scholarly journals Application of the ASCO Value Framework and ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale to Assess the Value of Abiraterone and Enzalutamide in Advanced Prostate Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e201-e210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Wong ◽  
Louis Everest ◽  
Di M. Jiang ◽  
Ronak Saluja ◽  
Kelvin K.W. Chan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Hormonal Therapies ◽  
Cost Implications ◽  
Benefit And Costs ◽  
Disease Stages

PURPOSE: As novel hormonal therapies, such as abiraterone and enzalutamide, move into earlier stages of treatment of advanced prostate cancer, there are significant cost implications. We used the ASCO Value Framework (AVF) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) to quantify and compare the incremental clinical benefit and costs of these agents in the metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) settings. METHODS: We searched PubMed for randomized phase III trials of abiraterone and enzalutamide in mCRPC and mCSPC. Incremental clinical benefit was quantified using the AVF and ESMO-MCBS by 2 independent assessors. Incremental drug costs were calculated using average wholesale prices (AWPs) from the RED BOOK Online. RESULTS: In mCRPC, 2 abiraterone trials (COU-AA-301 and COU-AA-302) and 2 enzalutamide trials (AFFIRM and PREVAIL) met search criteria. AVF scores ranged from 46.3 to 66.6, suggesting clinical benefit; ESMO-MCBS scores ranged from 3 to 5, with lower clinical benefit in the mCRPC predocetaxel setting. The overall incremental AWP ranged from $83,460.94 to $205,128.85. In mCSPC, 4 trials met criteria (LATITUDE, STAMPEDE, ENZAMET, and ARCHES; AVF scores were 79.8, 33.3, 59, and 17, respectively). All of the studies showed benefit except ARCHES. By ESMO-MCBS, both LATITUDE and STAMPEDE showed benefit (score for 4 for both studies); ENZAMET and ARCHES were not evaluable. The overall cost of treatment was significantly higher in the mCSPC setting. CONCLUSION: The AVF and ESMO-MCBS frameworks generated slightly different results but suggested that abiraterone and enzalutamide show clinical benefit in both mCRPC and mCSPC but trended to lower clinical benefit and increased costs in earlier disease stages. Further refinement of the AVF and ESMO-MCBS is needed to facilitate their use and their ability to inform clinical practice in a rapidly changing treatment landscape.

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.

State-of-the-Art Management for the Patient with Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer in 2012

2012 ◽  
pp. 289-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Sartor
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Optimal Sequence ◽  
Molecular Stratification ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Radium 223 ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Overview: Much progress has been made in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and multiple new U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved survival-prolonging drugs are now available. In 2004, docetaxel/prednisone was the first therapy shown to prolong survival. In 2010 and 2011, sipuleucel-T, cabazitaxel/prednisone, and abiraterone/prednisone were FDA approved. Two new agents, radium-223 and MDV-3100, have recently reported large phase III trials prolonging overall survival and will be submitted for regulatory approval in 2012. One can now begin to ask, is there an optimal sequence for therapies in metastatic CRPC? Despite the recent progress, there is much we do not know and virtually no information on this important question. We know that abiraterone/prednisone and cabazitaxel/prednisone are appropriate choices for a patient after receiving docetaxel, but we do not know what, if anything, represents the optimal sequence for abiraterone and cabazitaxel. In fact we do not understand how one therapy may affect the response to a subsequent therapy. We are also aware that the pre- and postdocetaxel spaces represent regulatory rather than biologic divisions. In addition, despite the proven role of docetaxel/prednisone, many patients with CRPC are not considered to be suitable for chemotherapy, and worldwide many never receive any form of chemotherapy. What is the optimal management for these patients? Taken together it is reasonable to assess patient preferences, prior therapies and response/tolerance to prior therapies, burden of disease, comorbidities, current symptoms, drug toxicities, out-of-pocket costs, etc., in clinical decision making. Given the many factors we do not know, it is hard to be dogmatic in approaching the therapeutic options for the patient with CRPC. We will likely soon move beyond the current sequencing paradigm and begin to assess new combinations in a systematic and rational fashion. Perhaps one day, in the not too distant future, we will develop molecular “stratification systems” to better guide therapeutic choices in CRPC.

