Long-Term Pharmacokinetic Follow-Up of Abiraterone Acetate in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

This ABIGENE pharmacokinetic (PK) study sought mainly to characterize the unchanged drug PK during long-term abiraterone acetate (AA) administration in advanced prostate cancer patients (81 patients). It was observed that individual AA concentrations remained constant over treatment time, with no noticeable changes during repeated long-term drug administration for up to 120 days. There was no correlation between AA concentrations and survival outcomes. However, a significant association between higher AA concentrations and better clinical benefit was observed (p = 0.041). The safety data did not correlate with the AA PK data. A significant positive correlation (r = 0.40, p < 0.001) was observed between mean AA concentration and patient age: the older the patient, the higher the AA concentration. Patient age was found to impact steady-state AA concentration: the older the patient, the higher the mean AA concentration. Altogether, these data may help to guide future research and clinical trials in order to maximize the benefits of AA metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients.

Abiraterone plus prednisone added to androgen deprivation therapy and docetaxel in de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (PEACE-1): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study with a 2 × 2 factorial design.

BACKGROUND: Current standard of care for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer supplements androgen deprivation therapy with either docetaxel, second-generation hormonal therapy, or radiotherapy. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of abiraterone plus prednisone, with or without radiotherapy, in addition to standard of care. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study with a 2 × 2 factorial design (PEACE-1) at 77 hospitals across Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were male, aged 18 years or older, with histologically confirmed or cytologically confirmed de novo metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 (or 2 due to bone pain). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy alone or with intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks), standard of care plus radiotherapy, standard of care plus abiraterone (oral 1000 mg abiraterone once daily plus oral 5 mg prednisone twice daily), or standard of care plus radiotherapy plus abiraterone. Neither the investigators nor the patients were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary endpoints were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. Abiraterone efficacy was first assessed in the overall population and then in the population who received androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel as standard of care (population of interest). This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01957436. FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2013, and Dec 20, 2018, 1173 patients were enrolled (one patient subsequently withdrew consent for analysis of his data) and assigned to receive standard of care (n=296), standard of care plus radiotherapy (n=293), standard of care plus abiraterone (n=292), or standard of care plus radiotherapy plus abiraterone (n=291). Median follow-up was 3·5 years (IQR 2·8-4·6) for radiographic progression-free survival and 4·4 years (3·5-5·4) for overall survival. Adjusted Cox regression modelling revealed no interaction between abiraterone and radiotherapy, enabling the pooled analysis of abiraterone efficacy. In the overall population, patients assigned to receive abiraterone (n=583) had longer radiographic progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 99·9% CI 0·41-0·71; p<0·0001) and overall survival (0·82, 95·1% CI 0·69-0·98; p=0·030) than patients who did not receive abiraterone (n=589). In the androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel population (n=355 in both with abiraterone and without abiraterone groups), the HRs were consistent (radiographic progression-free survival 0·50, 99·9% CI 0·34-0·71; p<0·0001; overall survival 0·75, 95·1% CI 0·59-0·95; p=0·017). In the androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel population, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 217 (63%) of 347 patients who received abiraterone and 181 (52%) of 350 who did not; hypertension had the largest difference in occurrence (76 [22%] patients and 45 [13%], respectively). Addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel did not increase the rates of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, fatigue, or neuropathy compared with androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel alone. INTERPRETATION: Combining androgen deprivation therapy, docetaxel, and abiraterone in de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer improved overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival with a modest increase in toxicity, mostly hypertension. This triplet therapy could become a standard of care for these patients. FUNDING: Janssen-Cilag, Ipsen, Sanofi, and the French Government.

