Treatment of Metastatic, Castration-resistant, Docetaxel-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of Literature With a Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

INTRODUCTION: To compare the efficacy of abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel and Radium-223 in the treatment of castration-resistant, docetaxel-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. METHODS: An indirect comparison of Overall Survival (OS) and time to PSA progression among abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel and Radium-223 was performed with a network metaanalysis. OS in the entire population of patients was the primary endpoint. OS in ECOG 0-1/2, BPISF≤ 4/>4, pretreated with 1 or 2 courses of chemotherapy, age≤65/>65 patients, patients with only bone metastases or bone and visceral metastases, and time to PSA progression were the secondary endpoints. An indirect comparison of the Hazard Ratio and the 95% Confidence Interval was performed, assuming an alpha error of 5% as an index of statistical significance. The among-the-trial heterogeneity was assessed using a qualitative methodological and clinical analysis. RESULTS: Four trials were selected. In three trials, the comparator was placebo, in one trial it was mitoxantrone, the effect of which in improving survival was considered negligible. No significant difference in OS among abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel and radium 223 was observed in neither the entire population nor all the subgroups of patients. Enzalutamide resulted significantly better than abiraterone acetate, cabazitaxel or radium-223 in time to PSA progression. CONCLUSION: Since no significant difference in efficacy seems to exist between the four therapeutic options in the treatment of castration-resistant, docetaxel-resistant, metastatic prostate cancer, the safety of the treatment, patient's compliance and costs should represent the criteria to guide clinicians' choice in clinical practice.

A validation study of the WHO analgesic ladder: a two-step vs three-step strategy.

GOALS OF WORK: The aims of the present study were to verify whether an innovative therapeutic strategy for the treatment of mild-moderate chronic cancer pain, passing directly from step I to step III of the WHO analgesic ladder, is more effective than the traditional three-step strategy and to evaluate the tolerability and therapeutic index in both strategies. METHODS: Patients aged 18 years or older with multiple viscera or bone metastases or with locally advanced disease were randomized. Pain intensity was assessed using a 0-10 numerical rating scale based on four questions selected from the validated Italian version of the Brief Pain Inventory. Treatment-specific variables and other symptoms were recorded at baseline up to a maximum follow-up of 90 days per patient. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were randomized onto the study, and pain intensity was assessed over a period of 2,649 days. The innovative treatment presented a statistically significant advantage over the traditional strategy in terms of the percentage of days with worst pain > or =5 (22.8 vs 28.6%, p < 0.001) and > or =7 (8.6 vs 11.2%, p = 0.023). Grades 3 and 4 anorexia and constipation were more frequently reported in the innovative strategy arm, although prophylactic laxative therapy was used less in this setting. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary data would seem to suggest that a direct move to the third step of the WHO analgesic ladder is feasible and could reduce some pain scores but also requires careful management of side effects.