Evaluation and follow-up of patients with n1-3 m0 or nxm1 prostate cancer in phase iii trials

Urology ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 39-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reginald Hall ◽  
Per Olov Hedlund ◽  
Rolf Ackermann ◽  
Nicholas Bruchovsky ◽  
Otilia Dalesio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

scholarly journals Evaluating Intermittent Androgen-Deprivation Therapy Phase III Clinical Trials: The Devil Is in the Details

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 280-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maha Hussain ◽  
Catherine Tangen ◽  
Celestia Higano ◽  
Nicholas Vogelzang ◽  
Ian Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
End Point ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽  
Noninferiority Trials ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Purpose Intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) has been widely tested in prostate cancer. However, phase III trials testing continuous androgen deprivation (CAD) versus IAD have reached inconclusive and seemingly contradictory results. Different design and conduct issues must be critically evaluated to better interpret the results. Patients and Methods Seven published phase III trials were examined for prespecified design and outcomes. Treatment specifications; primary end point; superiority versus noninferiority design assumptions, including magnitude of assumed versus observed noninferiority margin (NIM); duration of follow-up; and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes were considered in terms of the results and conclusions reported. Results Five trials had a superiority and three had a noninferiority primary hypothesis. Only three trials had a uniform population and overall survival (OS) end point. All trials observed better outcomes in terms of OS and progression-free survival (PFS) than assumed at time of study design, translating into prespecified NIMs or hazard ratios that reflected larger absolute differences in OS or PFS between arms. Lower-than-expected event rates also reduced statistical power for the trials. Other factors, including length of follow-up, cause of death, QOL, and primary end point, and their impact on trial interpretation are discussed. Conclusion No trial to date has demonstrated survival superiority of IAD compared with CAD. Trials concluding IAD is noninferior to CAD were based on wide NIMs that included clinically important survival differences, not likely to be considered comparable by physicians or patients. Interim analyses relying on short follow-up and including a majority of non–prostate cancer deaths will favor a noninferiority conclusion and should be interpreted cautiously. Adequate follow-up is required to ensure capture of prostate cancer deaths in both superiority and noninferiority trials.

Causes of death in intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy: Analysis from two phase III trials.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 34-34
Author(s):  
Abdenour Nabid ◽  
Nathalie Carrier ◽  
Eric Vigneault ◽  
André-Guy Martin ◽  
Luis Souhami ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Causes Of Death ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Cancer ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

34 Background: The purpose of this analysis was to establish causes of death in a population of intermediate-risk (IR) and high-risk (HR) prostate cancer treated on two phase III trials. Methods: From October 2000 to September 2010, 1,230 patients were randomized: 630 with HR (ClinicalTrials.gov, #NCT00223171) and 600 with IR (#NCT00223145). HR was defined as T3-4, PSA >20 g/ml, Gleason >7 (with at least one of these 3 factors). IR was defined as T1-T2, Gleason < 6 and PSA 10-20 ng/ml or T1-T2, Gleason 7 and PSA < 20 ng/ml. Causes of death were compiled until July 2015 and were established from data sent by the different investigators and centrally reviewed. Causes of death were mainly based on data from clinical records, then by family members, obituaries, death certificates and family physicians. Results: The median follow-up for the 1,230 patients was 7.5 years (HR 8 vs. IR 6.8 years, p<0.001). 30.2% (372/1,230) patients had died: (HR 37% vs. IR 23.2%, p<0.001). A total of 8% (99/1,230) patients developed local, regional, and metastatic prostate cancer recurrences: (HR 11.6% vs. IR 4.3%, p<0.001) and 4.4% (54/1,230) died from prostate cancer: (HR 7.3% vs. IR 1.3%, p<0.001). The most frequent cause of death was a second cancer (120/1,230, 9.8%): (HR 10.6% vs. IR 8.8%, p=NS). Cardiovascular deaths occurred in 6.3% (78/1,230) (HR 7.1% vs. IR 5.5%, p=NS) with no statistical difference between the different durations of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) 0, 6, 18, or 36 months. Other causes of death were pulmonary (3.7%), digestive (1.1%), others (3.3%), and unknown (1.7%). Majority of deaths occurred between 3 and 9 years after randomization (HR 70% and IR 73%). Prostate cancer deaths were distributed over all the follow-up period. The 5/10 year overall survival between HR and IR were 88.6%, 91.8%, and 61.6%, 69.8%, respectively with significant differences (p=0.045 and p=0.016). Conclusions: In patients with localized HR and IR prostate cancer, the first cause of death was a second cancer and prostate cancer came as the third one after cardiovascular disease. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of cardiovascular deaths in patients treated with different durations of ADT. Clinical trial information: Clinical Trials, gov. #NCT00223145 - Clinical Trials, gov. #NCT00223171.