Survival with Olaparib in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that olaparib led to significantly longer imaging-based progression-free survival than the physician's choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had qualifying alterations in homologous recombination repair genes and whose disease had progressed during previous treatment with a next-generation hormonal agent. The results of the final analysis of overall survival have not yet been reported. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive olaparib (256 patients) or the physician's choice of enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone as the control therapy (131 patients). Cohort A included 245 patients with at least one alteration in BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM, and cohort B included 142 patients with at least one alteration in any of the other 12 prespecified genes. Crossover to olaparib was allowed after imaging-based disease progression for patients who met certain criteria. Overall survival in cohort A, a key secondary end point, was analyzed with the use of an alpha-controlled, stratified log-rank test at a data maturity of approximately 60%. The primary and other key secondary end points were reported previously. RESULTS: The median duration of overall survival in cohort A was 19.1 months with olaparib and 14.7 months with control therapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.97; P = 0.02). In cohort B, the median duration of overall survival was 14.1 months with olaparib and 11.5 months with control therapy. In the overall population (cohorts A and B), the corresponding durations were 17.3 months and 14.0 months. Overall, 86 of 131 patients (66%) in the control group crossed over to receive olaparib (56 of 83 patients [67%] in cohort A). A sensitivity analysis that adjusted for crossover to olaparib showed hazard ratios for death of 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19 to 0.91) in cohort A, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.11 to 5.98) in cohort B, and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.29 to 1.06) in the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had tumors with at least one alteration in BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM and whose disease had progressed during previous treatment with a next-generation hormonal agent, those who were initially assigned to receive olaparib had a significantly longer duration of overall survival than those who were assigned to receive enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone as the control therapy, despite substantial crossover from control therapy to olaparib. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp and Dohme; PROfound ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02987543.).

Chromogranin A: a useful biomarker in castration-resistant prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: The natural history of prostate cancer (PC) almost always evolves to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) status, sometimes comprising pure or mixed neuroendocrine prostate cancers (NEPC) differentiation. In CRPC, monitoring using only prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is not optimal since neuroendocrine differentiated cells do not secrete PSA. Thus, monitoring with PSA and chromogranin A (CgA) may be useful. This review aims to evaluate evidence for the usefulness of CgA assessments during the monitoring of prostate cancer. METHOD: This review was based on three recent meta-analysis concerning CgA and prostate cancer. Further data were obtained from PubMed and Embase databases by searches using keywords, including chromogranin A and prostate cancer. RESULTS: CgA levels remain largely unchanged during the early PC evolution. The development of NEPC is characterised by lower PSA secretion and increased CgA secretion. Data supporting the prognostic value of high CgA baseline levels for survival are contrasting and scarce. However, increasing CgA levels early during treatment of metastatic (m)CRPC suggests resistance to treatment and predicts shorter survival, particularly in men with high baseline levels of CgA levels. In men with mCRPC, the first-line chemotherapy may be more appropriate than other agents when baseline CgA levels are high. Also, increasing CgA levels during treatment may indicate disease progression and may warrant a change of therapy. CONCLUSION: CgA monitoring at baseline and regularly during mCRPC management may be useful for monitoring disease evolution. An increased CgA baseline levels and increasing CgA levels may assist physicians with choosing and modifying therapy.

Micro-ultrasound-guided biopsies versus systematic biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) still relies on the performance of both targeted (TB) and systematic biopsies (SB). Micro-ultrasound (mUS)-guided biopsies demonstrated a high sensitivity in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), which could be comparable to that of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-TB, but their added value has not been compared to SB yet. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, based on Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, to compare mUS-guided biopsies to SB. RESULTS: Based on the literature search of 2957 articles, 15 met the inclusion criteria (2967 patients). Most patients underwent mUS-guided biopsies, followed by MRI-TB and SB. Respectively 5 (n = 670) and 4 (n = 467) studies, providing raw data on SB, were included in a random-effect meta-analysis of the detection rate of csPCa, i.e. Gleason Grade Group (GGG) ≥ 2 or non-csPCa (GGG = 1). Overall, PCa was detected in 56-71% of men, with 31.3-49% having csPCa and 17-25.4% having non-csPCa. Regarding csPCa, mUS-guided biopsies identified 196 and SB 169 cases (Detection Ratio (DR): 1.18, 95% CI 0.83-1.68, I2 = 69%), favoring mUS-guided biopsies; regarding non-csPCa, mUS-guided biopsies identified 62 and SB 115 cases (DR: 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.73, I2 = 0%), also favoring mUS-guided biopsies by decreasing unnecessary diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Micro-ultrasound-guided biopsies compared favorably with SB for the detection of csPCa and detected fewer non-csPCa than SB. Prospective trials are awaited to confirm the interest of adding mUS-guided biopsies to MRI-TB to optimize csPCa detection without increasing overdiagnosis of non-csPCa.

