RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Indigenous Peoples have higher morbidity rates and lower life expectancies than non-Indigenous Canadians. Identification of disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous men regarding prostate cancer (PCa) screening, diagnoses, management, and outcomes was sought. METHODS: An observational cohort of men diagnosed with PCa between June 2014 and October 2022 was studied. Men were prospectively enrolled in the province-wide Alberta Prostate Cancer Research Initiative. The primary outcomes were tumor characteristics (stage, grade, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA]) at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were PSA testing rates, time from diagnosis to treatment, treatment modality, and metastasis-free, cancer-specific, and overall survivals. RESULTS: Examination of 1,444,974 men for whom aggregate PSA testing data were available was performed. Men in Indigenous communities were less likely to have PSA testing performed than men outside of Indigenous communities (32 vs. 46 PSA tests per 100 men [aged 50-70 years] within 1 year; p < .001). Among 6049 men diagnosed with PCa, Indigenous men had higher risk disease characteristics: a higher proportion of Indigenous men had PSA ≥ 10 ng/mL (48% vs. 30%; p < .01), TNM stage ≥ T2 (65% vs. 47%; p < .01), and Gleason grade group ≥ 2 (79% vs. 64%; p < .01) compared to non-Indigenous men. With a median follow-up of 40 months (interquartile range, 25-65 months), Indigenous men were at higher risk of developing PCa metastases (hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.2; p < .01) than non-Indigenous men. CONCLUSIONS: Despite receiving care in a universal health care system, Indigenous men were less likely to receive PSA testing and more likely to be diagnosed with aggressive tumors and develop PCa metastases than non-Indigenous men.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Próstata , Masculino , Humanos , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico , Neoplasias da Próstata/terapia , Neoplasias da Próstata/patologia , Antígeno Prostático Específico , Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Assistência de Saúde Universal , Canadá/epidemiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Preliminary trial results showed that enzalutamide significantly improved metastasis-free survival among men who had nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and rapidly increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels while taking androgen-deprivation therapy. Results from the final analysis of overall survival have not yet been reported. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (defined on the basis of conventional imaging and a PSA doubling time of ≤10 months) who were continuing to receive androgen-deprivation therapy were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) to receive enzalutamide at a dose of 160 mg or placebo once daily. Overall survival was assessed with a group sequential testing procedure and an O'Brien-Fleming-type alpha-spending function. RESULTS: As of October 15, 2019, a total of 288 of 933 patients (31%) in the enzalutamide group and 178 of 468 (38%) in the placebo group had died. Median overall survival was 67.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.0 to not reached) in the enzalutamide group and 56.3 months (95% CI, 54.4 to 63.0) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.89; P = 0.001). The exposure-adjusted rate of adverse events of grade 3 or higher was 17 per 100 patient-years in the enzalutamide group and 20 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group. Adverse events in the enzalutamide group were consistent with those previously reported for enzalutamide; the most frequently reported events were fatigue and musculoskeletal events. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy resulted in longer median overall survival than placebo plus androgen-deprivation therapy among men with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer and a rapidly rising PSA level. The risk of death associated with enzalutamide was 27% lower than with placebo. Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profile of enzalutamide. (Funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma; PROSPER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02003924.).
