Validation of metastasis-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in localized prostate cancer in the era of docetaxel for castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prior work from the Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate (ICECaP) consortium (ICECaP-1) demonstrated that metastasis-free survival (MFS) is a valid surrogate for overall survival (OS) in localized prostate cancer (PCa). This was based on data from patients treated predominantly before 2004, prior to docetaxel being available for the treatment of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We sought to validate surrogacy in a more contemporary era (ICECaP-2) with greater availability of docetaxel and other systemic therapies for mCRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible trials for ICECaP-2 were those providing individual patient data (IPD) after publication of ICECaP-1 and evaluating adjuvant/salvage therapy for localized PCa, and which collected MFS and OS data. MFS was defined as distant metastases or death from any cause, and OS was defined as death from any cause. Surrogacy was evaluated using a meta-analytic two-stage validation model, with an R2 ≥ 0.7 defined a priori as clinically relevant. RESULTS: A total of 15 164 IPD from 14 trials were included in ICECaP-2, with 70% of patients treated after 2004. The median follow-up was 8.3 years and the median postmetastasis survival was 3.1 years in ICECaP-2, compared with 1.9 years in ICECaP-1. For surrogacy condition 1, Kendall's tau was 0.92 for MFS with OS at the patient level, and R2 from weighted linear regression (WLR) of 8-year OS on 5-year MFS was 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.53-0.82) at the trial level. For condition 2, R2 was 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.64-0.89) from WLR of log[hazard ratio (HR)]-OS on log(HR)-MFS. The surrogate threshold effect on OS was an HR(MFS) of 0.81. CONCLUSIONS: MFS remained a valid surrogate for OS in a more contemporary era, where patients had greater access to docetaxel and other systemic therapies for mCRPC. This supports the use of MFS as the primary outcome measure for ongoing adjuvant trials in localized PCa.

Darolutamide and survival in nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer: a patient perspective of the ARAMIS trial.

This is a summary of a publication about the ARAMIS (Androgen Receptor Antagonizing Agent for Metastasis-free Survival) trial, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in September 2020. The trial was in adult participants with nonmetastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) who received a trial treatment called darolutamide (brand name Nubeqa®). Darolutamide is currently available as an oral treatment for adults with nmCRPC. The ARAMIS trial looked at darolutamide taken by mouth in 1509 participants from 36 countries with nmCRPC (prostate cancer that has not spread to other parts of the body and no longer responds adequately to initial hormone therapy). The trial showed that darolutamide in addition to hormone therapy increased the length of time that the trial participants were still alive for and lowered the risk of death by 31% compared with placebo (sugar pill) and hormone therapy. The participants who received darolutamide and hormone therapy also had longer time to worsening pain, needing chemotherapy, and having cancer-related bone fractures or symptoms related to cancer-related bone fractures compared with those who received placebo and hormone therapy during the trial. In general, the percentage of participants who experienced medical problems (referred to as adverse events) was similar between those who received darolutamide and those who received placebo, in addition to hormone therapy. This summary also includes insights and perspectives from a participant who was in the ARAMIS trial and from a prostate cancer patient advocate. To read the full Plain Language Summary of this article, click on the View Article button above and download the PDF. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02200614 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Clinical outcomes in men of diverse ethnic backgrounds with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: We have shown previously in multivariable analysis that black men had 19% lower risk of death than white men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with a docetaxel and prednisone (DP)-based regimen. The primary goal of this analysis was to compare progression-free survival (PFS), biochemical PFS, ≥50% decline in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) from baseline and objective response rate (ORR) in white, black and Asian men with mCRPC treated with a DP-based regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from 8820 mCRPC men randomized on nine phase III trials to a DP-containing regimen were combined. Race used in the analysis was based on self-report. End points were PFS, biochemical PSA, ≥50% decline in PSA from baseline and ORR. The proportional hazards and the logistic regression models were employed to assess the prognostic importance of race in predicting outcomes adjusting for established prognostic factors. RESULTS: Of 8820 patients, 7528 (85%) were white, 500 (6%) were black, 424 were Asian (5%) and 368 (4%) had race unspecified. Median PFS were 8.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.2-8.5], 8.2 (95% CI 7.4-8.8) and 8.3 (95% CI 7.6-8.8) months in white, black and Asian men, respectively. Median PSA PFS were 9.9 (95% CI 9.7-10.4), 8.5 (95% CI 8.0-10.3) and 11.1 (95% CI 9.9-12.5) months in white, black and Asian men, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We observed no differences in clinical outcomes by race and ethnic groups in men with mCRPC enrolled on these phase III clinical trials with DP.

