Quality of life in patients with metastatic prostate cancer following treatment with cabazitaxel versus abiraterone or enzalutamide (CARD): an analysis of a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study.

BACKGROUND: In the CARD study, cabazitaxel significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. Here, we report the quality-of-life outcomes from the CARD study. METHODS: CARD was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study involving 62 clinical sites across 13 European countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2) with confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of an interactive voice-web response system to receive cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks, 10 mg daily prednisone, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg orally once daily plus 5 mg prednisone twice daily) or enzalutamide (160 mg orally daily). Stratification factors were ECOG performance status, time to disease progression on the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor, and timing of the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival; here, we present more detailed analyses of pain (assessed using item 3 on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF]) and symptomatic skeletal events, alongside preplanned patient-reported outcomes, assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire and the EuroQoL-5 dimensions, 5 level scale (EQ-5D-5L). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Pain response was analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of BPI-SF item 3, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of either FACT-P or EQ-5D-5L (PRO population). Analyses of skeletal-related events were also done in the intention-to-treat population. The CARD study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02485691, and is no longer enrolling. FINDINGS: Between Nov 17, 2015, and Nov 28, 2018, of 303 patients screened, 255 were randomly assigned to cabazitaxel (n=129) or abiraterone or enzalutamide (n=126). Median follow-up was 9·2 months (IQR 5·6-13·1). Pain response was observed in 51 (46%) of 111 patients with cabazitaxel and 21 (19%) of 109 patients with abiraterone or enzalutamide (p<0·0001). Median time to pain progression was not estimable (NE; 95% CI NE-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·5 months (4·9-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·55, 95% CI 0·32-0·97; log-rank p=0·035). Median time to symptomatic skeletal events was NE (95% CI 20·0-NE) with cabazitaxel and 16·7 months (10·8-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·35-1·01; log-rank p=0·050). Median time to FACT-P total score deterioration was 14·8 months (95% CI 6·3-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·9 months (6·3-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·72, 95% CI 0·44-1·20; log-rank p=0·21). There was a significant treatment effect seen in changes from baseline in EQ-5D-5L utility index score in favour of cabazitaxel over abiraterone or enzalutamide (p=0·030) but no difference between treatment groups for change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (p=0·060). INTERPRETATION: Since cabazitaxel improved pain response, time to pain progression, time to symptomatic skeletal events, and EQ-5D-5L utility index, clinicians and patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer can be reassured that cabazitaxel will not reduce quality of life when compared with treatment with a second androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. FUNDING: Sanofi.

Managing Nonmetastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer.

CONTEXT: Patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) have rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and castrate testosterone levels, with no radiological findings of metastatic disease on computed tomography and bone scan. Given recent drug approvals for nmCRPC, with many other therapeutics and imaging modalities being developed, management of nmCRPC is a rapidly evolving field that merits detailed investigation. OBJECTIVE: To review current nmCRPC management practices and identify opportunities for improving care of nmCRPC patients. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A literature search up to July 2018 was conducted, including clinical trials and clinical practice guidelines (National Comprehensive Cancer Network, European Society for Medical Oncology, European Association of Urology, Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group, Prostate Cancer Radiographic Assessments for Detection of Advanced Recurrence). Keywords included prostate cancer, nonmetastatic, castration resistance, rising PSA, and biochemical relapse. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Recommendations regarding indications for, and frequency of, imaging and PSA testing, as well as for initiating systemic therapy in nmCRPC are based on PSA rise kinetics and symptoms. Both enzalutamide and apalutamide have been shown to significantly increase metastasis-free survival in phase III placebo-controlled randomised trials in nmCRPC patients with PSA doubling time (DT) ≤10 mo. The expected impact of new imaging techniques in the assessment of nmCRPC is also reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: nmCRPC is a heterogeneous disease; while observation may be an option for some patients, enzalutamide and apalutamide may be appropriate to treat nmCRPC patients with PSA-DT ≤10 mo. The emergence of more accurate imaging modalities as well as circulating tumour biomarker assays will likely redefine the assessment of nmCRPC in the near future. PATIENT SUMMARY: Herein, we review key literature and clinical practice guidelines to summarise the optimal management of patients with prostate cancer and rising prostate-specific antigen despite castrate testosterone levels, but with no evidence of distant metastasis on traditional imaging. New drugs are being developed for this disease setting; novel imaging and tumour biomarker blood tests are likely to define this disease state more accurately.