Assuntos
Adenocarcinoma/tratamento farmacológico , Antagonistas de Androgênios/uso terapêutico , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/uso terapêutico , Feniltioidantoína/análogos & derivados , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/tratamento farmacológico , Adenocarcinoma/mortalidade , Idoso , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversos , Benzamidas , Método Duplo-Cego , Humanos , Calicreínas/sangue , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Nitrilas , Feniltioidantoína/efeitos adversos , Feniltioidantoína/uso terapêutico , Placebos , Antígeno Prostático Específico/sangue , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/mortalidade , Análise de SobrevidaRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: T cell activation can lead to osteoporosis and while there are several case reports of fractures occurring after immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) use, to date, there are no population level studies looking at fracture risk related to ICI use. METHODS: Using Alberta Cancer Registry data, we identified all individuals treated with ICI for cancer between September 29, 2010, and March 31, 2019. Linked records from Alberta's healthcare administrative databases were assessed for the presence of fracture diagnostic codes in the year prior to and up to two years after ICI initiation. Fracture rate was stratified based on the time-period before and after ICI initiation. Fracture rates after ICI were compared to baseline. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 1600 ICI users (mean age 65.7 years, 60% male). Most patients were treated with an anti-PD-1 agent (73.9%). ICIs were initiated on average 707.8 days after cancer diagnosis. 76 (4.8%) individuals had a remote history of a major fracture, and 141 (8.8%) had been treated with an osteoporosis medication prior to ICI treatment. The fracture rate in the year prior to ICI initiation was 11.3 per 1000 patient-years. The fracture rate in the year after ICI initiation was significantly higher at 27.3 per 1000 patient-years. The fracture rate dropped to 17.6 per 1000 patient-years in the second year after ICI initiation. The incidence rate ratio of sustaining a major fracture in the year after compared to the year prior to ICI initiation was 2.43 (95% CI 1.34-4.27). CONCLUSIONS: Fracture risk may be increased in cancer patients early after initiation of ICI, and this may represent a novel immune-related adverse event.
Assuntos
Neoplasias , Osteoporose , Humanos , Masculino , Idoso , Feminino , Inibidores de Checkpoint Imunológico/efeitos adversos , Neoplasias/induzido quimicamente , Neoplasias/tratamento farmacológico , Osteoporose/tratamento farmacológico , Alberta , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
The classification of human cancers has traditionally relied on the tissue of origin, the histologic appearance and anatomical extent of disease, otherwise referred to as grade and stage. However, this system fails to explain the highly variable clinical behaviour seen for any one cancer. Molecular characterization through techniques such as next-generation sequencing (NGS) has led to an appreciation of the extreme genetic heterogeneity that underlies most human cancers. Because of the difficulties associated with fresh tissue biopsy, interest has increased in using circulating tumour material, such as circulating tumour cells (CTCs), as a non-invasive way to access tumour tissue. CTC enumeration has been demonstrated to have prognostic value in metastatic breast, colon and prostate cancers. Recent studies have also shown that CTCs are suitable material for molecular characterization, using techniques such as reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) and NGS. Furthermore, genetic analysis of CTCs may be more suitable to study tumour heterogeneity and clonal evolution than fresh tissue biopsy. Whether blood-based biopsy techniques will be accepted as a replacement to fresh tissue biopsies remains to be seen, but there is reason for optimism. While significant barriers to this acceptance exist, blood-based biopsy techniques appear to be reliable and representative alternatives to fresh tissue biopsy.
Assuntos
Análise Mutacional de DNA , Neoplasias/genética , Neoplasias/patologia , Células Neoplásicas Circulantes , Hibridização Genômica Comparativa , Sequenciamento de Nucleotídeos em Larga Escala , Humanos , Hibridização in Situ Fluorescente , Neoplasias/sangue , Células Neoplásicas Circulantes/metabolismo , PrognósticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Data are needed to improve the current understanding of clinical management and characteristics of patients with advanced prostate cancer (PC) treated with androgen receptor pathway inhibition (ARPI) therapy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study using real-world, population-level data from Alberta, Canada included all individuals diagnosed in 2017-2020 with de novo metastatic castration-sensitive PC (mCSPC) or nonmetastatic castration-resistant PC (nmCRPC) who initiated androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). For mCSPC, patients were classified as ARPI-exposed if they received an ARPI within 180 days of initiating ADT, while patients with nmCRPC were classified as ARPI-exposed if they received an ARPI within 2 years of diagnosis. RESULTS: This study included 976 patients with mCSPC and 233 with nmCRPC of which 33.5% and 