Development and validation of a prognostic model for overall survival in chemotherapy-naïve men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Background: Prognostic models are needed that reflect contemporary practice for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We sought to identify predictive and prognostic variables for overall survival (OS) in chemotherapy-naïve men with mCRPC treated with enzalutamide. Patients and methods: Patients from the PREVAIL trial database (enzalutamide versus placebo) were randomly split 2 : 1 into training (n = 1159) and testing (n = 550) sets. Using the training set, 23 predefined variables were analyzed and a multivariable model predicting OS was developed and validated in an independent testing set. Results: Patient characteristics and outcomes were well balanced between training and testing sets; median OS was 32.7 months in each. The final validated multivariable model included 11 independent prognostic variables. Median OS for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups (testing set) defined by prognostic risk tertiles were not yet reached (NYR) (95% CI NYR-NYR), 34.2 months (31.5-NYR), and 21.1 months (17.5-25.0), respectively. Hazard ratios (95% CI) for OS in the low- and intermediate-risk groups versus high-risk group were 0.20 (0.14-0.29) and 0.40 (0.30-0.53), respectively. Secondary outcomes of response and progression differed widely in model-defined risk groups. Enzalutamide improved outcomes in all prognostic risk groups. Conclusions: Our validated prognostic model incorporates variables routinely collected in chemotherapy-naïve men with mCRPC treated with enzalutamide, identifying subsets of patients with widely differing survival outcomes that provide useful information for external validation, patient care, and clinical trial design. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01212991.

What is the optimal systemic treatment of men with metastatic, hormone-naive prostate cancer? A STOPCAP systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: Our prior Systemic Treatment Options for Cancer of the Prostate systematic reviews showed improved survival for men with metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer when abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone/prednisone (AAP) or docetaxel (Doc), but not zoledronic acid (ZA), were added to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Trial evidence also suggests a benefit of combining celecoxib (Cel) with ZA and ADT. To establish the optimal treatments, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was carried out based on aggregate data (AD) from all available studies. Methods: Overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival data from completed Systemic Treatment Options for Cancer of the Prostate reviews of Doc, ZA and AAP and from recent trials of ZA and Cel contributed to this comprehensive AD-NMA. The primary outcome was OS. Correlations between treatment comparisons within one multi-arm, multi-stage trial were estimated from control-arm event counts. Network consistency and a common heterogeneity variance were assumed. Results: We identified 10 completed trials which had closed to recruitment, and one trial in which recruitment was ongoing, as eligible for inclusion. Results are based on six trials including 6204 men (97% of men randomised in all completed trials). Network estimates of effects on OS were consistent with reported comparisons with ADT alone for AAP [hazard ration (HR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.71], Doc (HR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.87), ZA + Cel (HR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.97), ZA + Doc (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94), Cel (HR = 0.94 95% CI 0.75-1.17) and ZA (HR = 0.90 95% CI 0.79-1.03). The effect of ZA + Cel is consistent with the additive effects of the individual treatments. Results suggest that AAP has the highest probability of being the most effective treatment both for OS (94% probability) and failure-free survival (100% probability). Doc was the second-best treatment of OS (35% probability). Conclusions: Uniquely, we have included all available results and appropriately accounted for inclusion of multi-arm, multi-stage trials in this AD-NMA. Our results support the use of AAP or Doc with ADT in men with metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer. AAP appears to be the most effective treatment, but it is not clear to what extent and whether this is due to a true increased benefit with AAP or the variable features of the individual trials. To fully account for patient variability across trials, changes in prognosis or treatment effects over time and the potential impact of treatment on progression, a network meta-analysis based on individual participant data is in development.