What is the ideal combination therapy in de novo, oligometastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer?

PURPOSE: To review current evidence regarding the management of de novo, oligometastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: A literature search was conducted on PubMed/Medline and a narrative synthesis of the evidence was performed in August 2022. RESULTS: Oligometastatic disease is an intermediate state between localized and aggressive metastatic PCa defined by ≤ 3-5 metastatic lesions, although this definition remains controversial. Conventional imaging has limited accuracy in detecting metastatic lesions, and the implementation of molecular imaging could pave the way for a more personalized treatment strategy. However, oncological data supporting this strategy are needed. Radiotherapy to the primary tumor should be considered standard treatment for oligometastatic PCa (omPCa). However, it remains to be seen whether local therapy still has an additional survival benefit in patients with de novo omPCa when treated with the most modern systemic therapy combinations. There is insufficient evidence to recommend cytoreductive radical prostatectomy as local therapy; or stereotactic body radiotherapy as metastasis-directed therapy in patients with omPCa. Current data support the use of intensified systemic therapy with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and next-generation hormone therapies (NHT) for patients with de novo omPCa. Docetaxel has not demonstrated benefit in low volume disease. There are insufficient data to support the use of triple therapy (i.e., ADT + NHT + Docetaxel) in low volume disease. CONCLUSION: The present review discusses current data in de novo, omPCa regarding its definition, the increasing role of molecular imaging, the place of local and metastasis-directed therapies, and the intensification of systemic therapies.

Evaluating video-based consultations in routine clinical practice at a comprehensive cancer center.

INTRODUCTION: Integrating telemedicine into cancer care remains a major challenge. There are little clinical evidence for teleconsultation efficacy and safety in daily oncology practice. This study as a pioneering experience, aimed to analyze patient and physician opinions regarding the implementation of telemedicine consultations, and to identify major limitations of telehealth spread in an oncology institute. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During COVID-19 lockdown, patients and physicians who took part to at least one video-based teleconsultation between March and May 2020, were enrolled in this observational study. All eligible patients received an anonymous online questionnaire. On the other hand, all physicians eligible to participate were asked through email to complete a questionnaire. RESULTS: In this study, 31 physicians and 304 patients consented to participate in this study by answering the questionnaire and were included. Regarding telemedicine satisfaction, 65.8% of patients were satisfied. The lack of clinical examination was the major limitation reported by 77% of patients. Patients belonging to a high socio-professional category were statistically more dissatisfied with the relationship with their doctor (OR = 2.31 and 95% CI [1.12; 4.74]). CONCLUSION: This study showed promising results of incorporating video-based teleconsultations into cancer patient management. Randomized clinical trials are needed in order to accelerate the digital implementation in clinical practice.