25.3% received an ARPI, respectively. The proportion of patients with mCSPC treated with an ARPI increased considerably for patients diagnosed in 2020 compared to 2017 (56.2% vs. 6.0%). In contrast, the use of ARPI to treat nmCRPC only increased marginally from 2017 to 2019/2020 (19.7% vs. 28.9%). Patients with mHSPC who were ARPI-exposed had longer median survival than patients who were ARPI-naive (38.47 (95% CI = 32.84-NA) vs. 34.19 (95% CI = 33.33-38.83; P = .03)), with a higher proportion of patients surviving to 2-years. For nmCRPC, survival was similar between ARPI-exposed and ARPI-naive. In multivariable analyses, receiving ARPI for mCSPC was associated with younger patient age, more recent diagnoses, fewer comorbidities, a higher number of metastatic sites, referral to a medical oncologist as well as receiving surgery and radiation before ADT. Receiving ARPI for nmCRPC was associated with referral to a medical oncologist, younger age, and more recent diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome analyses in this population suggest a continued unmet clinical need and complex clinical management pathways. Given that treatment pathways have evolved considerably, continued follow-up to understand the impact of these advancements on patient outcomes are warranted.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: High-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation (HDC-ASCT) is standard therapy for metastatic germ cell tumors (mGCTs) in patients whose disease progresses during or after conventional chemotherapy. We conducted a retrospective review of HDC-ASCT in relapsed mGCT patients in the province of Alberta, Canada, over the past two decades. METHODS: Patients with mGCTs who received HDC-ASCT at two provincial cancer referral centers from 2000-2018 were identified from institutional databases. Baseline clinical and treatment characteristics were collected, as well as overall survival (OS ) and disease-free survival (DFS). Relevant prognostic variables were analyzed. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were identified. The median age was 28 years (range 19-56). A majority (95%) had non-seminoma histology and testis/retroperitoneal primary (84%). Twenty patients (47%) had poor-risk disease, as per The International Germ Cell Consensus Classification (IGCCC), at start of first-line chemotherapy. HDC-ASCT was used as second-line therapy in 65% of patients, and 58% of ASCT patients received tandem transplants. Median followup after ASCT was 22 months (range 2-181). At last followup, 42% of patients were alive without disease, including 3/7 (43%) of patients with primary mediastinal disease. Two-year and five-year DFS/OS ratios were 44%/65% and 38%/45%, respectively. Median OS and DFS for all patients were 30.0 months (13.3-46.6) and 8.0 months (0.9-15.1), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found that HDC-ASCT is an effective salvage therapy in mGCT, consistent with existing literature. Patients appeared to benefit regardless of primary site. Although limited by small sample size, we found a numerical difference in DFS and OS between second- and third-line HDC-ASCT and single vs. tandem ASCT.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab and olaparib have shown single-agent activity in patients with previously treated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus olaparib in mCRPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cohort A of the phase 1b/2 KEYNOTE-365 study enrolled patients with molecularly unselected, docetaxel-pretreated mCRPC whose disease progressed within 6 mo of screening. INTERVENTION: Pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus olaparib 400-mg capsule or 300-mg tablet orally twice daily. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoints were safety, confirmed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate, and objective response rate (ORR) as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, by blinded independent central review. The secondary endpoints included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 104 enrolled patients, 102 were treated. The median age was 70 yr (interquartile range [IQR], 65-76), and 59 patients (58%) had measurable disease as per RECIST v1.1. The median time from the first dose to database cutoff was 24 mo (IQR, 22-47). The confirmed PSA response rate was 15%. The confirmed ORR was 8.5% (five partial responses) for patients with measurable disease. The median rPFS was 4.5 mo (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.0-6.5) and median OS was 14 mo (95% CI, 10.4-18.2). Clinical activity was consistent across the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive and homologous recombination repair mutation subgroups. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 93 patients (91%). Grade 3-5 TRAEs occurred in 49 patients (48%). Six deaths (5.9%) were due to adverse events; two (myocardial infarction and unknown cause) were attributed to treatment. Limitations of the study include the single-arm design. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab plus olaparib had a safety profile consistent with the profiles of the individual agents and demonstrated antitumor activity in previously treated patients with molecularly unselected, docetaxel-pretreated mCRPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Pembrolizumab plus olaparib showed antitumor activity and expected safety in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