Everolimus Versus Axitinib as Second-line Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Experience From Institut Gustave Roussy.

BACKGROUND: Everolimus (E) and axitinib (A) have been standard treatments for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma after failure of first-line therapy (1L) with vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy. This study aims to compare both drugs in a large comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: Patient characteristics and outcome data from all patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received E or A as second-line therapy at Gustave Roussy from April 2007 to May 2015 have been recorded. RESULTS: A total of 81 patients were treated with E and 45 patients with A. There were no major differences between the 2 groups. The most common 1L was sunitinib (79% in the E group and 82.2% in the A group). The median follow-up was 29 months; 26 months for A and 33 months for E (P = .046). The median overall survival (OS) was 21.5 months for E and 14.9 months for A (P = .23). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.3 and 7.7 months for E and A, respectively (P = .39). Partial response was achieved in 4% and in 24% of patients (P = .002) in the E and A cohort, respectively. In the A group, the median PFS and OS were statistically different according to response, tumor burden, and 1L duration. No differences were found in the E arm. CONCLUSION: In this series, there are no significant differences for PFS and OS with E and A. A appears to provide more objective response. A appears to be more effective in patients with small tumor burden, responders to 1L, and 1L therapy > 12 months.

Real world prospective experience of axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma in a large comprehensive cancer centre.

BACKGROUND: Axitinib has shown activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in a large phase III clinical trial and was approved in patients who failed first-line therapy. This drug has been available in France since November 2012. The objective is to report efficacy and safety of axitinib in mRCC outside of clinical trials. METHODS: A prospective evaluation of mRCC patients treated by axitinib in second or further next-line therapy at Gustave Roussy was conducted from 2012 to 2015. Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS) and toxicities were analysed. The correlation between clinical markers and ORR, PFS, TTF and OS were explored. RESULTS: One-hundred and sixty patients with mRCC, received axitinib in second (40%) or further next-line therapy (60%). International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk group classification was good, intermediate and poor in 13%, 54% and 32%, respectively. Dose titration (DT) to 7 mg twice a day (bid) was performed in 38% and to 10 mg bid in 19% of the patients. Hypertension was the most common adverse event, (grade (G)3: 39%; G4: 2%). ORR occurred in 32% (n = 33, only partial response). Median PFS, TTF and OS were 8.3, 5.8 and 16.4 months, respectively. IMDC risk group and DT at 2 weeks are associated to ORR while grade 3 hypertension is marginally associated. IMDC risk group and grade 3 hypertension are significantly associated with better PFS, TTF and OS while DT at 2 weeks is associated to PFS and TTF. CONCLUSION: Efficacy of axitinib in routine practice is similar to that previously reported, not only in second- but also in further next-lines of therapy.

Hypocalcaemia in patients with metastatic bone disease treated with denosumab.

BACKGROUND: This analysis was performed to further characterise treatment-emergent hypocalcaemia in patients with bone metastases receiving denosumab. METHODS: Laboratory abnormalities and adverse events of hypocalcaemia in patients with metastatic bone disease were analysed using data from three identically designed phase 3 trials of subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg (n = 2841) versus intravenous zoledronic acid 4 mg (n = 2836). RESULTS: The overall incidence of laboratory events of hypocalcaemia grade ⩾ 2 was higher with denosumab (12.4%) than with zoledronic acid (5.3%). Hypocalcaemia events were primarily grade 2 in severity and usually occurred within the first 6 months of treatment. Patients who reported taking calcium and/or vitamin D supplements had a lower incidence of hypocalcaemia. Prostate cancer or small-cell lung cancer, reduced creatinine clearance and higher baseline bone turnover markers of urinary N-telopeptide of type I collagen (uNTx; > 50 versus ⩽ 50 nmol/mmol) and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BSAP; > 20.77 µg/L [median] versus ⩽ 20.77 µg/L) values were important risk factors for developing hypocalcaemia. The risk associated with increased baseline BSAP levels was greater among patients who had > 2 bone metastases at baseline versus those with ⩽ 2 bone metastases at baseline. CONCLUSION: Hypocalcaemia was more frequent with denosumab versus zoledronic acid, consistent with denosumab's greater antiresorptive effect. Low serum calcium levels and potential vitamin D deficiency should be corrected before initiating treatment with a potent osteoclast inhibitor, and corrected serum calcium levels should be monitored during treatment. Adequate calcium and vitamin D intake appears to substantially reduce the risk of hypocalcaemia.