Pain and health-related quality of life with olaparib versus physician's choice of next-generation hormonal drug in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with homologous recombination repair gene alterations (PROfound): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The PROfound study showed significantly improved radiographical progression-free survival and overall survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with alterations in homologous recombination repair genes and disease progression on a previous next-generation hormonal drug who received olaparib then those who received control. We aimed to assess pain and patient-centric health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures in patients in the trial. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 study, patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and gene alterations to one of 15 genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM [cohort A] and BRIP1, BARD1, CDK12, CHEK1, CHEK2, FANCL, PALB2, PPP2R2A, RAD51B, RAD51C, RAD51D, and RAD54L [cohort B]) and disease progression after a previous next-generation hormonal drug were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg orally twice daily) or a control drug (enzalutamide tablets [160 mg orally once daily] or abiraterone tablets [1000 mg orally once daily] plus prednisone tablets [5 mg orally twice daily]), stratified by previous taxane use and measurable disease. The primary endpoint (radiographical progression-free survival in cohort A) has been previously reported. The prespecified secondary endpoints reported here are on pain, HRQOL, symptomatic skeletal-related events, and time to first opiate use for cancer-related pain in cohort A. Pain was assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form, and HRQOL was assessed with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P). All endpoints were analysed in patients in cohort A by modified intention-to-treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02987543. FINDINGS: Between Feb 6, 2017, and June 4, 2019, 245 patients were enrolled in cohort A and received study treatment (162 [66%] in the olaparib group and 83 [34%] in the control group). Median duration of follow-up at data cutoff in all patients was 6·2 months (IQR 2·2-10·4) for the olaparib group and 3·5 months (1·7-4·9) for the control group. In cohort A, median time to pain progression was significantly longer with olaparib than with control (median not reached [95% CI not reached-not reached] with olaparib vs 9·92 months [5·39-not reached] with control; HR 0·44 [95% CI 0·22-0·91]; p=0·019). Pain interference scores were also better in the olaparib group (difference in overall adjusted mean change from baseline score -0·85 [95% CI -1·31 to -0·39]; pnominal=0·0004). Median time to progression of pain severity was not reached in either group (95% CI not reached-not reached for both groups; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·25-1·34]; pnominal=0·17). In patients who had not used opiates at baseline (113 in the olaparib group, 58 in the control group), median time to first opiate use for cancer-related pain was 18·0 months (95% CI 12·8-not reached) in the olaparib group versus 7·5 months (3·2-not reached) in the control group (HR 0·61; 95% CI 0·38-0·99; pnominal=0·044). The proportion of patients with clinically meaningful improvement in FACT-P total score during treatment was higher for the olaparib group than the control group: 15 (10%) of 152 evaluable patients had a response in the olaparib group compared with one (1%) of evaluable 77 patients in the control group (odds ratio 8·32 [95% CI 1·64-151·84]; pnominal=0·0065). Median time to first symptomatic skeletal-related event was not reached for either treatment group (olaparib group 95% CI not reached-not reached; control group 7·8-not reached; HR 0·37 [95% CI 0·20-0·70]; pnominal=0·0013). INTERPRETATION: Olaparib was associated with reduced pain burden and better-preserved HRQOL compared with the two control drugs in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and homologous recombination repair gene alterations who had disease progression after a previous next-generation hormonal drug. Our findings support the clinical benefit of improved radiographical progression-free survival and overall survival identified in PROfound. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Heterogeneity of contemporary grade group 4 prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens.

PURPOSE: The aim was to evaluate the prognostic role of sub-categories of ISUP 4 prostate cancer (PCa) on final pathology, and assess the tumor architecture prognostic role for predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy. METHODS: From a prospectively-maintained database, we included 370 individuals with ISUP 4 on final pathology. The main outcomes were to evaluate the relationship between different ISUP patterns within the group 4 with pathological and oncological outcomes. Binary logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier estimator were used to evaluate the role of the different categories (3 + 5, 4 + 4, 5 + 3) and tumor architecture (intraductal and/or cribriform) on pathological and oncological outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 370 individuals with ISUP considered for the study, 9, 85 and 6% had grade 3 + 5, 4 + 4 and 5 + 3 PCa, respectively. Overall, 74% had extracapsular extension, while lymph node invasion (LNI) was documented in 9%. A total of 144 patients experienced BCR during follow-up. After adjusting for PSA, pT, grade group, LNI and positive surgical margins (PSM), grade 3 + 5 was a protective factor (HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.13,0.68, p = 0.004) in predicting BCR relative to grade 4 + 4. Intraductal or cribriform architecture was correlated with BCR (HR: 5.99, 95% CI: 2.68, 13.4, p < 0.001) after adjusting for PSA, pT, grade group, LNI and PSM. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with tumor grade 3 + 5 had better pathological and prognostic outcomes compared to 4 + 4 or 5 + 3. When accounting for tumor architecture, the sub-stratification into subgroups lost its prognostic role and tumor architecture was the sole predictor of poorer prognosis in terms of biochemical recurrence.

Annual nationwide analysis of costs and post-operative outcomes after radical prostatectomy according to the surgical approach (open, laparoscopic, and robotic).