ESMO Consensus Conference on testicular germ cell cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) consensus conference on testicular cancer was held on 3-5 November 2016 in Paris, France. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 36 leading experts in the diagnosis and treatment of testicular cancer (34 panel members attended the conference; an additional two panel members [CB and K-PD] participated in all preparatory work and subsequent manuscript development). The aim of the conference was to develop detailed recommendations on topics relating to testicular cancer that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) and where the available level of evidence is insufficient. The main topics identified for discussion related to: (1) diagnostic work-up and patient assessment; (2) stage I disease; (3) stage II-III disease; (4) post-chemotherapy surgery, salvage chemotherapy, salvage and desperation surgery and special topics; and (5) survivorship and follow-up schemes. The experts addressed questions relating to one of the five topics within five working groups. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel. A consensus vote was obtained following whole-panel discussions, and the consensus recommendations were then further developed in post-meeting discussions in written form. This manuscript presents the results of the expert panel discussions, including the consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study of maintenance therapy with tasquinimod in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer responsive to or stabilized during first-line docetaxel chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: This phase II study was conducted to assess clinical efficacy of tasquinimod maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer not progressing during first-line docetaxel-based therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to receive tasquinimod (0.25-1.0 mg/day orally) or placebo. The primary end point was radiologic progression-free survival (rPFS); secondary efficacy end points included: overall survival (OS); PFS on next-line therapy (PFS 2) and symptomatic PFS, assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) questionnaire and analgesic use. Quality of life was measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire and by the EuroQol-5 Dimension Quality of Life Instrument (EQ-5D). Adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients were screened and 144 patients randomized. The median duration of treatment was 18.7 weeks (range 0.6-102.7 weeks) for the tasquinimod arm and 19.2 weeks (range 0.4-80.0 weeks) for the placebo arm. Median (90% CI) rPFS was 31.7 (24.3-53.7) and 22.7 (16.1-25.9) weeks in the tasquinimod and placebo arms, respectively [HR (90% CI) 0.6 (0.4-0.9), P = 0.0162]. The median OS was not reached because only 14 deaths occurred by the cut-off date. No statistically significant differences between treatment arms were noted for symptomatic PFS, PFS 2, BPI score, FACT-P score, or EQ-5D. The incidence of any treatment emergent adverse event (TEAE) was similar in the tasquinimod and placebo arms (97.2% versus 94.3%, respectively), whereas severe TEAEs (NCI-CTC Grade 3-5) incidence was higher in the tasquinimod group (50.7% versus 27.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Randomized trials testing new drugs as maintenance can be successfully conducted after chemotherapy in castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Maintenance tasquinimod therapy significantly reduced the risk of rPFS by 40%. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier NCT01732549.

Phase I/II trial of cabazitaxel plus abiraterone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) progressing after docetaxel and abiraterone.

Background: Abiraterone and cabazitaxel improve survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We conducted an open-label phase I/II trial of cabazitaxel plus abiraterone to assess the antitumor activity and tolerability in patients with progressive mCRPC after docetaxel (phase I), and after docetaxel and abiraterone (phase II) (NCT01511536). Patients and methods: The primary objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of cabazitaxel plus abiraterone (phase I), and the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response defined as a ≥ 50% decrease confirmed ≥3 weeks later with this combination (phase II). Results: Ten patients were enrolled in the phase I component; nine were evaluable. No DLTs were identified. The MTD was established as the approved doses for both drugs (cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 every 3 weeks and abiraterone 1000 mg once daily). Daily abiraterone treatment did not impact on cabazitaxel clearance. Twenty-seven patients received cabazitaxel plus abiraterone plus prednisone (5 mg twice daily) in phase II. The median number of cycles administered (cabazitaxel) was seven (range: 1-28). Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events included asthenia (in 5 patients; 14%), neutropenia (in 5 patients; 14%) and diarrhea (in 3 patients; 8%). Nine patients (24%) required dose reductions of cabazitaxel. Of 26 evaluable patients, 12 achieved a PSA response [46%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 26.6-66.6%]. Median PSA-progression-free survival was 6.9 months (95% CI: 4.1-10.3 months). Of 14 patients with measurable disease at baseline, 3 (21%) achieved a partial response per response evaluation criteria in solid tumors. Conclusions: The combination of cabazitaxel and abiraterone has a manageable safety profile and shows antitumor activity in patients previously treated with docetaxel and abiraterone.

Does Gleason score at initial diagnosis predict efficacy of abiraterone acetate therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer? An analysis of abiraterone acetate phase III trials.