Decreased fracture rate by mandating bone protecting agents in the EORTC 1333/PEACEIII trial combining Ra223 with enzalutamide versus enzalutamide alone: An updated safety analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5002-5002
Author(s):  
Silke Gillessen ◽  
Ananya Choudhury ◽  
Alejo Rodriguez-Vida ◽  
Franco Nole ◽  
Enrique Gallardo Diaz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Safety Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Fracture Rate ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Continuous Administration ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Radium 223 ◽  
Safety Population

5002 Background: The randomized phase III EORTC-1333-GUCG (NCT02194842) trial compares enzalutamide vs. a combination of Radium 223 and enzalutamide in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. The premature unblinding of ERA223 (NCT02043678) in Nov 2017 due to a significant increase in the rate of fractures in the combination of abiraterone and Ra223 arm led to the implementation of the mandatory use of bone protecting agents (BPA) in the EORTC-1333-GUCG trial. Skeletal fractures, pathological or not, are a frequent and underestimated adverse event of systemic treatment of advanced prostate cancer. Whether this mandated use of BPA (zoledronic acid or denosumab) would mitigate the risk of fractures in this patient population was unclear. An early safety analysis (Tombal, ASCO, 2019) suggested that the risk of fractures was well controlled in both arms when patients receive BPA. We present here an updated analysis of fracture incidence with longer follow-up. Methods: As of 28/01/2021, a total of 253 patients (134 after making BPA mandatory) were randomized between enzalutamide/Ra223 and enzalutamide. The fracture rate was estimated with the cumulative incidence method in the safety population of 237 (122 after making BPA mandatory) treated patients. Death in absence of fracture was analyzed as competing risk and censoring was applied at last follow-up. Results: Overall, 69.5% of enzalutamide/Ra223 patients (95.2% after making BPA mandatory) and 73.1% of enzalutamide patients (95% after making BPA mandatory) received BPA on treatment: 13.6% in the enzalutamide/Ra223 arm and 21.8% in the enzalutamide arm did not use BPA at registration, but started during protocol treatment and 55.9% and 51.3% respectively, received BPA since entry. At 36.7 months median follow-up in patients without BPA and 23.1 months median follow-up in patients receiving BPA, a total of 39 patients reported a fracture. Among them, 30 patients (20 in enzalutamide/Ra223 arm) did not receive BPA and 9 (4 in the enzalutamide/Ra223 arm) received BPA (see table). Conclusions: The updated safety analysis confirms the early fracture rate results. In the absence of BPA, the risk of fracture is increased when RA223 is added to enzalutamide. Strikingly, in both arms, the risk remains almost abolished by a preventive continuous administration of BPA, thus stressing the importance of complying to international recommendations in terms of giving BPA to mCRPC patients. This study is sponsored by EORTC and supported by Bayer and Astellas. Clinical trial information: NCT02194842. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals A Review of Phase III Clinical Trials of Prostate Cancer Chemoprevention

2007 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
JF Thorpe ◽  
S Jain ◽  
TH Marczylo ◽  
AJ Gescher ◽  
WP Steward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Prevention ◽  
Age Of Onset ◽  
Cancer Chemoprevention ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽  
Prostate Cancer Prevention ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

