Outcomes of First-Line Abiraterone Acetate or Enzalutamide for Older Adults With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer According to Use of Upfront Docetaxel for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer in an International Multicenter Registry: A SPARTACUSS-Meet-URO 26 Study.

BACKGROUND: Managing metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in men aged ≥ 75 is challenging due to limited data. Regardless of age, in real-world clinical practice, most mCRPC still derive from failure of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without docetaxel (D) for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). As abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA) and enzalutamide (Enza) are common first-line treatments for mCRPC. The impact of prior use of D for mCSPC on the efficacy and safety of AA or Enza in this older population remains unclear. METHODS: A cohort of patients aged ≥ 75 years starting AA or Enza as first-line therapy for mCRPC from January 2015 to April 2019 was identified from the registries of 10 institutions. Patients were categorized into 2 groups based on previous use of D for mCSPC. Primary endpoints were cancer-specific survival (CSS) from AA or Enza start, CSS from ADT onset, and safety. We used Kaplan-Meier method to estimate the endpoints distribution, including median values with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Of the 337 patients identified, 24 (7.1%) received ADT+D and 313 (92.9%) received ADT alone for mCSPC. Median follow-up from AA/Enza start was 18.8 months. Median CSS from ADT or AA/Enza was not significantly different between ADT+D and ADT alone cohorts (71.9 vs. 52.7 months, P = .97; 25.4 vs. 27.2 months, P = .89, respectively). No statistically significant difference in adverse events (AEs) of any grade rate (58.3% vs. 52.1%, respectively; P = .67) or grade ≥ 3 (12.5% vs. 15.7%, respectively; P = 1.0) was found between ADT+D and ADT alone cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the innate limitations of a retrospective design and relatively small size of the ADT+D cohort, this analysis suggests that elderly men receiving AA or Enza as first-line therapy for mCRPC have similar survival outcomes and tolerability, regardless of previous D for mCSPC.

Advanced renal cell carcinoma management: the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group (LACOG) and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group (LARCG) consensus update.

PURPOSE: Renal cell carcinoma is an aggressive disease with a high mortality rate. Management has drastically changed with the new era of immunotherapy, and novel strategies are being developed; however, identifying systemic treatments is still challenging. This paper presents an update of the expert panel consensus from the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group and the Latin American Renal Cancer Group on advanced renal cell carcinoma management in Brazil. METHODS: A panel of 34 oncologists and experts in renal cell carcinoma discussed and voted on the best options for managing advanced disease in Brazil, including systemic treatment of early and metastatic renal cell carcinoma as well as nonclear cell tumours. The results were compared with the literature and graded according to the level of evidence. RESULTS: Adjuvant treatments benefit patients with a high risk of recurrence after surgery, and the agents used are pembrolizumab and sunitinib, with a preference for pembrolizumab. Neoadjuvant treatment is exceptional, even in initially unresectable cases. First-line treatment is mainly based on tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); the choice of treatment is based on the International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMCD) risk score. Patients at favourable risk receive ICIs in combination with TKIs. Patients classified as intermediate or poor risk receive ICIs, without preference for ICI + ICIs or ICI + TKIs. Data on nonclear cell renal cancer treatment are limited. Active surveillance has a place in treating favourable-risk patients. Either denosumab or zoledronic acid can be used for treating metastatic bone disease. CONCLUSION: Immunotherapy and targeted therapy are the standards of care for advanced disease. The utilization and sequencing of these therapeutic agents hinge upon individual risk scores and responses to previous treatments. This consensus reflects a commitment to informed decision-making, drawn from professional expertise and evidence in the medical literature.

Clinical outcomes of volume of disease on patients receiving enzalutamide versus abiraterone acetate plus prednisone as first-line therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Background: Androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSis) abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisone and enzalutamide (Enza), are currently the most administered first-line treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). AA and Enza have shown similar overall survival (OS) benefits and there is no consensus upon the best option for mCRPC first-line treatment. Volume of disease may represent a useful biomarker to predict response to therapy in such patients. Objectives: In this study, we seek to evaluate the impact of volume of disease on patients treated with first-line AA versus Enza for mCRPC. Design and methods: We retrospectively evaluated a cohort of consecutive patients with mCRPC categorized by volume of disease [high volume (HV) or low volume (LV) per E3805 criteria] at ARSi onset and treatment type (AA or Enza), assessing OS and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), from therapy start, as co-primary endpoints. Results: Of the 420 patients selected, 170 (40.5%) had LV and received AA (LV/AA), 76 (18.1%) LV and had Enza (LV/Enza), 124 (29.5%) HV and were given AA (HV/AA), and 50 (11.9%) HV and received Enza (HV/Enza). Among patients with LV, OS was significantly longer when treated with Enza [57.2 months; 95% confidence interval (CI): 52.1-62.2 months] versus AA (51.6 months; 95% CI, 42.6-60.6 months; p = 0.003). Consistently, those with LV receiving Enza showed increased rPFS (40.3 months; 95 CI, 25.0-55.7 months) than those having AA (22.0 months; 95% CI, 18.1-26.0 months; p = 0.004). No significant difference in OS or rPFS was observed in those with HV treated with AA versus Enza (p = 0.51 and p = 0.73, respectively). In multivariate analysis of patients with LV, treatment with Enza was independently associated with better prognosis than AA. Conclusion: Within the intrinsic limitations of a retrospective design and small population, our report suggests that volume of disease could be a useful predictive biomarker for patients starting first-line ARSi for mCRPC.