OBJECTIVE: Annual countrywide data are scarce when comparing surgical approaches in terms of hospital stay outcomes and costs for radical prostatectomy (RP). We aimed to assess the impact of surgical approach on post-operative outcomes and costs after RP by comparing open (ORP), laparoscopic (LRP), and robot-assisted (RARP) RP in the French healthcare system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from all patients undergoing RP in France in 2020 were extracted from the central database of the national healthcare system. Primary endpoints were length of hospital stay (LOS including intensive care unit (ICU) stay if present), complications (estimated by severity index), hospital readmission rates (at 30 and 90 days), and direct costs of initial stay. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 19,018 RPs were performed consisting in ORP in 21.1%, LRP in 27.6%, and RARP in 51.3% of cases. RARP was associated with higher center volume (p < 0.001), lower complication rates (p < 0.001), shorter LOS (p < 0.001), and lower readmission rates (p = 0.004). RARP was associated with reduced direct stay costs (2286 euros) compared with ORP (4298 euros) and LRP (3101 euros). The main cost driver was length of stay. The main limitations were the lack of mid-term data, readmission details, and cost variations due to surgery system. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide analysis demonstrates the benefits of RARP in terms of post-operative short-term outcomes. Higher costs related to the robotic system appear to be balanced by patient care improvements and reduced direct costs due to shorter LOS.

Renal cell carcinoma lung metastases treated by radiofrequency ablation integrated with systemic treatments: over 10 years of experience.

BACKGROUND: To determine safety and efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for local treatment of lung metastases of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), sequenced or combined with systemic treatments. METHODS: Retrospectively, we studied 53 patients treated by RFA for a maximum of six lung metastases of RCC. The endpoints were local efficacy, overall (OS), disease-free (DFS), pulmonary progression-free (PPFS) and systemic treatment-free (STFS) survivals, complications graded by the CTCAE classification and factors associated with survivals. Potential factors analysed were: clinical and pathological data, tumoral staging of TNM classification, primary tumor histology, Fuhrman's grade, age, number and size of lung metastases and extra-pulmonary metastases pre-RFA. RESULTS: One hundred metastases were treated by RFA. Median follow-up time was 61 months (interquartile range 90-34). Five-year OS was 62% (95% confidence interval (CI): 44-75). Median DFS was 9.9 months (95% CI: 6-16). PPFS at 1 and 3 years was 58.9% (95%CI: 44.1-70.9) and 35.2% (95%CI: 21.6-49.1), respectively. We observed 3% major complications (grade 3 and 4 of CTCAE classification). Local efficacy was 91%. Median STFS was 28.3 months. Thirteen patients (25%) with lung recurrence could be treated by another RFA. T3/T4 tumors had significantly worse OS, PPFS and STFS. Having two or more lung metastases increased the risk of pulmonary progression more than threefold. CONCLUSION: Integrated to systemic treatment strategy, RFA is safe and effective for the treatment strategy of lung metastasis from RCC with good OS and long systemic treatment-free survival. RFA offers the possibility of repeat procedures, with low morbidity.

Safety and efficacy of temsirolimus as second line treatment for patients with recurrent bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bladder cancer is the 7th cause of death from cancer in men and 10th in women. Metastatic patients have a poor prognosis with a median overall survival of 14 months. Until recently, vinflunine was the only second-line chemotherapy available for patients who relapse. Deregulation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway was observed in more than 40% of bladder tumors and suggested the use of mTOR as a target for the treatment of urothelial cancers. METHODS: This trial assessed the efficacy of temsirolimus in a homogenous cohort of patients with recurrent or metastatic bladder cancer following first-line chemotherapy. Efficacy was measured in terms of non-progression at two months according to the RECIST v1.1 criteria. Based on a two-stage optimal Simon's design, 15 non-progressions out of 51 evaluable patients were required to claim efficacy. Patients were treated at a weekly dose of 25 mg IV until progression, unacceptable toxicities or withdrawal. RESULTS: Among the 54 patients enrolled in the study between November 2009 and July 2014, 45 were assessable for the primary efficacy endpoint. A total of 22 (48.9%) non-progressions were observed at 2 months with 3 partial responses and 19 stable diseases. Remarkably, 4 patients were treated for more than 30 weeks. Fifty patients experienced at least a related grade1/2 (94%) and twenty-eight patients (52.8%) a related grade 3/4 adverse event. Eleven patients had to stop treatment for toxicity. This led to recruitment being halted by an independent data monitoring committee with regard to the risk-benefit balance and the fact that the primary objective was already met. CONCLUSIONS: While the positivity of this trial indicates a potential benefit of temsirolimus for a subset of bladder cancer patients who are refractory to first line platinum-based chemotherapy, the risk of adverse events associated with the use of this mTOR inhibitor would need to be considered when such an option is envisaged in this frail population of patients. It also remains to identify patients who will benefit the most from this targeted therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01827943 (trial registration date: October 29, 2012); Retrospectively registered.

