end points of survival, response, and safety were assessed.
A total of 255 patients underwent randomization. After a median follow-up of 9.2 months, imaging-based progression or death was reported in 95 of 129 patients (73.6%) in the cabazitaxel group, as compared with 101 of 126 patients (80.2%) in the group that received an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.40 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median imaging-based progression-free survival was 8.0 months with cabazitaxel and 3.7 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. The median overall survival was 13.6 months with cabazitaxel and 11.0 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.89; P = 0.008). The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months with cabazitaxel and 2.7 months with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.68; P<0.001), a prostate-specific antigen response occurred in 35.7% and 13.5% of the patients, respectively (P<0.001), and tumor response was noted in 36.5% and 11.5% (P = 0.004). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 56.3% of patients receiving cabazitaxel and in 52.4% of those receiving an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. No new safety signals were observed.
Cabazitaxel significantly improved a number of clinical outcomes, as compared with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had been previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen-signaling-targeted agent (abiraterone or enzalutamide). (Funded by Sanofi; CARD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02485691.).
The Src family kinases (SFKs) are the largest family of nonreceptor protein tyrosine kinases and are responsible for signal transduction during many cellular activities, including differentiation, ...adhesion, and migration. Aberrant Src/SFK activity has been widely implicated in cancer development. Several lines of evidence indicate a role for SFKs in the development of prostate cancer, e.g. SFK overexpression in prostate cancer cell lines and tissues and reduced cancer cell proliferation, invasion, and migration following Src inhibition. In particular, Src may be involved in androgen-independent growth during advanced stages of disease. Src signaling is also a key pathway during normal and dysregulated bone functioning, and bone metastases are responsible for substantial morbidity in advanced prostate cancer. Src/SFK inhibition therefore represents a potentially useful therapeutic strategy for patients with various stages of prostate cancer. To date, four Src inhibitors have reached clinical trials. Of these, the broadest range of in vitro prostate cancer data are available for dasatinib, which inhibits several SFKs as well as other tyrosine kinases. Src inhibitors may be specifically evaluated in prostate cancer clinical trials in the near future.
Preliminary trial results showed that enzalutamide significantly improved metastasis-free survival among men who had nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and rapidly increasing ...prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels while taking androgen-deprivation therapy. Results from the final analysis of overall survival have not yet been reported.
In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (defined on the basis of conventional imaging and a PSA doubling time of ≤10 months) who were continuing to receive androgen-deprivation therapy were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) to receive enzalutamide at a dose of 160 mg or placebo once daily. Overall survival was assessed with a group sequential testing procedure and an O'Brien-Fleming-type alpha-spending function.
As of October 15, 2019, a total of 288 of 933 patients (31%) in the enzalutamide group and 178 of 468 (38%) in the placebo group had died. Median overall survival was 67.0 months (95% confidence interval CI, 64.0 to not reached) in the enzalutamide group and 56.3 months (95% CI, 54.4 to 63.0) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.89; P = 0.001). The exposure-adjusted rate of adverse events of grade 3 or higher was 17 per 100 patient-years in the enzalutamide group and 20 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group. Adverse events in the enzalutamide group were consistent with those previously reported for enzalutamide; the most frequently reported events were fatigue and musculoskeletal events.
Enzalutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy resulted in longer median overall survival than placebo plus androgen-deprivation therapy among men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a rapidly rising PSA level. The risk of death associated with enzalutamide was 27% lower than with placebo. Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profile of enzalutamide. (Funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma; PROSPER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02003924.).
PDF
