Search

Purpose: No study has compared cancer regression (d) and growth (g) rates in patients with advanced castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC) treated with androgen deprivation therapy. The comparison of d and g rates provides insight into the differential impact of ADT regimens on tumor dynamics, potentially guiding more personalized treatment strategies. Therefore, we aimed to estimate these rates and evaluate their impact on survival outcomes. Methods: Sequential prostate-specific antigen (PSA) data was obtained from the KYUCOG-1401 trial including patients with advanced CSPC randomized to gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (group A) and GnRH agonist plus bicalutamide (group B). d and g rates were estimated by applying mathematical models and were compared in subgroups. PSA-progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared by lower and higher than the median of these rates. Results: Patients with higher PSA and higher extent of disease score at enrollment presented higher d rates (0.03965 vs. 0.03546, p = 0.0006) and (0.03947 vs. 0.03587, p = 0.0113) for groups A and B, respectively. The median d rate was lower for group A than group B (0.03306 vs. 0.039965, respectively [p = 0.0002]). The median g rate was higher for group A than group B (0.00016 vs. 0.00002, respectively [p = 0.0014]). The g rate, but not the d rate discriminated PSA-PFS, rPFS, and OS. Conclusion: Our results suggest that GnRH agonist plus bicalutamide reduced PSA level faster and suppressed PSA rising longer than GnRH antagonist. Moreover, measuring the g rate can predict PSA-PFS, rPFS, and OS in patients with advanced CPSC treated with androgen deprivation therapy. These findings suggest that incorporating g rate measurements into clinical practice could improve prognostic accuracy and guide treatment decisions in advanced CSPC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Methods Results Conclusion The objective of this study is to assess the trends in treatment selection for patients with de novo metastatic castration‐sensitive prostate cancer in the era of upfront combination therapy.This multicenter retrospective study included 595 patients treated with either upfront combination therapy (upfront novel hormonal therapies and taxane‐based chemotherapy) or vintage therapy (androgen deprivation therapy with or without bicalutamide) between 2016 and 2021. High tumor burden metastatic disease was defined when a patient met the CHAARTED or LATITUDE criteria. We evaluated trends in treatment selection and reasons for selecting vintage therapy.Of the 595, 123 and 472 patients were classified as having low and high tumor‐burden disease, respectively. The Use of upfront combination therapy was found to be rapidly increasing with utilization rates of 72% and 54% in 2021 for high and low tumor‐burden disease, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis found older age, poor performance status, and nonacademic center were significantly associated with the selection of vintage therapy. Of the 163 patients who received vintage hormone therapy after approval of upfront therapy, 74.2% had a specific reason for avoiding upfront therapy. The reasons for selecting vintage therapy included refusal (39.8%), older age (67.6%), frailty (56.3%), and comorbidity (40.8%). Furthermore, 16.9% of patients declined upfront combination therapy due to cost concerns.Upfront combination therapy use has 72% and 54% prevalence among patients with high and low tumor burden diseases, respectively, in this current practice. Older age, poor performance status, and facility bias were negatively associated with the use of upfront combination therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with apalutamide, abiraterone acetate plus prednisone, enzalutamide, or docetaxel are the standard treatments for advanced castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC). We investigated ADT-free alternatives for advanced CSPC. LACOG 0415 is a phase 2, open-label, non-comparative, randomized trial. Patients with advanced CSPC were randomized (1:1:1) to receive goserelin plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (ADT plus AAP arm), apalutamide (APA arm), or apalutamide plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone (APA plus AAP arm). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with PSA of ≤0.2 ng/mL at week 25 in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were performed in all patients with at least one dose of the study drug. Of 128 randomized patients, 120 patients were evaluable for PSA response at week 25; 17.2% had a high-risk biochemical recurrence, 8.6% had locally advanced disease, and 74.2% had distant metastases. At week 25, PSA of ≤0.2 ng/mL was observed in 75.6% (95%CI 59.7%–87.6%), 60.0% (95%CI 43.3%–75.1%), and 79.5% (95%CI 63.5%–90.7%) of patients in ADT plus AAP, APA, and APA plus AAP arms, respectively. PSA decline of ≥80% was observed in 100%, 90.0%, and 97.4%, respectively. Grade 3–4 AEs were observed in 31.0%, 21.4% and 36.4%, respectively. Testosterone levels increased significantly in the APA arm and decreased significantly in ADT plus AAP and APA plus AAP arms. ADT-free alternatives provide a high PSA response in advanced CSPC, although the APA arm did not reach the expected rate of PSA of ≤0.2 ng/mL at week 25. These results warrant further investigation of ADT-free treatments as alternatives in advanced CSPC. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02867020. • ADT-free alternatives provide high PSA response in advanced CSPC. • Although the APA arm did not reach the expected rate of PSA of ≤0.2 ng/mL at week 25. • The three arms had a distinct toxicity profile and similar HRQoL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of apalutamide + androgen deprivation therapy versus androgen deprivation therapy alone in Japanese patients with metastatic castration‐sensitive prostate cancer from the phase 3, randomized, global TITAN study. Methods: Men with metastatic castration‐sensitive prostate cancer randomly (1:1) received 240 mg apalutamide + androgen deprivation therapy or matching placebo + androgen deprivation therapy. The primary efficacy endpoints were radiographic progression‐free survival and overall survival. Secondary efficacy endpoints were time to cytotoxic chemotherapy, pain progression, chronic opioid use, and skeletal‐related events. Safety was also assessed. Results: Of the 1052 patients included in the TITAN study, 51 (4.85%) were Japanese (apalutamide group, n = 28; placebo group, n = 23). In all, 81.8% of patients in the apalutamide and 71.8% in the placebo group did not experience radiographic progression or death, and the hazard ratio for radiographic progression‐free survival favored treatment with apalutamide (hazard ratio 0.712, 95% confidence interval 0.205–2.466; P = 0.59). At 24 months, 85.7% of patients in the apalutamide group and 81.5% in the placebo group were alive, and the hazard ratio for overall survival favored apalutamide (hazard ratio 0.840, 95% confidence interval 0.210–3.361; P = 0.805). In the interim analysis, the median radiographic progression‐free survival and overall survival were not reached in the apalutamide group and time to cytotoxic chemotherapy was delayed following apalutamide treatment. The safety profile of apalutamide in the Japanese subpopulation was comparable with that of the global population, except for skin rash. Conclusions: The results of the present analyses suggest that apalutamide + androgen deprivation therapy in Japanese patients had favorable efficacy compared with androgen deprivation therapy alone, and these findings are comparable to those in the overall population. Apalutamide + androgen deprivation therapy can be considered as one of the therapeutic options for a broad spectrum of metastatic castration‐sensitive prostate cancer regardless of prior treatment and disease extent in Japanese patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the association of tumor burden with the prognosis in real‐world patients with metastatic castration‐sensitive prostate cancer and to investigate the eligibility for upfront intensification therapy. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 679 patients with metastatic castration‐sensitive prostate cancer who were initially treated with conventional androgen deprivation therapy between August 2001 and November 2018. The primary purpose was to investigate the eligibility for upfront intensification therapy based on the progression of metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer. The secondary purpose included the comparison of the metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer progression rate, metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer‐free survival and overall survival after castration‐resistance in CHAARTED low‐ or high‐volume disease patients. Results: The number of patients with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer progression was 119 (52%) and 319 (71%) in the low‐ and high‐volume disease groups, respectively. The metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer progression rate (P < 0.001) and castration‐resistant prostate cancer‐free survival (P < 0.001) were significantly different between the low‐ and high‐volume disease groups, but no difference was found for overall survival after castration resistance (P = 0.363). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed no significant association between tumor burden and overall survival after castration resistance (P = 0.522; hazard ratio 1.14). Conclusions: The progression rate in metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer patients with the low‐volume disease under conventional androgen deprivation therapy is approximately 50%. Upfront intensification therapy might be beneficial for approximately half of patients with low‐volume disease. A novel maker to predict the castration‐resistant status is required to select optimal patients for upfront intensification therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Testosterone suppression is the standard treatment for advanced prostate cancer, and it is associated with side-effects that impair patients' quality of life, like sexual dysfunction, osteoporosis, weight gain, and increased cardiovascular risk. We hypothesized that abiraterone acetate with prednisone (AAP) and apalutamide, alone or in combination, can be an effective