Assuntos
Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração , Masculino , Humanos , Idoso , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/patologia , Docetaxel/uso terapêutico , Antígeno Prostático Específico , Critérios de Avaliação de Resposta em Tumores Sólidos , Intervalo Livre de ProgressãoRESUMO
PURPOSE: There is an unmet need for therapeutic options that prolong survival for patients with heavily pretreated, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The phase III, open-label KEYLYNK-010 study evaluated pembrolizumab plus olaparib versus a next-generation hormonal agent (NHA) for biomarker-unselected, previously treated mCRPC. METHODS: Eligible participants had mCRPC that progressed on or after abiraterone or enzalutamide (but not both) and docetaxel. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to pembrolizumab plus olaparib or NHA (abiraterone or enzalutamide). The dual primary end points were radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) by blinded independent central review per Prostate Cancer Working Group-modified RECIST 1.1 and overall survival (OS). Time to first subsequent therapy (TFST) was a key secondary end point. Safety and objective response rate (ORR) were secondary end points. RESULTS: Between May 30, 2019, and July 16, 2021, 529 participants were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab plus olaparib and 264 to NHA. At final rPFS analysis, median rPFS was 4.4 months (95% CI, 4.2 to 6.0) with pembrolizumab plus olaparib and 4.2 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 6.1) with NHA (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 [95% CI, 0.82 to 1.25]; P = .55). At final OS analysis, median OS was 15.8 months (95% CI, 14.6 to 17.0) and 14.6 months (95% CI, 12.6 to 17.3), respectively (HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.14]; P = .26). At final TFST analysis, median TFST was 7.2 months (95% CI, 6.7 to 8.1) versus 5.7 months (95% CI, 5.0 to 7.1), respectively (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.71 to 1.03]). ORR was higher with pembrolizumab plus olaparib versus NHA (16.8% v 5.9%). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 34.6% and 9.0% of participants, respectively. CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab plus olaparib did not significantly improve rPFS or OS versus NHA in participants with biomarker-unselected, heavily pretreated mCRPC. The study was stopped for futility. No new safety signals occurred.
Assuntos
Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração , Masculino , Humanos , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/patologia , Resultado do Tratamento , Prednisona , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Biomarcadores , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversosRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: In patients with prostate cancer (PCa), the identification of an alteration in genes associated with homologous recombination repair (HRR) has implications for prognostication, optimization of therapy, and familial risk mitigation. The aim of this study was to assess the genomic testing landscape of PCa in Canada and to recommend an approach to offering germline and tumor testing for HRR-associated genes. METHODS: The Canadian Genitourinary Research Consortium (GURC) administered a cross-sectional survey to a largely academic, multidisciplinary group of investigators across 22 GURC sites between January and June 2022. RESULTS: Thirty-eight investigators from all 22 sites responded to the survey. Germline genetic testing was initiated by 34%, while 45% required a referral to a genetic specialist. Most investigators (82%) reported that both germline and tumor testing were needed, with 92% currently offering germline and 72% offering tissue testing to patients with advanced PCa. The most cited reasons for not offering testing were an access gap (50%), uncertainties around who to test and which genes to test, (33%) and interpreting results (17%). A majority reported that patients with advanced PCa (74-80%) should be tested, with few investigators testing patients with localized disease except when there is a family history of PCa (45-55%). CONCLUSIONS: Canadian physicians with academic subspecialist backgrounds in genitourinary malignancies recognize the benefits of both germline and somatic testing in PCa; however, there are challenges in accessing testing across practices and specialties. An algorithm to reduce uncertainty for providers when ordering genetic testing for patients with PCa is proposed.