Development of risk groups in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) to facilitate the identification of active chemotherapy regimens

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5137-5137
Author(s):  
A. J. Armstrong ◽  
S. Halabi ◽  
I. F. Tannock ◽  
D. J. George ◽  
R. DeWit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Predictive Factors ◽  
Predictive Accuracy ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Disease States ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Chemotherapy Initiation

5137 Background: Our aim was to develop and validate clinically applicable predictive factors for a >30% PSA decline 3 months following chemotherapy initiation, and to assess the performance of a risk-group based classification in predicting PSA declines and overall survival (OS) in men receiving chemotherapy for mCRPC. Methods: In TAX327, 1006 men with mCRPC were randomized to receive docetaxel (D) in two schedules, or mitoxantrone (M), each with prednisone: 989 provided data on PSA decline at 3 months. Predictive factors for a >30% 3-month decline in PSA levels were identified using multivariate logistic regression in D treated men (n = 656) and validated in M treated men (n = 333). Risk factors were combined to form risk groups to predict PSA declines, OS, tumor, and pain responses. Prostate Cancer Working Group (PCWG2) disease states were evaluated for these outcomes in docetaxel treated men. Results: In multivariate analysis, four independent risk factors predicted for absence of >30% decline in 3-month PSA: significant baseline pain (OR 0.63 p = 0.02), visceral metastases (OR 0.66, p = 0.03), anemia (hemoglobin <13 g/dl, OR 0.72 p = 0.07), and bone scan progression at baseline (OR 0.60 p = 0.009). Predictive accuracy was moderate with a concordance index (c-index) of 0.61. Risk groups (good, intermediate, poor) were developed with median OS of 25.7 (95% CI 23.3–28.6), 18.7 (17.3–19.7), and 12.8 (11.5–14.6) months, respectively (p < 0.0001), and >30% PSA decline in 78, 66, and 58 percent of men (p < 0.001). In the validation M cohort, similar trends for PSA declines and OS were noted across risk groups (OS 22.5, 16.0, 11.8 mo, p < 0.001). PCWG2 subtypes (node only, bone metastatic, and visceral disease), were also highly prognostic and predictive but did not predict OS as well as the TAX327 risk groups (c-index 0.56). Conclusions: Risk groups have been identified and internally validated that predict PSA decline and OS in men with mCRPC. This classification may facilitate evaluation of new regimens of systemic therapy that warrant definitive testing in comparison to docetaxel and prednisone in phase III trials. Prospective validation of these risk groups is needed. [Table: see text]

Nonhormone Therapy for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Chemotherapy, Bone-Targeted Treatments, and Others

2013 ◽  
pp. e161-e165
Author(s):  
Karim Fizazi
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Kinase Inhibitors ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
New Agents ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Radium 223 ◽  
Targeted Treatments ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

There is no doubt that more therapeutic progress has been achieved during the last 3 years for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) than during the previous 30 years. During this limited time frame, not only have six compounds (sipuleucel-T, cabazitaxel, denosumab, abiraterone, radium-223, and enzalutamide, listed in chronologic order) yielded positive results in phase III trials, we have also learned that their mechanisms of action are different, making it quite likely that part of their anticancer activity may be incremental. Most of these agents have already been approved. Further progress may well soon complete this recently enlarged armamentarium, with important trials testing new agents derived from existing families of compounds (new endocrine therapies, new immunotherapies, etc.) and exploring the activity of new families of agents (tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as cabozantinib, inhibitors of chaperone proteins like OGX-O11 and OGX-427). The availability of these agents creates a new major challenge for those who conduct clinical research in mCRPC. Will we be able to personalize therapy based on the biology of the individual's tumor, as we are already doing in other neoplasms?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document