hormonal therapy also possibly decreasing castration-associated side effects.Methods: Phase II, open-label, randomized, efficacy trial of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP) and Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) versus apalutamide versus the combination of AAP (without ADT) and apalutamide. Key eligibility criteria are confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; biochemical relapse after definitive treatment (PSA ≥ 4 ng/ml and doubling time less than 10 months, or PSA ≥ 20 ng/ml); newly diagnosed locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer; asymptomatic to moderately symptomatic regarding bone symptoms. Patients with other histology besides adenocarcinoma or previous use of hormonal therapy or chemotherapy were excluded.Discussion: There is an urgent need to study and validate regimens such as new hormonal agents that may add benefit to castration with an acceptable safety profile. We aim to evaluate if apalutamide in monotherapy or in combination with AAP is an effective and safety hormonal treatment that can spare patients of androgen deprivation therapy.Trial Registration: This trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on October 16, 2017, under Identifier: NCT02867020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate the value of 68Ga-HBED-CC PSMA (68Ga-PSMA) PET/CT for response assessment in metastatic castration-sensitive and castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCSPC and mCRPC) during docetaxel chemotherapy.Methods: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT was performed in seven mCSPC patients before and after six cycles of upfront docetaxel chemotherapy and in 16 mCRPC patients before and after three cycles of palliative docetaxel chemotherapy. Radiographic treatment response was evaluated separately on the 68Ga-PSMA PET and CT datasets. Changes in 68Ga-PSMA uptake (SUVmean) were assessed on a per-patient and a per-lesion basis using the PERCIST scoring system with slight modification. Treatment response was defined as absence of any PSMA uptake in all target lesions on posttreatment PET (complete response, CR) or a decrease in summed SUVmean of ≥30% (partial response, PR). The appearance of a new PET-positive lesion or an increase in summed SUVmean of ≥30% (progressive disease, PD) indicated nonresponse. A moderate change in summed SUVmean (between −30% and +30%) without a change in the number of target lesions was defined as stable disease (SD). For treatment response assessment on CT, RECIST1.1 criteria were used. Radiographic responses on 68Ga-PSMA PET [RR(PET)] and on CT [RR(CT)] were compared and correlated with biochemical response (BR). A decrease in serum PSA level of ≥50% was defined as biochemical PR.Results: Biochemical PR was found in six of seven patients with mCSPC (86%, 95% confidence interval 42% to 99.6%). The concordance rate was higher between BR and RR(PET) than between BR and RR(CT) (6/7 vs. 3/6 patients. 68Ga-PSMA PET and CT were concordant in only three patients (50%, 12% to 88%). In mCRPC patients, biochemical PR was found in six of 16 patients (38%, 15% to 65%). Outcome prediction was concordant between BR and RR(PET) in nine of 16 patients (56%), and between BR and RR(CT) in only four of 12 patients (33%) with target lesions on CT. 68Ga-PSMA PET and CT results corresponded in seven of 12 patients (58%, 28% to 85%).Conclusion: Our preliminary results suggest that 68Ga-PSMA PET might be a promising method for treatment response assessment in mCSPC and mCRPC. The data indicate that for different metastatic sites, the performance of 68Ga-PSMA PET in response assessment might be superior to that of the conventional CT approach and could help differentiate between progressive disease and treatment response. Because of the limited number of patients, the differences revealed in our study were not statistically significant. Thus larger and prospective studies are clearly needed and warranted to confirm the value of 68Ga-PSMA PET as an imaging biomarker for response assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The prognosis of men with metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC) depends on both the distribution and extent of metastases, among other things. Patients with low-volume or oligometastatic disease have improved survival compared with those with high-volume metastases. While chemohormonal therapy is the new standard of care for men with high-volume metastatic CSPC, stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is emerging as a promising treatment option with low toxicity for the management of oligometastatic CSPC. Our review summarizes the current evidence on the role of SABR in oligometastatic prostate cancer. SABR shows control rates of metastases ranging from 88% to 100% at 6 months to 3 years, and progression-free survival commonly reported as >50% for the first 12 months. In addition, SABR may allow androgen-deprivation therapy to be delayed by more than 2 years in selected patients, minimizing the chronic side effects associated with such therapy. However, much still needs to be learned before SABR can be implemented as standard treatment for oligometastatic prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Biomarkers have the potential to provide clinical guidance, but there is limited data for biomarkers in metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).Methods: We performed a retrospective multicenter review from Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University and Georgia Cancer Center for Excellence at Grady Memorial Hospital (2014-2020) in the United States of America (USA). We collected demographics, disease characteristics, and laboratory data, including complete blood counts (CBC) at the start of upfront therapy. We evaluated overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) associated with baseline lab values.Results: 165 patients were included with a median follow-up time of 33.5 months (mo). 