Toxicities following treatment with bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand inhibitors in patients with advanced prostate cancer.

CONTEXT: Advanced prostate cancer (PCa) is associated with skeletal complications, both as a result of bone metastases and because of fractures associated with fragility due to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Osteoclast inhibitors are commonly used to reduce skeletal complications but are associated with a number of potential adverse events. OBJECTIVE: To review clinical trials of osteoclast inhibitors in advanced PCa, to discuss the adverse event profile of these agents, and to discuss strategies to address specific adverse events. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed was searched for reports of clinical trials of osteoclast inhibitors in advanced PCa. As zoledronic acid and denosumab are used most commonly in this disease, these trials were the focus. The literature was reviewed to identify key publications addressing the prevention and management of adverse events associated with these drugs. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The major findings of the trials and the adverse events are discussed. Prevention and management of common adverse events are addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Zoledronic acid prevents loss of bone mineral density associated with ADT and delays skeletal-related events in metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC). Denosumab reduces the incidence of fragility fractures associated with ADT, delays the onset of bone metastases in nonmetastatic castration-resistant disease, and is superior to zoledronic acid in the prevention of skeletal complications in mCRPC. Adverse events associated with both agents include osteonecrosis of the jaw and hypocalcemia. Hypocalcemia is more common with denosumab. Zoledronic acid requires dose modifications for renal insufficiency, is contraindicated in severe renal insufficiency, and has been associated with deterioration of renal function. Appropriate patient selection with close attention to dental health, supplementation with calcium and vitamin D, and monitoring of laboratory values are effective strategies to minimize the impact of adverse events associated with osteoclast inhibitors in advanced PCa.

Efficacy and safety of abiraterone acetate in an elderly patient subgroup (aged 75 and older) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after docetaxel-based chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is a disease that primarily affects older men. Abiraterone acetate (AA), a selective androgen biosynthesis inhibitor, in combination with low-dose prednisone (P) improved overall survival (OS) in a randomised trial in mCRPC progressing after docetaxel versus placebo (PL) plus P. OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of AA plus P versus PL plus P in subgroups of elderly (aged ≥ 75 yr) (n=331) and younger patients (<75 yr) (n=863). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of a randomised double-blind PL-controlled study in mCRPC patients progressing after docetaxel chemotherapy. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised 2:1 to AA (1000 mg) plus low-dose P (5mg twice daily) (n=797) or PL plus P (n=398). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary end point was OS. Secondary end points were time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (TTPP), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and PSA response rate. Treatment differences were compared using the stratified log-rank test. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The key limitation was the post hoc analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Elderly patients treated with AA plus P showed improved OS (HR: 0.64; 95% CI, 0.478-0.853; p=0.0022), TTPP (HR: 0.76; 95% CI, 0.503-1.155; p=0.1995), and rPFS (HR: 0.66; 95% CI, 0.506-0.859; p=0.0019), and higher PSA response rate with relative risk (HR: 4.15; 95% CI, 2.2-8.0]; p ≤ 0.0001) compared with patients treated with PL plus P. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 62% of elderly patients and in 60% of patients aged <75 yr treated with AA plus P. Incidences of hypertension and hypokalaemia, although increased in the AA plus P arm, were similar in both age subgroups and readily managed. CONCLUSIONS: AA improves OS and is well tolerated in both elderly patients and younger patients with mCRPC following docetaxel, hence providing an important treatment option for elderly patients who may not tolerate alternative therapies with greater toxicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT00638690.