BACKGROUND: The usefulness of Gleason score (<8 or ≥8) at initial diagnosis as a predictive marker of response to abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) was explored retrospectively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Initial diagnosis Gleason score was obtained in 1048 of 1195 (COU-AA-301, post-docetaxel) and 996 of 1088 (COU-AA-302, chemotherapy-naïve) patients treated with AA 1 g plus prednisone 5 mg twice daily by mouth or placebo plus prednisone. Efficacy end points included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS). Distributions and medians were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) by Cox model. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar across studies and treatment groups. Regardless of Gleason score, AA treatment significantly improved rPFS in post-docetaxel [Gleason score <8: median, 6.4 versus 5.5 months (HR = 0.70; 95% CI 0.56-0.86), P = 0.0009 and Gleason score ≥8: median, 5.6 versus 2.9 months (HR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.48-0.72), P < 0.0001] and chemotherapy-naïve patients [Gleason score <8: median, 16.5 versus 8.2 months (HR = 0.50; 95% CI 0.40-0.62), P < 0.0001 and Gleason score ≥8: median, 13.8 versus 8.2 months (HR = 0.61; 95% CI 0.49-0.76), P < 0.0001]. Clinical benefit of AA treatment was also observed for OS, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, objective response and time to PSA progression across studies and Gleason score subgroups. CONCLUSION: OS and rPFS trends demonstrate AA treatment benefit in patients with pre- or post-chemotherapy mCRPC regardless of Gleason score at initial diagnosis. The initial diagnostic Gleason score in patients with mCRPC should not be considered in the decision to treat with AA, as tumour metastases may no longer reflect the histology at the time of diagnosis. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: COU-AA-301 (NCT00638690); COU-AA-302 (NCT00887198).

A prognostic index model for predicting overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with abiraterone acetate after docetaxel.

BACKGROUND: Few prognostic models for overall survival (OS) are available for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with recently approved agents. We developed a prognostic index model using readily available clinical and laboratory factors from a phase III trial of abiraterone acetate (hereafter abiraterone) in combination with prednisone in post-docetaxel mCRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Baseline data were available from 762 patients treated with abiraterone-prednisone. Factors were assessed for association with OS through a univariate Cox model and used in a multivariate Cox model with a stepwise procedure to identify those of significance. Data were validated using an independent, external, population-based cohort. RESULTS: Six risk factors individually associated with poor prognosis were included in the final model: lactate dehydrogenase > upper limit of normal (ULN) [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.31], Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 (HR = 2.19), presence of liver metastases (HR = 2.00), albumin ≤4 g/dl (HR = 1.54), alkaline phosphatase > ULN (HR = 1.38) and time from start of initial androgen-deprivation therapy to start of treatment ≤36 months (HR = 1.30). Patients were categorized into good (n = 369, 46%), intermediate (n = 321, 40%) and poor (n = 107, 13%) prognosis groups based on the number of risk factors and relative HRs. The C-index was 0.70 ± 0.014. The model was validated by the external dataset (n = 286). CONCLUSION: This analysis identified six factors used to model survival in mCRPC and categorized patients into three distinct risk groups. Prognostic stratification with this model could assist clinical practice decisions for follow-up and monitoring, and may aid in clinical trial design. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT00638690.