105 (63.6%) had Gleason scores of 8-10 and 108 (65.9%) were classified as high-volume disease. 92 patients received upfront docetaxel (55.8%) and 73 received upfront abiraterone (44.2%). Univariate analyses (UVA) and multivariable analyses (MVA) identified worse clinical outcomes (CO) associated with elevated basophils and basophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (BLR). Based on MVA, elevated basophils (defined as ≥0.1, optimal cut) were associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.51 (95% CI 1.65-7.43, P 0.001) for OS and HR of 1.88 (95% CI 1.05-3.38, P 0.034) for PFS. Our MVA also found that BLR ≥0.0142 was associated with HR 2.11 (95% CI 1.09-4.10, P 0.028) for OS; however, PFS was not statistically significant.Conclusion: We conclude that elevated baseline basophils and BLR are associated with worse clinical outcomes in mHSPC. Although results require further validation, BLR is a potential prognostic biomarker. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although both docetaxel and androgen-receptor-axis-targeted (ARAT) agents have yielded survival improvements in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) compared to ADT alone in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) patients, the optimal therapeutic choice remains to be established. We analyzed estimates of the hazard ratios for death (OS-HRs) in patients treated in the first-line setting enrolled in the GETUG-AFU15, CHAARTED, STAMPEDE, LATITUDE, ENZAMET, and TITAN trials. Overall, men with mCSPC receiving ADT with vs. without either an ARAT agent or docetaxel as first-line systemic therapy showed a pooled OS-HR of 0.69 (95 % CI: 0.61−0.78), with significant heterogeneity (p = 0.045, I2 = 52.5 %). Network meta-analysis showed an OS-HR in patients receiving an ARAT agent vs. docetaxel of 0.78 (95 %CI: 0.67−0.91). In conclusion, the evidence analysed indicates that an ARAT agent may provide improved OS outcomes compared to docetaxel. Prospective randomized trials are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both docetaxel and androgen-receptor-axis-targeted (ARAT) agents are approved in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) patients. Predictive factors of therapy efficacy are lacking. We included articles reporting data about randomized-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) testing an ARAT agent plus ADT vs. ADT. We aimed to obtain pooled estimates of efficacy outcomes and assess differences in pooled estimates of efficacy outcomes between sub-groups. A total of 5427 mCSPC patients enrolled in five RCTs were evaluable for OS (Overall Survival) and PFS (Progression-free survival). Pooled OS-HR (Hazard Ratio) was 0.66 (95 % CI: 0.60−0.74), while pooled PFS-HR was 0.46 (95 % CI: 0.40−0.53). Combined treatment with docetaxel was associated with differential OS outcomes, while tumor volume according to the CHAARTED criteria and visceral metastasis were associated with differential PFS outcomes. Our results add evidence that ARAT agents improve OS in mCSPC and discourage their combined use with docetaxel in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The availability of a number of agents that are efficacious in patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) has led to them being used sequentially, and this has prolonged patient survival. However, in order to maximize their efficacy, clinicians need to be able to obtain a reliable picture of disease evolution by means of monitoring procedures. Methods: As the intensive monitoring protocols used in pivotal trials cannot be adopted in everyday clinical practice and there is no agreement among the available guidelines, a multidisciplinary panel of Italian experts met to develop recommendations for monitoring mPC patients using a modified Delphi method. Results: The consensus project considered methods of clinically, radiographically, and biochemically monitoring patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer undergoing chemotherapy and/or hormonal treatment. The panelists also considered the methods and timing of monitoring castration levels, bone health, and the metabolic syndrome during androgen deprivation therapy. Conclusions: The recommendations, which were drawn up by experts following a formal and validated consensus procedure, will help clinicians face the everyday challenges of monitoring metastatic prostate cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]