Tumor growth rate provides useful information to evaluate sorafenib and everolimus treatment in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients: an integrated analysis of the TARGET and RECORD phase 3 trial data.

BACKGROUND: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria may not be sufficient to evaluate the response of targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The tumor growth rate (TGR) incorporates the time between evaluations and may be adequate. OBJECTIVE: To determine how TGR is modified along the treatment sequence and is associated with outcome in mRCC patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Medical records from all patients prospectively treated at Gustave Roussy (IGR) in the Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial (TARGET) (sorafenib vs placebo, n=84) and the RECORD (everolimus vs placebo, n=43) phase 3 trials were analyzed. TGR was computed across clinically relevant periods: BEFORE treatment introduction (wash-out), UNDER (first cycle), at PROGRESSION (last cycle) and AFTER treatment discontinuation (washout). The association between TGR and outcome (overall survival [OS] and progression-free survival [PFS]) was computed in the entire TARGET cohort (n=903). INTERVENTION: Sorafenib, everolimus, or placebo. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: TGR, RECIST, OS, and PFS rates. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Although nearly all the patients (IGR) were classified as stable disease (RECIST) after the first cycle, the great majority of the patients exhibited a decrease in TGR UNDER compared with BEFORE (sorafenib: p<0.00001; everolimus: p<0.00001). In sorafenib-treated but not in everolimus-treated patients (IGR), TGR at PROGRESSION (last cycle) was still lower than TGR BEFORE (washout) (p=0.012), while TGR AFTER progression (washout) was higher than TGR at PROGRESSION (last cycle) (p=0.0012). Higher TGR (first cycle) was associated with worse PFS (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.45-5.34) and worse OS (HR: 4.69; 95% CI, 1.54-14.39), independently from the Motzer score and from the treatment arm in the entire TARGET cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Computing TGR in mRCC patients is simple and provides clinically useful information for mRCC patients: (1) TGR is independently associated with prognosis (PFS, OS), (2) TGR allows for a subtle and quantitative characterization of drug activity at the first evaluation, and (3) TGR reveals clear drug-specific profiles at progression.

Skeletal muscle density predicts prognosis in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with targeted therapies.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that skeletal muscle and adipose tissue are linked to overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Because targeted therapies have improved the outcome in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), new prognostic parameters are required. The objective of the current study was to analyze whether body composition parameters play a prognostic role in patients with mRCC. METHODS: Adipose tissue, skeletal muscle, and skeletal muscle density (SMD) were assessed with computed tomography imaging by measuring cross-sectional areas of the tissues and mean muscle Hounsfield units (HU). A high level of mean HU indicates a high SMD and high quality of muscle. OS and PFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. The multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was adjusted for Heng risk score and treatment. RESULTS: In the 149 patients studied, the median OS was 21.4 months and was strongly associated with SMD; the median OS in patients with low SMD was approximately one-half that of patients with high SMD (14 months vs 29 months; P = .001). After adjustment for Heng risk score and treatment, high SMD was associated with longer OS (hazards ratio, 1.85; P = .004) and longer PFS (hazards ratio, 1.81; P = .002). Adding SMD will separate the intermediate-risk and favorable-risk groups into 3 groups, with different median OS periods ranging from 8 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 6 months-12 months) for an intermediate-risk Heng score/low SMD to 22 months (95% CI, 14 months-27 months) for an intermediate-risk Heng score/high SMD and a favorable-risk Heng score/low SMD to 35 months (95% CI, 24 months-43 months) for a favorable-risk Heng score/high SMD. CONCLUSIONS: High muscle density appears to be independently associated with improved outcome and could be integrated into the prognostic scores thereby enhancing the management of patients with mRCC.

Second line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The Institut Gustave Roussy experience with targeted therapies in 251 consecutive patients.