Abiraterone acetate in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: long term outcome of the Temporary Authorization for Use programme in France.

BACKGROUND: COU-AA-301 trial has proved that abiraterone acetate (AA), a selective inhibitor of androgen biosynthesis, improved overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after a first line of docetaxel. Based on this result, a Temporary Authorization for Use (TAU) was performed between December 2010 and July 2011 to provide patients with mCRPC the opportunity to receive AA before its commercialization. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of AA treatment in this TAU. METHODS: Between December 2010 and July 2011, we conducted an ambispective, multicentric cohort study and investigated data from 20 centres participating to the AA TAU for patients presenting mCRPC and already treated by a first line of chemotherapy (CT). Statistical analyses of the data were performed using the Stata software v13 to identify predictive and prognostic factors. RESULTS: Among the 408 patients, 306 were eligible with a follow-up at 3 years. Median OS was 37.1 months from beginning of CT and 14.6 months from AA introduction. 211 patients (69%) received ≥ 3 months of AA and 95 patients (31%) were treated less than 3 months. In the multivariate analyses, duration of AA was significantly correlated with PSA decrease at 3 months. Additionally, shorter time under AA treatment, presence of multiple sites of metastasis and previous hormonal treatment duration were three independent factors associated with poorer OS. At the time of analysis ten patients were still under treatment for more than 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Biochemical response monitored by PSA changes at 3 months is a strong predictive factor for AA treatment duration. Some high responders' patients could beneficiate from AA for more than 3 years.

Early objective response may not be a prognostic factor of survival for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma: from a retrospective analysis of a cohort of 113 patients.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to better define prognostic factors for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), and to identify patients who will benefit from first-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy. We test the hypothesis that early objective response (EOR), defined as the occurrence of an objective response following 2 or 3 courses of chemotherapy, could be a prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) and thus be used to guide treatment decisions. Data from 113 patients with evaluable mUC receiving first-line cisplatin-based treatment between January 2004 and December 2006 was collected retrospectively from prospectively-maintained databases across seven French cancer centers. Clinical factors potentially associated with survival and EOR were analyzed in univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: One hundred three patient records were complete and available for inclusion in the multivariate model. Four factors were independently associated with OS: Performance status 1 and 2 (HR 2.3 [95 % CI 1.3-3.9], p = 0.002; HR 3.4 [95 % CI 1.6-7.2], p = 0.001 respectively); presence of visceral metastases (HR 2.2 [95 % CI 1.3-3.9], p = 0.004); abnormal hemoglobin levels (HR 1.7 [95 % CI 1.01-2.8], p = 0.045); disease progression (HR 10.1 [95 % CI 4.2-24.1], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the prognostic factors previously reported in first-line chemotherapy for mUC. However, we failed to demonstrate that EOR was an independent predictive factor of OS. Nevertheless, an early response evaluation is recommended since early progression is an important parameter that can be used to decide whether treatment should be interrupted and changed for alternative strategies integrating the concept of personalized medicine or new immune therapies.