INTRODUCTION Prostate cancer is an excellent target for chemoprevention strategies; given its late age of onset, any delay in carcinogenesis would lead to a reduction in its incidence. This article reviews all the completed and on-going phase III trials in prostate cancer chemoprevention. PATIENTS AND METHODS All phase III trials of prostate cancer chemoprevention were identified within a Medline search using the keywords ‘clinical trial, prostate cancer, chemoprevention’. RESULTS In 2003, the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) became the first phase III clinical trial of prostate cancer prevention. This landmark study was terminated early due to the 24.8% reduction of prostate cancer prevalence over a 7-year period in those men taking the 5α-reductase inhibitor, finasteride. This article reviews the PCPT and the interpretation of the excess high-grade prostate cancer (HGPC) cases in the finasteride group. The lack of relationship between cumulative dose and the HGPC cases, and the possible sampling error of biopsies due to gland volume reduction in the finasteride group refutes the suggestion that this is a genuine increase in HGPC cases. The other on-going phase III clinical trials of prostate cancer chemoprevention – the REDUCE study using dutasteride, and the SELECT study using vitamin E and selenium – are also reviewed. CONCLUSIONS At present, finasteride remains the only intervention shown in long-term prospective phase III clinical trials to reduce the incidence of prostate cancer. Until we have the results of trials using alternative agents including the on-going REDUCE and SELECT trials, the advice given to men interested in prostate cancer prevention must include discussion of the results of the PCPT. The increased rate of HGPC in the finasteride group continues to generate debate; however, finasteride may still be suitable for prostate cancer prevention, particularly in men with lower urinary tract symptoms.

scholarly journals Chemohormonal Therapy in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Survival Analysis of the Randomized Phase III E3805 CHAARTED Trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (11) ◽  
pp. 1080-1087 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christos E. Kyriakopoulos ◽  
Yu-Hui Chen ◽  
Michael A. Carducci ◽  
Glenn Liu ◽  
David F. Jarrard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Cancer Trial ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Chemohormonal Therapy ◽  
Androgen Ablation ◽  
Hormone Sensitive ◽  
Low Volume

Purpose Docetaxel added to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) significantly increases the longevity of some patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Herein, we present the outcomes of the CHAARTED (Chemohormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer) trial with more mature follow-up and focus on tumor volume. Patients and Methods In this phase III study, 790 patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were equally randomly assigned to receive either ADT in combination with docetaxel 75 mg/m2 for up to six cycles or ADT alone. The primary end point of the study was overall survival (OS). Additional analyses of the prospectively defined low- and high-volume disease subgroups were performed. High-volume disease was defined as presence of visceral metastases and/or ≥ four bone metastases with at least one outside of the vertebral column and pelvis. Results At a median follow-up of 53.7 months, the median OS was 57.6 months for the chemohormonal therapy arm versus 47.2 months for ADT alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89; P = .0018). For patients with high-volume disease (n = 513), the median OS was 51.2 months with chemohormonal therapy versus 34.4 months with ADT alone (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.79; P < .001). For those with low-volume disease (n = 277), no OS benefit was observed (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.55; P = .86). Conclusion The clinical benefit from chemohormonal therapy in prolonging OS was confirmed for patients with high-volume disease; however, for patients with low-volume disease, no OS benefit was discerned.