Vimentin and Ki67 expression in circulating tumour cells derived from castrate-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: High circulating tumor cell (CTC) counts are associated with poor prognosis in advanced prostate cancer, and recently CTC number was suggested to be a surrogate for survival in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Ki67 and vimentin are well-characterised markers of tumour cell proliferation and the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), respectively. Here we asked if the expression of vimentin and Ki67 in CTCs offered prognostic or predictive information in mCRPC. METHODS: In two separate patient cohorts, anti-vimentin or anti-Ki67 antibodies were added to the free channel in the CellSearch® system for analysis of peripheral blood samples. For each cohort, association of CTC number with clinical characteristics were assessed using Fisher's exact, Mann-Whitney and chi-squared tests. Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests were used to analyse overall survival (OS) of vimentin-expressing and Ki67-expressing CTC patient cohorts. RESULTS: In this retrospective analysis, CTC vimentin expression was analysed in 142 blood samples from 93 patients, and CTC Ki67 expression was analysed in 90 blood samples from 51 patients. In the vimentin cohort, 80/93 (86 %) of baseline samples from patients were CTC-positive overall (≥1 total CTC per 7.5 mls blood), and 30/93 (32.3 %) vimentin CTC-positive (≥1 vimentin-positive CTC per 7.5 mls blood). 41/51 (80.4 %) of baseline samples from patients in the Ki67 cohort were CTC-positive overall, and 23/51 (45.1 %) Ki67 CTC-positive (≥1 Ki67-positive CTC per 7.5 mls blood). There was no significant difference in baseline PSA in patients with vimentin-positive CTC at baseline versus those with no vimentin-positive CTC at baseline (p = 0.33). A significant reduction in OS was shown in patients with vimentin-positive CTC compared to those without vimentin-positive CTC (median 305 days vs 453 days, p = 0.0293). There was no significant difference in baseline PSA in patients with Ki67-positive CTC at baseline versus those without Ki67-positive CTC (p = 0.228), but OS was significantly reduced in the Ki67-positive CTC group (median 512 days vs 751 days, p = 0.0091). No changes in relative proportion of vimentin- or Ki67-positive CTCs were observed in post-treatment samples compared to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of vimentin and Ki67 expression can straightforwardly be assessed in CTCs from patients with mCRPC. Poorer survival outcomes were observed in vimentin- and Ki67-positive CTC patients. TRANSLATIONAL STUDY PROTOCOLS: CEC-CTC (IDRCB2008-AOO585-50) and Petrus ( NCT01786031 ).

Should docetaxel be standard of care for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer? Pro and contra.

Following the results of the TAX-327 study, questions have been raised as to whether administering chemotherapy to men with prostate cancer before symptomatic disease progression when receiving standard hormonal treatment can improve the duration and quality of patient survival. The GETUG-AFU-15 and CHAARTED studies both assessed the efficacy and tolerability of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without docetaxel in men with metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer. Both studies included a mix of patients with de novo metastatic disease (∼75%) and patients who developed metastases following treatment of localized disease. A short course of ADT was allowed in both trials prior to accrual. Key differences between the two studies include the number of patients with high-volume metastases (GETUG-AFU-15: 52%; CHAARTED: 65%) and number of docetaxel cycles (GETUG-AFU-15: up to nine cycles; CHAARTED six cycles). Both studies reported an improvement in progression-free survival with docetaxel plus ADT versus ADT alone. The GETUG-AFU-15 did not find a significant difference in the primary end point of overall survival (OS) {hazard ratio (HR) 0.9 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7-1.2]; P = 0.44} for ADT plus docetaxel versus ADT alone. The CHAARTED study met the primary end point of OS [HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.47-0.80); P = 0.0003], and in a subset analysis reported the greatest improvement in OS for patients with high-volume disease [HR 0.60 (95% CI 0.45-0.81); P = 0.0006]. The following article debates the results from the GETUG-AFU-15 and CHAARTED studies and asks whether medical practice should be changed for patients with metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer based on the results of one positive study.

Impact of enzalutamide on quality of life in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy: additional analyses from the AFFIRM randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: To present longitudinal changes in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) scores during 25-week treatment with enzalutamide or placebo in men with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after chemotherapy in the AFFIRM trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to enzalutamide 160 mg/day or placebo. FACT-P was completed before randomization, at weeks 13, 17, 21, and 25, and every 12 weeks thereafter while on study treatment. Longitudinal changes in FACT-P scores from baseline to 25 weeks were analyzed using a mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM), with a pattern mixture model (PMM) applied as secondary analysis to address non-ignorable missing data. Cumulative distribution function (CDF) plots were generated and different methodological approaches and models for handling missing data were applied. Due to the exploratory nature of the analyses, adjustments for multiple comparisons were not made. AFFIRM is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00974311. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat FACT-P population included 938 patients (enzalutamide, n = 674; placebo n = 264) with evaluable FACT-P assessments at baseline and ≥1 post-baseline assessment. After 25 weeks, the mean FACT-P total score decreased by 1.52 points with enzalutamide compared with 13.73 points with placebo (P < 0.001). In addition, significant treatment differences at week 25 favoring enzalutamide were evident for all FACT-P subscales and indices, whether analyzed by MMRM or PMM. CDF plots revealed differences favoring enzalutamide compared with placebo across the full range of possible response levels for FACT-P total and all disease- and symptom-specific subscales/indices. CONCLUSION: In men with progressive mCRPC after docetaxel-based chemotherapy, enzalutamide is superior to placebo in health-related quality-of-life outcomes, regardless of analysis model or threshold selected for meaningful response. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT00974311.