BACKGROUND: Sequential treatment is currently the standard of care in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, very little is known on how many patients (pts) can receive second line or further, and on how to predict those pts. The goal of this study was to evaluate these questions in a large series of pts treated in our institution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from all mRCC patients treated at the IGR from 2005 to 2009 with first line targeted therapy (sunitinib (SU), sorafenib (SO), bevacizumab (B), temsirolimus or everolimus (pooled together as mammalian target of rapamycin - mTOR)) were analysed. Only patients with subsequent follow-up have been included in this analysis. Patients were defined as 'non-eligible' for second treatment if: they were (i) still on first line treatment, (ii) not showing progressive (durable stable disease or partial response or complete response) or (iii) if they refused a second line treatment. RESULTS: 251 patients, median age 60 years, median follow-up 20.2 months were treated with targeted therapy with a median overall survival (OS) of 25.8 months. Median OS with SU (127), SO (60) or B (61) were 26.3, 16.4 and 32.5 months respectively. Only three patients received an mTOR inhibitor as first line. According to the eligibility criteria, the percentage of patients who received a second line was 59% (n=61/103), 52% (n=30/58) and 79% (n=38/48) for Su, So and B, respectively. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre (MSKCC) classification (P=0.02) and first line agent (P=0.001) were significant predictive factor for receiving a second line of treatment. Overall, patients receiving B were in better general condition, with 77% of performance status score (PS)=0 compared to SO (53%) and SU (48%) (P=0.005). Among the 131 patients who received a second line, the median OS from the start of second line treatment was 20.8 months for a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (n=98; 75%) and 16.6 months for an mTOR (n=32; 42%) (P=0.12). Furthermore, the percentage of patients who received a third line was 56% (27/48), 28% (7/25) and 65% (13/20) for SU, SO and B, respectively. CONCLUSION: The median OS in patients treated with targeted therapies for mRCC in The Institut Gustave Roussy exceeds 2 years. The use of second line varies from 52% to 79%. Further studies are needed to validate the MSKCC groups and first line therapy as predictive factor for second line treatment.

Denosumab versus zoledronic acid for treatment of bone metastases in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomised, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases are a major burden in men with advanced prostate cancer. We compared denosumab, a human monoclonal antibody against RANKL, with zoledronic acid for prevention of skeletal-related events in men with bone metastases from castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: In this phase 3 study, men with castration-resistant prostate cancer and no previous exposure to intravenous bisphosphonate were enrolled from 342 centres in 39 countries. An interactive voice response system was used to assign patients (1:1 ratio), according to a computer-generated randomisation sequence, to receive 120 mg subcutaneous denosumab plus intravenous placebo, or 4 mg intravenous zoledronic acid plus subcutaneous placebo, every 4 weeks until the primary analysis cutoff date. Randomisation was stratified by previous skeletal-related event, prostate-specific antigen concentration, and chemotherapy for prostate cancer within 6 weeks before randomisation. Supplemental calcium and vitamin D were strongly recommended. Patients, study staff, and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was time to first on-study skeletal-related event (pathological fracture, radiation therapy, surgery to bone, or spinal cord compression), and was assessed for non-inferiority. The same outcome was further assessed for superiority as a secondary endpoint. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00321620, and has been completed. FINDINGS: 1904 patients were randomised, of whom 950 assigned to denosumab and 951 assigned to receive zoledronic acid were eligible for the efficacy analysis. Median duration on study at primary analysis cutoff date was 12·2 months (IQR 5·9-18·5) for patients on denosumab and 11·2 months (IQR 5·6-17·4) for those on zoledronic acid. Median time to first on-study skeletal-related event was 20·7 months (95% CI 18·8-24·9) with denosumab compared with 17·1 months (15·0-19·4) with zoledronic acid (hazard ratio 0·82, 95% CI 0·71-0·95; p = 0·0002 for non-inferiority; p = 0·008 for superiority). Adverse events were recorded in 916 patients (97%) on denosumab and 918 patients (97%) on zoledronic acid, and serious adverse events were recorded in 594 patients (63%) on denosumab and 568 patients (60%) on zoledronic acid. More events of hypocalcaemia occurred in the denosumab group (121 [13%]) than in the zoledronic acid group (55 [6%]; p<0·0001). Osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred infrequently (22 [2%] vs 12 [1%]; p = 0·09). INTERPRETATION: Denosumab was better than zoledronic acid for prevention of skeletal-related events, and potentially represents a novel treatment option in men with bone metastases from castration-resistant prostate cancer. FUNDING: Amgen.