scholarly journals Targeting Angiogenesis in Prostate Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 2676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zsombor Melegh ◽  
Sebastian Oltean
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Refractory Disease ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Angiogenic Activity ◽  
Angiogenic Therapy ◽  
Resistant Refractory ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among men in the Western world. Although localized disease can be effectively treated with established surgical and radiopharmaceutical treatments options, the prognosis of castration-resistant advanced prostate cancer is still disappointing. The objective of this study was to review the role of angiogenesis in prostate cancer and to investigate the effectiveness of anti-angiogenic therapies. A literature search of clinical trials testing the efficacy of anti-angiogenic therapy in prostate cancer was performed using Pubmed. Surrogate markers of angiogenic activity (microvessel density and vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A) expression) were found to be associated with tumor grade, metastasis, and prognosis. Six randomizedstudies were included in this review: two phase II trials on localized and hormone-sensitive disease (n = 60 and 99 patients) and four phase III trials on castration-resistant refractory disease (n = 873 to 1224 patients). Although the phase II trials showed improved relapse-free survival and stabilisation of the disease, the phase III trials found increased toxicity and no significant improvement in overall survival. Although angiogenesis appears to have an important role in prostate cancer, the results of anti-angiogenic therapy in castration-resistant refractory disease have hitherto been disappointing. There are various possible explanations for this lack of efficacy in castration-resistant refractory disease: redundancy of angiogenic pathways, molecular heterogeneity of the disease, loss of tumor suppressor protein phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) expression as well as various VEGF-A splicing isoforms with pro- and anti-angiogenic activity. A better understanding of the molecular mechanisms of angiogenesis may help to develop effective anti-angiogenic therapy in prostate cancer.

scholarly journals Inferences About Drug Safety in Phase III Trials in Oncology: Examples From Advanced Prostate Cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Z Drago ◽  
Mithat Gönen ◽  
Gita Thanarajasingam ◽  
Chana A Sacks ◽  
Michael J Morris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Drug Safety ◽  
Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Statistical Uncertainty ◽  
Cancer Disease ◽  
Disease States ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Abstract Background Safety is a central consideration when choosing between multiple medications with similar efficacy. We aimed to evaluate whether adverse event (AE) profiles of 3 such drugs in advanced prostate cancer could be distinguished based on published literature. Methods We assessed consistency in AE reporting, AE risk in placebo arms, and methodology used for risk estimates and quantification of statistical uncertainty in randomized placebo-controlled phase III trials of apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide in advanced prostate cancer. Results Seven included clinical trials enrolled a total of 9215 participants (range = 1051-1715 per trial) across 3 prostate cancer disease states. Within disease states, baseline patient characteristics appeared similar between trials. Of 54 distinct AE types in total, only 3 (fatigue, hypertension, and seizure) were reported by all 7 trials. Absolute risks of AEs in the placebo arms differed systematically and more than twofold between trials, which was associated with visit frequency and resulted in different degrees of uncertainty in AE profiles between trials. No trial used inferential methodology to quantify statistical uncertainty in AE risks, but 6 of 7 trials drew overall conclusions. Two trials concluded that there was no elevated AE risk because of the intervention, including the trial of darolutamide, which had the greatest statistical uncertainty. Conclusions Rigorous comparison of drug safety was precluded by heterogeneity in AE reporting, variation in AE risks in the placebo arms, and lack of inferential statistical methodology, underscoring considerable opportunities to improve how AE data are collected, analyzed, and interpreted in oncology trials.

scholarly journals Clinical Development of PARP Inhibitors in Treating Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

Cells ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. 860 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob J. Adashek ◽  
Rohit K. Jain ◽  
Jingsong Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Unmet Need ◽  
Parp Inhibitors ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Phase Ii Studies ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Signaling Inhibitors

The approval of upfront abiraterone for castration-sensitive prostate cancer and the approval of enzalutamide and apalutamide for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have led to early utilization of potent androgen receptor (AR) signaling inhibitors in treating advanced prostate cancer. There is an unmet need to develop novel therapies beyond targeting AR signaling for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) belong to a class of targeted agents being developed for the treatment of homologous recombination repair (HRR) deficient tumors. Olaparib, rucaparib, niraparib, veliparib, and talazoparib were evaluated in early phase trials as a monotherapy for HRR-deficient mCRPC. Among them, olaparib and rucaparib have breakthrough designations for BRCA1/2-mutated mCRPC. Phase II studies also reported clinical activity of the PARPi and abiraterone combination and the PARPi checkpoint inhibitor combination in HRR-intact mCRPC. Ongoing phase III trials are testing these combinations as frontline or later line treatments for mCRPC. This review summarizes the critical clinical data as well as ongoing clinical trials for developing PARPi in treating mCRPC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document