Denosumab for the prevention of skeletal complications in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: comparison of skeletal-related events and symptomatic skeletal events.

BACKGROUND: In a phase III trial in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and bone metastases, denosumab was superior to zoledronic acid in reducing skeletal-related events (SREs; radiation to bone, pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, or spinal cord compression). This study reassessed the efficacy of denosumab using symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs) as a prespecified exploratory end point. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with CRPC, no previous bisphosphonate exposure, and radiographic evidence of bone metastasis were randomized to subcutaneous denosumab 120 mg plus i.v. placebo every 4 weeks (Q4W), or i.v. zoledronic acid 4 mg plus subcutaneous placebo Q4W during the blinded treatment phase. SSEs were defined as radiation to bone, symptomatic pathologic fracture, surgery to bone, or symptomatic spinal cord compression. The relationship between SSE or SRE and time to moderate/severe pain was assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form. RESULTS: Treatment with denosumab significantly reduced the risk of developing first SSE [HR, 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.93; P = 0.005] and first and subsequent SSEs (rate ratio, 0.78; 95% CI 0.65-0.92; P = 0.004) compared with zoledronic acid. The treatment differences in the number of patients with SSEs or SREs were similar (n = 48 and n = 45, respectively). Among patients with no/mild pain at baseline, both SSEs and SREs were associated with moderate/severe pain development (P < 0.0001). Fewer patients had skeletal complications, particularly fractures, when defined as SSE versus SRE. CONCLUSION: In patients with CRPC and bone metastases, denosumab reduced the risk of skeletal complications versus zoledronic acid regardless of whether the end point was defined as SSE or SRE.

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer: recommendations of the St Gallen Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2015.

The first St Gallen Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) Expert Panel identified and reviewed the available evidence for the ten most important areas of controversy in advanced prostate cancer (APC) management. The successful registration of several drugs for castration-resistant prostate cancer and the recent studies of chemo-hormonal therapy in men with castration-naïve prostate cancer have led to considerable uncertainty as to the best treatment choices, sequence of treatment options and appropriate patient selection. Management recommendations based on expert opinion, and not based on a critical review of the available evidence, are presented. The various recommendations carried differing degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of the article text and in the detailed voting results recorded in supplementary Material, available at Annals of Oncology online. Detailed decisions on treatment as always will involve consideration of disease extent and location, prior treatments, host factors, patient preferences as well as logistical and economic constraints. Inclusion of men with APC in clinical trials should be encouraged.

Improved outcomes in elderly patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with the androgen receptor inhibitor enzalutamide: results from the phase III AFFIRM trial.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, double-blind phase III AFFIRM trial demonstrated that enzalutamide, an oral androgen receptor inhibitor, significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) [median 18.4 versus 13.6 months (hazard ratio, HR) 0.63 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.53-0.75); P<0.001] compared with placebo in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who received prior docetaxel chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A post hoc analysis was carried out to assess the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide on outcomes in younger (<75 years) and elderly (≥75 years) patients in the AFFIRM population. Statistics are presented by age group (<75 years, ≥75 years) for efficacy outcomes of OS, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, PSA response, and safety. RESULTS: OS was significantly improved with enzalutamide over placebo in patients<75 years [median not yet reached versus 13.6 months; HR 0.63 (95% CI 0.52-0.78), P<0.001] and in patients ≥75 years [median 18.2 versus 13.3 months; HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.43-0.86), P=0.004], respectively. rPFS was similarly improved in both the younger [HR 0.45 (95% CI 0.38-0.53), P<0.001] and elderly patient cohorts [HR 0.27 (95% CI 0.20-0.37), P<0.001] relative to placebo, as were time to PSA progression and PSA response. Adverse events (AEs) were similar between the two enzalutamide age groups, with the exception of an increase in patients≥75 years in the rates of all grade peripheral edema (22.1% versus 12.5%), fatigue (39.7% versus 31.6%), and diarrhea (26.6% versus 19.6%). The overall grade≥3 AE rates were low with no major difference in frequency or severity between age groups or treatment arms. Five patients were reported with seizure events; three patients<75 years and two patients ≥75 years. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide significantly improves outcomes in both younger (<75 years) and elderly patients (≥75 years), with comparable safety and tolerability.