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Genetic testing in advanced prostate cancer is rapidly moving to become standard of care. Testing for genetic alterations in genes involved in DNA repair pathways, particularly those implicated in the homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway, in patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) can inform selection of optimal therapies, as well as provide information about familial cancer risks; however, there are currently no consistent Canadian guidelines in place for genetic testing in mPCa. METHODS: A multidisciplinary steering committee guided the process of an environmental scan to define the current landscape, as well as the perceived challenges, through interviews with specialists from 14 sites across Canada. The challenges most commonly identified include limited testing guidelines and protocols, inadequate education and awareness, and insufficient resources. Following the environmental scan, an expert multidisciplinary working group with pan-Canadian representation from medical oncologists, urologists, medical geneticists, genetic counsellors, pathologists, and clinical laboratory scientists convened in virtual meetings to discuss the challenges in implementation of genetic testing in mPCa across Canada. RESULTS: Key recommendations from the working group include implementation of germline and tumor HRR testing for all patients with mPCa, with a mainstreaming model in which non-geneticist clinicians can initiate germline testing. The working group defined the roles and responsibilities of the various healthcare providers (HCPs) involved in the genetic testing pathway for mPCa patients. In addition, the educational needs for all HCPs involved in the genetic testing pathway for mPCa were defined. CONCLUSIONS: As genetic testing for mPCa becomes standard of care, additional resources and investments will be required to implement the changes that will be needed to support the necessary volume of genetic testing, to ensure equitable access, and to provide education to all stakeholders.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: An absence of screening recommendations and the rapid progression of testicular germ cell tumours (TGCTs) offer a perspective on the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer presentations. We evaluated the presenting cancer stages of TGCTs in a real-world population before and during the pandemic to assess stage migration. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all new patients with TGCT diagnoses in Alberta, Canada, from Dec. 31, 2018, to Apr. 30, 2021, using the Alberta Cancer Registry. Because potential changes in staging should not occur instantaneously, we used a 6-month lag time from Apr. 1, 2020, for seminomas, and a 3-month lag time for nonseminomas, to compare initial cancer stages at presentation before and during the pandemic. We evaluated monthly rates of presentation by stage and histology. Exploratory outcomes included the largest tumour dimension, tumour markers and, for advanced disease, risk category and treatment setting. RESULTS: Of 335 patients with TGCTs, 231 were diagnosed before the pandemic and 104 during the pandemic (using a lag time). In total, 18 (7.8%) patients diagnosed before the pandemic presented with stage III disease, compared to 16 (15.4%) diagnosed during the pandemic (relative risk 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-3.72). We observed no significant differences for secondary outcomes. Without a lag time, the rate ratio for a stage II presentation decreased significantly during the pandemic (0.40, 95% CI 0.21-0.72). INTERPRETATION: We observed signs of TGCT stage migration during the COVID-19 pandemic, driven by a decline in stage II disease and a potential rise in stage III disease. Management of TGCTs should remain a priority, even during a global pandemic.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Neoplasias Embrionárias de Células Germinativas , Neoplasias Testiculares , Alberta/epidemiologia , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Humanos , Masculino , Neoplasias Embrionárias de Células Germinativas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Embrionárias de Células Germinativas/epidemiologia , Pandemias , Estudos Retrospectivos , Neoplasias Testiculares/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Testiculares/epidemiologia , Neoplasias Testiculares/patologiaRESUMO
PURPOSE: Successful implementation of genomic testing in clinical practice is critical for identification of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) eligible for olaparib and future molecularly targeted therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An investigational clinical trial assay, based on the FoundationOneCDx tissue test, was used to prospectively identify patients with qualifying homologous recombination repair gene alterations in the phase III PROfound study. Evaluation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tissue test outcome against preanalytic parameters was performed to identify key factors influencing NGS result generation. RESULTS: A total of 4,858 tissue samples from 4,047 patients were tested and reported centrally. NGS results were obtained in 58% (2,792/4,858) of samples (69% of patients). Of samples submitted, 83% were primary tumor samples (96% were archival and 4% newly obtained). Almost 17% were metastatic tumor samples (60% were archival and 33% newly obtained). NGS results were generated more frequently from newly obtained compared with archival samples (63.9% vs. 56.9%) and metastatic compared with primary samples (63.9% vs. 56.2%). Although generation of an NGS result declined with increasing sample age, approximately 50% of samples ages >10 years generated results. While higher tumor content and DNA yield resulted in greater success in obtaining NGS results, other factors, including selection and preservation of samples, may also have had an impact. CONCLUSIONS: The PROfound study shows that tissue testing to identify homologous recombination repair alterations is feasible and that high-quality tumor tissue samples are key to obtaining NGS results and identifying patients with mCRPC who may benefit from olaparib treatment.
