Second-Line Hormonal Therapy for Men With Chemotherapy-Naïve, Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (17) ◽  
pp. 1952-1964 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine S. Virgo ◽  
Ethan Basch ◽  
D. Andrew Loblaw ◽  
Thomas K. Oliver ◽  
R. Bryan Rumble ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Hormonal Therapy ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Radium 223 ◽  
Hormonal Therapies

Purpose ASCO provisional clinical opinions (PCOs) offer direction to the ASCO membership after publication or presentation of potential practice-changing data. This PCO addresses second-line hormonal therapy for chemotherapy-naïve men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) who range from being asymptomatic with only biochemical evidence of CRPC to having documented metastases but minimal symptoms. Clinical Context The treatment goal for CRPC is palliation. Despite resistance to initial androgen deprivation therapy, most men respond to second-line hormonal therapies. However, guidelines have neither addressed second-line hormonal therapy for nonmetastatic CRPC nor provided specific guidance with regard to the chemotherapy-naïve population. Recent Data Six phase III randomized controlled trials and expert consensus opinion inform this PCO. Provisional Clinical Opinion For men with CRPC, a castrate state should be maintained indefinitely. Second-line hormonal therapy (eg, antiandrogens, CYP17 inhibitors) may be considered in patients with nonmetastatic CRPC at high risk for metastatic disease (rapid prostate-specific antigen doubling time or velocity) but otherwise is not suggested. In patients with radiographic evidence of metastases and minimal symptoms, enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone should be offered after discussion with patients about potential harms, benefits, costs, and patient preferences. Radium-223 and sipuleucel-T also are options. No evidence provides guidance about the optimal order of hormonal therapies for CRPC beyond second-line treatment. Prostate-specific antigen testing every 4 to 6 months is reasonable for men without metastases. Routine radiographic restaging generally is not suggested but can be considered for patients at risk for metastases or who exhibit symptoms or other evidence of progression. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Enzalutamide Versus Bicalutamide in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: The STRIVE Trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (18) ◽  
pp. 2098-2106 ◽  
Author(s):  
David F. Penson ◽  
Andrew J. Armstrong ◽  
Raoul Concepcion ◽  
Neeraj Agarwal ◽  
Carl Olsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Cancer Progression ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Beneficial Effects ◽  
Castration Resistant

Purpose Enzalutamide, a potent oral androgen receptor inhibitor, improves survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) before and after chemotherapy. Bicalutamide, a nonsteroidal antiandrogen, is widely used to treat men with nonmetastatic or metastatic CRPC. The efficacy and safety of these drugs were compared in this randomized, double-blind, phase II study of men with CRPC. Patients and Methods A total of 396 men with nonmetastatic (n = 139) or metastatic (n = 257) CRPC were randomly assigned to enzalutamide 160 mg per day (n = 198) or bicalutamide 50 mg per day (n = 198). Androgen deprivation therapy was continued in both arms. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results Enzalutamide reduced the risk of progression or death by 76% compared with bicalutamide (hazard ratio [HR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.32; P < .001). Median PFS was 19.4 months with enzalutamide versus 5.7 months with bicalutamide. Enzalutamide resulted in significant improvements in all key secondary end points: time to prostate-specific antigen progression (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.26; P < .001); proportion of patients with a ≥ 50% prostate-specific antigen response (81% v 31%; P < .001); and radiographic PFS in metastatic patients (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.50; P < .001). Beneficial effects with enzalutamide were observed in both nonmetastatic and metastatic subgroups. The observed adverse event profile was consistent with that from phase III enzalutamide trials. Conclusion Enzalutamide significantly reduced risk of prostate cancer progression or death compared with bicalutamide in patients with nonmetastatic or metastatic CRPC.

scholarly journals NEW TREATMENT STANDARD FOR PATIENTS WITH NON-METASTATIC CASTRATION-RESISTANT PROSTATE CANCER

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 68-77
Author(s):  
B. Ya. Alekseev
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Treatment Standard ◽  
New Treatment

Men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a rapidly rising prostate-specific antigen level are at high risk for metastasis. Until recently there was no standard of treatment for this category of patients. A total of 1401 patients with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of 10 months or less underwent randomization to double-blind, phase III PROSPER trial. Patients were continuing androgen-deprivation therapy in combination with enzalutamide (at a dose of 160 mg) or placebo once daily. The median metastasis-free survival was 36.6 months in the enzalutamide group versus 14.7 months in the placebo group. Enzalutamide treatment resulted in a 71 % lower risk of radiographic progression or death than did placebo (hazard ratio 0.29; 95 % confidence interval 0.24 to 0.35; p <0.001). Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profile of enzalutamide.

scholarly journals Prostate-Specific Antigen Changes As Surrogate for Overall Survival in Men With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treated With Second-Line Chemotherapy

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (31) ◽  
pp. 3944-3950 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Halabi ◽  
Andrew J. Armstrong ◽  
Oliver Sartor ◽  
Johann de Bono ◽  
Ellen Kaplan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Second Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Psa Kinetics ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

Purpose Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics, and more specifically a ≥ 30% decline in PSA within 3 months after initiation of first-line chemotherapy with docetaxel, are associated with improvement in overall survival (OS) in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The objective of this analysis was to evaluate post-treatment PSA kinetics as surrogates for OS in patients receiving second-line chemotherapy. Patients and Methods Data from a phase III trial of patients with mCRPC randomly assigned to cabazitaxel plus prednisone (C + P) or mitoxantrone plus prednisone were used. PSA decline (≥ 30% and ≥ 50%), velocity, and rise within the first 3 months of treatment were evaluated as surrogates for OS. The Prentice criteria, proportion of treatment explained (PTE), and meta-analytic approaches were used as measures of surrogacy. Results The observed hazard ratio (HR) for death for patients treated with C + P was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.55 to 0.79; P < .001). Furthermore, a ≥ 30% decline in PSA was a statistically significant predictor of OS (HR for death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.64; P < .001). Adjusting for treatment effect, the HR for a ≥ 30% PSA decline was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.62; P < .001), but treatment remained statistically significant, thus failing the third Prentice criterion. The PTE for a ≥ 30% decline in PSA was 0.34 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.56), indicating a lack of surrogacy for OS. The values of R2 were < 1, suggesting that PSA decline was not surrogate for OS. Conclusion Surrogacy for any PSA-based end point could not be demonstrated in this analysis. Thus, the benefits of cabazitaxel in mediating a survival benefit are not fully captured by early PSA changes.

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]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document