Personalised chemotherapy based on tumour marker decline in poor prognosis germ-cell tumours (GETUG 13): a phase 3, multicentre, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Poor prognosis germ-cell tumours are only cured in about half of patients. We aimed to assess whether treatment intensification based on an early tumour marker decline will improve progression-free survival for patients with germ-cell tumours. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicentre, randomised trial, patients were enrolled from France (20 centres), USA (one centre), and Slovakia (one centre). Patients were eligible if they were older than 16 years, had evidence of testicular, retroperitoneal, or mediastinal non-seminomatous germ cell tumours based on histological findings or clinical evidence and highly elevated serum human chorionic gonadotropin or alfa-fetoprotein concentrations that matched International Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group poor prognosis criteria. After one cycle of BEP (intravenous cisplatin [20 mg/m(2) per day for 5 days], etoposide [100 mg/m(2) per day for 5 days], and intramuscular or intravenous bleomycin [30 mg per day on days 1, 8, and 15]), patients' human chorionic gonadotropin and alfa-fetoprotein concentrations were measured at day 18-21. Patients with a favourable decline in human chorionic gonadotropin and alfa-fetoprotein continued BEP (Fav-BEP group) for 3 additonal cycles, whereas patients with an unfavourable decline were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either BEP (Unfav-BEP group) or a dose-dense regimen (Unfav-dose-dense group), consisting of intravenous paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) over 3 h on day 1) before BEP plus intravenous oxaliplatin (130 mg/m(2) over 3 h on day 10; two cycles), followed by intravenous cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) over 2 h on day 1), intravenous ifosfamide (2 g/m(2) over 3 h on days 10, 12, and 14), plus mesna (500 mg/m(2) at 0, 3, 7 and 11 h), and bleomycin (25 units per day, by continuous infusion for 5 days on days 10-14; two cycles), with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (lenograstim) support. Centrally blocked computer-generated randomisation stratified by centre was used. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival and the efficacy analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. The planned trial accrual was completed in May, 2012, and follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00104676. FINDINGS: Between Nov 28, 2003, and May 16, 2012, 263 patients were enrolled and 254 were available for tumour marker assessment. Of these 51 (20%) had a favourable marker assessment, and 203 (80%) had an unfavourable tumour marker decline; 105 were randomly assigned to the Unfav-dose-dense group and 98 to the Unfav-BEP group. 3-year progression-free survival was 59% (95% CI 49-68) in the Unfav-dose-dense group versus 48% (38-59) in the Unfav-BEP group (HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·44-1·00, p=0·05). 3-year progression-free survival was 70% (95% CI 57-81) in the Fav-BEP group (HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·49-0·88, p=0·01 for progression-free survival compared with the Unfav-BEP group). More grade 3-4 neurotoxic events (seven [7%] vs one [1%]) and haematotoxic events occurred in the Unfav-dose-dense group compared with in the Unfav-BEP group; there was no difference in grade 1-2 febrile neutropenia (18 [17%] vs 18 [18%]) or toxic deaths (one [1%] in both groups). Salvage high-dose chemotherapy plus a stem-cell transplant was required in six (6%) patients in the Unfav-dose-dense group and 16 (16%) in the Unfav-BEP group. INTERPRETATION: Personalised treatment with chemotherapy intensification reduces the risk of progression or death in patients with poor prognosis germ-cell tumours and an unfavourable tumour marker decline. FUNDING: Institut National du Cancer (Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique).

Long clinical benefit achieved in two patients with malignant paraganglioma treated by metronomic cyclophosphamide.

Treatment of malignant paraganglioma remains a challenge with an overall 5-year survival rate between 34 and 60%. Systemic treatment is recommended in case of unresectable malignant paraganglioma. Recent advances in molecular biology provided rationale to use antiangiogenic agents in this setting. Metronomic cyclophosphamide could be efficient by antiangiogenic effect and immune stimulation with a good safety profile. Here, we report two cases of malignant paraganglioma in frail and symptomatic patients, achieving a long-term clinical benefit with such regimen, after progression or toxicity with sunitinib.

The testosterone replacement therapy for prostate cancer patients: Time to take the leap?

The advent of new systemic therapies resulted in a significant decrease in prostate cancer (PCa) death in the past decades. It comes at the cost of an increase in the proportion of men living with long-term treatment-induced hypogonadism. In a population of men with no history of PCa, the testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) proved its ability to both improve erectile function and reduce cardiovascular morbidity, translating into an improved overall survival. Whether TRT is safe and efficient in PCa patients remains an open question. Here, we present an overview on the safety of TRT for PCa patients and discuss the optimal population eligible for TRT after the PCa treatment.