Assuntos
Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração , Testes Genéticos , Humanos , Masculino , Ftalazinas/uso terapêutico , Piperazinas/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/genética , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/patologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Based on PROfound, olaparib is approved for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer following disease progression on at least enzalutamide or abiraterone and who carry relevant alterations in DNA repair genes. To facilitate continued olaparib treatment as long as the patient derives benefit, we describe further safety assessments from PROfound focusing on the four most common adverse events (AEs) and events of special interest. METHODS: Patients were randomized (2:1) to olaparib tablets (300 mg bid) or control (enzalutamide or abiraterone) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Safety was assessed through AE reporting and laboratory assessments. Safety data were also collected from all patients in the control group who experienced radiographic disease progression and subsequently crossed over to olaparib treatment. RESULTS: 256 patients received olaparib and 130 control. Incidence rates for the four most commonly occurring AEs in the olaparib group (all-causality) were anaemia 50%, nausea 43%, fatigue/asthenia 42% and decreased appetite 31%. All were mostly Grade 1 and 2 and all peaked within the first 2 months of treatment as the events were managed where appropriate, primarily with dose interruptions or dose reductions. The extent of bone metastases at baseline or prior taxane use was not associated with the rate of anaemia. Pneumonitis was reported in 2% and 1.5% of patients in the olaparib and control groups, respectively, and one patient (0.4%) in the olaparib group experienced an event of MDS/AML after a 30-day follow-up period. Venous thromboembolic events occurred in 8% of olaparib and 3% of control patients. CONCLUSIONS: The four most common AEs observed in PROfound were generally manageable without the need for treatment discontinuation, allowing patients to remain on treatment for as long as they were deriving clinical benefit. CLINICALTRIALS: gov registration number: NCT02987543.
Assuntos
Anemia , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração , Anemia/induzido quimicamente , Progressão da Doença , Humanos , Masculino , Ftalazinas/efeitos adversos , Piperazinas , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/patologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) frequently receive docetaxel after they develop resistance to abiraterone or enzalutamide and need more efficacious treatments. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus docetaxel and prednisone in patients with mCRPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The trial included patients with mCRPC in the phase 1b/2 KEYNOTE-365 cohort B study who were chemotherapy naïve and who experienced failure of or were intolerant to ≥4 wk of abiraterone or enzalutamide for mCRPC with progressive disease within 6 mo of screening. INTERVENTION: Pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously (IV) every 3 wk (Q3W), docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV Q3W, and prednisone 5 mg orally twice daily. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoints were safety, the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate, and the objective response rate (ORR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints included time to PSA progression; the disease control rate (DCR) and duration of response (DOR) according to RECIST v1.1 by BICR; ORR, DCR, DOR, and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) according to Prostate Cancer Working Group 3-modified RECIST v1.1 by BICR; and overall survival (OS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 104 treated patients, 52 had measurable disease. The median time from allocation to data cutoff (July 9, 2020) was 32.4 mo, during which 101 patients discontinued treatment, 81 (78%) for disease progression. The confirmed PSA response rate was 34% and the confirmed ORR (RECIST v1.1) was 23%. Median rPFS and OS were 8.5 mo and 20.2 mo, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 100 patients (96%). Grade 3-5 TRAEs occurred in 46 patients (44%). Seven AE-related deaths (6.7%) occurred (2 due to treatment-related pneumonitis). Limitations of the study include the single-arm design and small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab plus docetaxel and prednisone demonstrated antitumor activity in chemotherapy-naïve patients with mCRPC treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide for mCRPC. Safety was consistent with profiles for the individual agents. Further investigation is warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab combined with the chemotherapy drug docetaxel and the steroid prednisone for patients with metastatic prostate cancer resistant to androgen deprivation therapy , and who never received chemotherapy. The combination showed antitumor activity and manageable safety in this patient population. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02861573.
Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração , Acetato de Abiraterona , Antagonistas de Androgênios/uso terapêutico , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados , Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/efeitos adversos , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Docetaxel/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Masculino , Prednisona/uso terapêutico , Antígeno Prostático Específico , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias de Próstata Resistentes à Castração/patologia , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is a promising novel molecular target for imaging diagnostics and therapeutics (theranostics). There has been a growing body of evidence supporting PSMA theranostics approaches in optimizing the management of prostate cancer and potentially altering its natural history. METHODS: We utilized PubMed and Google Scholar for published studies, and clinicaltrials.gov for planned, ongoing, and completed clinical trials in PSMA theranostics as of June 2021. We presented evolving evidence for various PSMA-targeted radiopharmaceutical agents in the treatment paradigm for prostate cancer, as well as combination treatment strategies with other targeted therapy and immunotherapy. We highlighted the emerging evidence of PSMA and fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT as a predictive biomarker for PSMA radioligand therapy. We identified seven ongoing clinical trials in oligometastatic-directed therapy using PSMA PET imaging. We also presented a schematic overview of 17 key PSMA theranostic clinical trials throughout the various stages of prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: In this review, we presented the contemporary and future landscape of theranostic applications in prostate cancer with a focus on PSMA ligands. As PSMA theranostics will soon become the standard of care for the management of prostate cancer, we underscore the importance of integrating nuclear medicine physicians into the multidisciplinary team.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The Canadian Genitourinary Research Consortium (GURC) conducted a consensus development conference leading to 31 recommendations. Using the GURC consensus development questionnaire, we conducted a survey to measure the corresponding community-based practices on the management of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC). METHODS: An 87-item online questionnaire was sent to 600 community urologists and oncologists involved in the treatment of prostate cancer. RESULTS: Seventy-two community physicians responded to the survey. Of note, 50% community physicians indicated they would treat nmCRPC with agents approved for this indication if advanced imaging showed metastases. Radiation to the prostate for low-volume mCSPC was identified as a treatment practice by 27% of community physicians, and 35% indicated docetaxel as the next line of treatment after use of apalutamide. Use of genetic testing was reported in 36% of community physicians for newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: There are several areas of community-based management of advanced prostate cancer that could represent potential areas for education, practice tools, and future research.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Rapid progress in diagnostics and therapeutics for the management of prostate cancer (PCa) has created areas where high-level evidence to guide practice is lacking. The Genitourinary Research Consortium (GURC) conducted its second Canadian consensus forum to address areas of controversy in the management of PCa and provide recommendations to guide treatment. METHODS: A panel of PCa specialists discussed topics related to the management of PCa. The core scientific committee finalized the design, questions, and analysis of the consensus results. Attendees then voted to indicate their management choice regarding each statement/topic. Questions for voting were adapted from the 2019 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference. The thresholds for agreement were set at ≥75% for "consensus agreement," >50% for "near-consensus," and ≤50% for "no consensus." RESULTS: The panel was comprised of 29 PCa experts, including urologists (n=12), medical oncologists (n=12), and radiation oncologists (n=5). Voting took place for 65 predetermined questions and three ad hoc questions. Consensus was reached for 34 questions, spanning a variety of areas, including biochemical recurrence, treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive PCa, management of non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant PCa, bone health, and molecular profiling. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus forum identified areas of consensus or near-consensus in more than half of the questions discussed. Areas of consensus typically aligned with available evidence, and areas of variability may indicate a lack of high-quality evidence and point to future opportunities for further research and education.
