[Enzalutamide and Abiraterone in the Treatment of Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer after Chemotherapy]. / Enzalutamid a abirateron v lécbe metastatického kastracne refrakterního karcinomu prostaty po predchozí chemoterapii.

AIM: Enzalutamide and abiraterone represent new therapeutical options in the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The aim of the presented study was retrospective analysis of clinical experience and efficacy of enzalutamide or abiraterone in the postchemo indication in patients with mCRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 32 mCRPC patients were evaluated. All patients received one or more lines of chemotherapy. Twenty-three patients were treated by enzalutamide, nine patients were treated by abiraterone. We defined two parameters: over all survival and progression-free survival. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 6.5 months. A total of 10 patients treated by enzalutamide progressed (43.47%) and eight patients died (34.78%). A total of five patients treated by abiraterone progressed (55.56%) and one patient died (11.11%). We did not observe any statistical difference in over all survival (HR 0.2362, 95% CI 0.0295- 1.8942; p = 0.102) and in progression-free survival (HR 0.9853, 95% CI 0.2934- 3.308; p = 0.939) between enzalutamide and abirateron. CONCLUSION: Our retrospective study demonstrated similar efficacy of enzalutamide and abiraterone in mCRPC patients previously treated by chemotherapy.

Low molecular weight heparins for thromboprophylaxis during induction chemotherapy in patients with multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUNDS: Patients with multiple myeloma have a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), especially during the induction chemotherapy. The aim of our observational study was to determine the impact of prophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) on the incidence of thromboembolic complications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed the incidence of thromboembolic events in 258 patients treated with induction chemotherapy containing vincristin, doxorubicin or idarubicin, and dexamethasone, followed by stimulation chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and G-CSF, and high-dose chemotherapy with melphalan. Two groups of these patients were compared based on the practice of thromboprophylaxis. Patients in the first group (Control, n = 140) were either not treated or treated with a short duration of anticoagulation therapy while the patients in the second group (Prophylactic, n = 118) underwent standard prophylaxis with LMWH throughout the entire period of induction chemotherapy. A total of 102 patients were selected for a close monitoring of the prophylactic effect of different LMWH doses and to be compared to patients without treatment. RESULTS: Standard prophylaxis with LMWH significantly (p < 0.007) lowered a risk of VTE when compared to patients without such prophylaxis (3.4% versus 12.9%, respectively). Furthermore, analysis of the subgroup of 102 patients revealed that higher LMWH doses (> 70 IU/kg per day) achieved full prophylaxis in 28 patients while lower doses were less effective leading to DVT in 3 (7.7%) out of 39 patients. In contrast, VTE was diagnosed in 5 (14.3%) out of 35 patients without any LMWH prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: Prophylaxis with LMWH leads to a significant reduction of the risk of thromboembolic complications during the induction chemotherapy in patients suffering from MM. The prophylactic effect of LMWH is dose-dependent.