Clinicopathologic factors that influence prognosis and survival outcomes in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with Radium-223.

BACKGROUND: In men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with primarily bone metastases, radium-223 (223 Ra) improves overall survival (OS). However, the selection of 223 Ra is not guided by specific validated clinicopathologic factors, and thus outcomes are heterogeneous. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective survival analysis was performed in men with mCRPC treated with 223 Ra at our cancer center. Demographics and disease characteristics were collected. OS was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method (log-rank). The potential prognostic factors were determined using both univariable (UVA) and multivariable analysis (MVA) (Cox-regression) methods. RESULTS: In total, 150 patients with a median age of 74 years (52-93) received 223 Ra between May 2015 and July 2018, and 58% had 6-20 bone metastases. Ninety-four (63%) patients received >4 223 Ra doses, and 56 (37%) received ≤4. The following pre-treatment factors were analyzed (median [range]): eastern cooperative oncology group performance status (ECOG PS), (1 [0-3]); Albumin (ALB), (39 g/L [24-47]); alkaline phosphatase (ALP), (110 U/L [35-1633]); and prostate-specific antigen (PSA), (49 µg/L [0.83-7238]). The median OS for all patients was 14.5 months (95% CI: 11.2-18). These factors were associated with poor survival outcomes in UVA and MVA: ALB <35 g/L, ALP >150 U/L, ECOG PS 2-3, and PSA >80 µg/L. By assigning one point for each of these factors, a prognostic model was developed, wherein three distinct risk groups were identified: good, 0-1 (n = 103); intermediate, 2 (n = 30); and poor risk, 3-4 points (n = 17). The median OS was 19.4, 10.0, and 3.1 months, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-treatment ALB, ALP, ECOG, and PSA, were significantly correlated with OS and could guide treatment selection for men with mCRPC by identifying those who are most or least likely to benefit from 223 Ra. Validation in an independent dataset is required prior to widespread clinical utilization.

Impact of adjuvant therapy in patients with a microscopically positive margin after resection for gastric and esophageal cancers.

BACKGROUND: A microscopically positive (R1) resection margin following resection for gastric and esophageal cancers has been documented to be a poor prognostic factor. The optimal strategy and impact of different modalities of adjuvant treatment for an R1 resection margin remain unclear. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed for patients with gastric and esophageal adenocarcinoma treated at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PMCC) from 2006-2016. Electronic medical records of all patients with an R1 resection margin were reviewed. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods were used to analyze recurrence free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) with stage and neoadjuvant treatment as covariates in the multivariate analysis. RESULTS: We identified 69 gastric and esophageal adenocarcinoma patients with a R1 resection. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation was used in 13% of patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 12%, surgery alone in 75%. Margins involved included proximal in 30%, distal in 14%, radial in 52% and multiple margins in 3% of patients. Pathological staging showed 3% with stage I disease, 20% stage II and 74% stage III. Adjuvant therapy was given in 52% of R1 pts (28% CRT, 20% chemotherapy alone, 3% radiation alone, 1% reoperation). Median RFS was 14.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 11.1-17.2]. The site of first recurrence was 72% distant, 12% mixed, 16% locoregional alone. Median OS was 34.5 months (95% CI, 23.3-57.9) for all patients. There was no significant difference in RFS (adjusted P=0.26) or OS (adjusted P=0.83) comparing modality of adjuvant therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with positive margins after resection for gastric and esophageal cancer had advanced pathologic stage and prognosis was poor. Our study did not find improved RFS or OS with adjuvant treatment and only one patient had reresection. The main failure pattern was distant recurrence, suggesting that patients being considered for adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) should be carefully selected. Further studies are required to determine factors to select patients with good prognosis despite a positive margin, or those who may benefit from adjuvant treatment.

Surveillance and outcomes after curative resection for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The goal of surveillance testing is to enable curative salvage therapy through early disease detection, however supporting evidence in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma is limited. We evaluated frequency of successful salvage therapy and outcomes in patients who underwent surveillance. METHODS: A single-site, retrospective cohort study was conducted to identify all patients who received curative resection for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Surveillance testing were those investigations not triggered by abnormal symptoms, physical examination, or blood tests. Successful salvage therapy was any potentially curative therapy for disease recurrence which resulted in postrecurrence disease-free survival ≥2 years. Time-to-event data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and log rank tests. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2016, 210 consecutive patients were reviewed. Esophageal (14%), gastroesophageal junction (40%), and gastric adenocarcinomas (45%) were treated with surgery alone (29%) or multimodality therapy (71%). Adjuvant therapy was administered in 35%. At median follow-up of 38.3 months, 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 56%. Among 97 recurrences, 53% were surveillance-detected, and 46% were symptomatic. None was detected by surveillance endoscopy. Median time-to-recurrence (TTR) was 14.8 months. Recurrences included locoregional only (4%), distant (86%), and both (10%). Salvage therapy was attempted in 15 patients, 4 were successful. Compared to symptomatic recurrences, patients with surveillance-detected recurrences had longer median OS (36.2 vs 23.7 months, P = .004) and postrecurrence survival (PRS, 16.5 vs 4.6 months, P < .001), but similar TTR (16.2 vs 13.3 months, P = .40) and duration of palliative chemotherapy (3.9 vs 3.3 months, P = .64). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients surveyed, 96% of recurrences were distant, and salvage therapy was successful in only 1.9% of patients. Longer OS in patients with surveillance-detected compared to symptomatic recurrences was not associated with significant earlier disease detection, and may be contributed by differences in disease biology. Further prospective data are warranted to establish the benefit of surveillance testing in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Application of the ASCO Value Framework and ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale to Assess the Value of Abiraterone and Enzalutamide in Advanced Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: As novel hormonal therapies, such as abiraterone and enzalutamide, move into earlier stages of treatment of advanced prostate cancer, there are significant cost implications. We used the ASCO Value Framework (AVF) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) to quantify and compare the incremental clinical benefit and costs of these agents in the metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) settings. METHODS: We searched PubMed for randomized phase III trials of abiraterone and enzalutamide in mCRPC and mCSPC. Incremental clinical benefit was quantified using the AVF and ESMO-MCBS by 2 independent assessors. Incremental drug costs were calculated using average wholesale prices (AWPs) from the RED BOOK Online. RESULTS: In mCRPC, 2 abiraterone trials (COU-AA-301 and COU-AA-302) and 2 enzalutamide trials (AFFIRM and PREVAIL) met search criteria. AVF scores ranged from 46.3 to 66.6, suggesting clinical benefit; ESMO-MCBS scores ranged from 3 to 5, with lower clinical benefit in the mCRPC predocetaxel setting. The overall incremental AWP ranged from $83,460.94 to $205,128.85. In mCSPC, 4 trials met criteria (LATITUDE, STAMPEDE, ENZAMET, and ARCHES; AVF scores were 79.8, 33.3, 59, and 17, respectively). All of the studies showed benefit except ARCHES. By ESMO-MCBS, both LATITUDE and STAMPEDE showed benefit (score for 4 for both studies); ENZAMET and ARCHES were not evaluable. The overall cost of treatment was significantly higher in the mCSPC setting. CONCLUSION: The AVF and ESMO-MCBS frameworks generated slightly different results but suggested that abiraterone and enzalutamide show clinical benefit in both mCRPC and mCSPC but trended to lower clinical benefit and increased costs in earlier disease stages. Further refinement of the AVF and ESMO-MCBS is needed to facilitate their use and their ability to inform clinical practice in a rapidly changing treatment landscape.