RESUMO
Poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors are currently used in the treatment of several cancers carrying mutations in the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, with many more potential applications under study and in clinical trials. Here, we discuss the potential for extending PARP inhibitor therapies to tumours with deficiencies in the DNA damage-activated protein kinase, Ataxia-Telangiectasia Mutated (ATM). We highlight our recent findings that PARP inhibition alone is cytostatic but not cytotoxic in ATM-deficient cancer cells and that the combination of a PARP inhibitor with an ATR (ATM, Rad3-related) inhibitor is required to induce cell death.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: The Alberta Prostate Cancer Research Initiative (APCaRI) Registry and Biorepository was established in 2014 by the APCaRI to facilitate the collection of clinical and patient-reported data, biospecimen, to measure prostate cancer outcomes and to support the development and clinical translation of innovative technologies to better diagnose and predict outcomes for patients with prostate cancer. PARTICIPANTS: Men suspected with prostate cancer and referred to Urology centres in Alberta were enrolled in the APCaRI 01 study, while men with a prior prostate cancer diagnosis participated in the APCaRI 03 study from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2019. The APCaRI Registry and Biorepository links biospecimens and data from a wide representation of patients drawn from an Alberta population of more than 4 million. FINDINGS TO DATE: From 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2019, total APCaRI 01 and 03 study recruitment was 3754 men; 142 (4%) of these men withdrew in full, 65 men (2%) withdrew biospecimens and 123 men (3%) died of any cause. Over this same time, 8677 patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) surveys and 7368 biospecimens were collected and are available from the registry and biorepository, respectively. The data entry error rate was 0.8% and 0.95% for critical and non-critical values, respectively, and 1.8% for patient-reported surveys. FUTURE PLANS: The APCaRI Registry and Biorepository will collect longitudinal data and PROM surveys until 2024, patient outcomes up to 25 years after recruitment and biospecimen storage for up to 25 years. The APCaRI cohorts will continue to provide data and samples to researchers conducting retrospective studies. The richness of the data and biospecimens will complement many different research questions, ultimately to improve the quality of care for men with prostate cancer.
Assuntos
Neoplasias da Próstata , Alberta/epidemiologia , Humanos , Masculino , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico , Neoplasias da Próstata/epidemiologia , Sistema de Registros , Estudos Retrospectivos , TecnologiaRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The management of advanced prostate cancer (PCa) continues to evolve with the emergence of new diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. As a result, there are multiple areas in this landscape with a lack of high-level evidence to guide practice. Consensus initiatives are an approach to establishing practice guidance in areas where evidence is unclear. We conducted a Canadian-based consensus forum to address key controversial areas in the management of advanced PCa. METHODS: As part of a modified Delphi process, a core scientific group of PCa physicians (n=8) identified controversial areas for discussion and developed an initial set of questions, which were then reviewed and finalized with a larger group of 29 multidisciplinary PCa specialists. The main areas of focus were non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), oligometastatic prostate cancer, genetic testing in prostate cancer, and imaging in advanced prostate cancer. The predetermined threshold for consensus was set at 74% (agreement from 20 of 27 participating physicians). RESULTS: Consensus participants included uro-oncologists (n=13), medical oncologists (n=10), and radiation oncologists (n=4). Of the 64 questions, consensus was reached in 30 questions (n=5 unanimously). Consensus was more common for questions related to biochemical recurrence, sequencing of therapies, and mCRPC. CONCLUSIONS: A Canadian consensus forum in PCa identified areas of agreement in nearly 50% of questions discussed. Areas of variability may represent opportunities for further research, education, and sharing of best practices. These findings reinforce the value of multidisciplinary consensus initiatives to optimize patient care.