Short-term Darolutamide (ODM-201) Concomitant to Radiation Therapy for Patients with Unfavorable Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: The Darius (AFU-GETUG P15) Phase 2 Trial Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Combination of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is a standard of care for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (PCa). However, 6 months of ADT generates multiple side effects impacting quality of life (QoL). Darolutamide (an androgen receptor targeting agent [ARTA]) is associated with low blood-brain barrier penetrance and less drug-drug interaction. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of a combination of 6 months of darolutamide with EBRT to treat patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk PCa. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The DARIUS trial is a multicenter randomized non comparative phase 2 trial, randomizing the 6-months darolutamide + EBRT arm versus 6-months ADT + EBRT in patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk PCa. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint is a biological response defined as prostate-specific antigen ≤0.1 ng/ml at month six of darolutamide or ADT. The key secondary endpoints are biochemical recurrence-free survival, disease-free survival, safety, and QoL. Ancillary studies using radiomics and genomic classifier are planned. Sixty-two patients will be included. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In this population of patients requiring ADT combined with EBRT, the use of an ARTA alone, such as darolutamide, may demonstrate antitumoral efficacy while minimizing toxicity and maintaining QoL. Limitations are mainly inherent to the open-label design of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Six months of darolutamide + EBRT compared with 6 months of ADT + EBRT may be efficient in terms of a biological response, avoiding toxicity and altered QoL attributable to ADT in patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: The ongoing DARIUS clinical trial assesses short-term (6 months) darolutamide treatment in association with external beam radiation therapy in men with localized prostate cancer. The trial investigates whether single-agent darolutamide can improve the biological response while maintaining a favorable tolerability profile.

PARP inhibitors in prostate cancers, is it time for combinations?

Despite several improvements in outcomes, metastatic prostate cancer remains deadly. Alterations in the homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway are associated with more aggressive disease. Olaparib and rucaparib, two poly-ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, have received approval from the authorities of several countries for their anti-tumoral effects in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers harboring HRR gene alterations, in particular BRCA2. More recently, it has been hypothesized that new hormonal therapies (NHTs) and PARP inhibitors (PARPi) could have synergistic actions and act independently of HRR deficiency. This review proposes to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of PARPi used as monotherapy or in combination with NHTs and whether there is a need for molecular selection.

Circulating Biomarkers Predictive of Treatment Response in Patients with Hormone-sensitive or Castration-resistant Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) harbors genomic alterations that may predict targeted therapy efficacy. These alterations can be identified not only in tissue but also directly in biologic fluids (ie, liquid biopsies), mainly blood. Liquid biopsies may represent a safer and less invasive alternative for monitoring patients treated for mPCa. Current research focuses on the description and validation of novel predictive biomarkers to improve precision medicine in mPCa. Our aim was to systematically review the current evidence on liquid biopsy biomarkers for predicting treatment response in mPCa. METHODS: We systematically searched Medline, Web of Science, and evidence-based websites for publications on circulating biomarkers in mPCa between March 2013 and February 2024 for review. Endpoints were: prediction of overall survival, biochemical or radiographic progression-free survival after treatment (chemotherapy, androgen deprivation therapy, androgen receptor pathway inhibitors [ARPIs], immunotherapy, or PARP inhibitors [PARPIs]). For each biomarker, the level of evidence (LOE) for clinical validity was attributed: LOE IA and IB, high level of evidence; LOE IIB and IIC, intermediate level; and LOE IIIC and LOE IV-VD, weak level. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: The predictive value of each biomarker for the response to several therapies was evaluated in both metastatic hormone-sensitive (mHSPC) and castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). In patients with mCRPC, BRCA1/2 or ATM mutations predicted response to ARPIs (LOE IB) and PARPIs (LOE IIB), while AR-V7 transcripts or AR-V7 protein levels in circulating tumor cells (CTCs) predicted response to ARPIs and taxanes (LOE IB). CTC quantification predicted response to cabazitaxel, abiraterone, and radium-223 (LOE IIB), while TP53 alterations predicted response to 177Lu prostate-specific membrane antigen radioligand treatment (LOE IIB). AR copy number in circulating tumor DNA before the first treatment line and before subsequent lines predicted response to docetaxel, cabazitaxel, and ARPIs (LOE IIB). In mHSPC, DNA damage in lymphocytes was predictive of the response to radium-223 (LOE IIB). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: BRCA1/2, ATM, and AR alterations detected in liquid biopsies may help clinicians in management of patients with mPCa. The other circulating biomarkers did not reach the LOE required for routine clinical use and should be validated in prospective independent studies. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed studies assessing the value of biomarkers in blood or urine for management of metastatic prostate cancer. The evidence indicates that some biomarkers could help in selecting patients eligible for specific treatments.