Real-world evidence of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with cabazitaxel: comparison with the randomized clinical study CARD.

BACKGROUND: The CARD study demonstrated superiority of cabazitaxel over abiraterone/enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who received prior docetaxel and progressed ≤12 months on the alternative androgen-receptor-targeted agent (ARTA). The objective was to compare characteristics and treatment patterns of patients from a real-world dataset with the CARD population. METHODS: Real-world data were collected from Medimix Live TrackerTM, a retrospective, global oncology database of healthcare professional-reported electronic patient medical forms (2001-2019), with data from patients from Europe, USA, Brazil and Japan. The database contained patient, tumor and treatment information for 12,140 patients who received ≥1 line of treatment for mCRPC. A CARD-like cohort included patients treated with docetaxel, prior abiraterone/enzalutamide and cabazitaxel. RESULTS: A large proportion of patients received ≥2 lines of ARTA (35.1%) with 42% of patients who received a first-line ARTA receiving another ARTA in second line. Of the total patients, 452 were eligible for the CARD-like cohort. Median age of the CARD-like cohort was comparable to CARD (73 vs 70 years). The CARD-like cohort had unfavorable disease characteristics vs CARD: ECOG PS ≥ 2 (45% vs 4.7%); metastasis at diagnosis (46% vs 38%) and Gleason 8-10 (65% vs 57%). More patients in the CARD-like cohort received ARTA before docetaxel (48% vs 39%) and received the first ARTA for >12 months (30% vs 17%) compared with CARD. Despite more patients in the CARD-like cohort receiving the lower 20 mg/m2 dose of cabazitaxel (55% vs 21%), cabazitaxel treatment duration was similar (21.9 vs 22.0 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: Sequential use of ARTA was frequent. Results indicate the CARD population is reflective of routine clinical practice and duration of response to cabazitaxel was similar in a real-world population.

Neutropenia, neutrophilia, and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio as prognostic markers in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Background and purpose: Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) are potentially useful prognostic markers in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This post hoc analysis investigated whether these markers can be utilized for dose considerations and evaluated the prognostic impact of leukocyte subtypes. Patients and methods: PROSELICA assessed the non-inferiority of cabazitaxel 20 mg/m2 (C20; n = 598) versus 25 mg/m2 (C25; n = 602) for overall survival (OS) in patients with mCRPC previously treated with docetaxel. The association of grade ⩾ 3 neutropenia, NLR, baseline neutrophilia and lymphopenia with OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and prostate-specific antigen response rate (PSArr) was investigated by an unplanned uni- and multivariate analyses. Results: PROSELICA confirmed the negative prognostic value of increased baseline NLR [⩾3, hazard ratio (HR) 1.40; p < 0.0001], but did not identify a subgroup of patients benefiting more from C20 or C25. In this post hoc analysis, patients who developed grade ⩾3 neutropenia (n = 673) had a significantly improved OS [∆OS = 2.7 months, HR = 0.78 (95% CI 0.68-0.89)] with the greatest advantage observed in patients with baseline neutrophilia [n = 85; 5.3 months, 0.60 (0.42-0.84)]. After adjustment for the Halabi criteria, neutropenia grade ⩾ 3 was the only biomarker that remained significantly associated with OS [ (HR 0.86 (0.75-0.98)], PFS [HR 0.78 (0.68-0.88)], and PSArr [odds ratio (OR) 1.82 (1.37-2.41)] while neutrophilia showed the strongest association with OS [1.53 (1.29-1.81)]. Conclusions: Grade ⩾ 3 neutropenia was the only leukocyte-based biomarker associated with all key outcome parameters in mCRPC patients receiving cabazitaxel and might be able to overcome the negative prognostic effect of baseline neutrophilia. NCT number: NCT01308580.

Efficacy and Safety of Cabazitaxel Versus Abiraterone or Enzalutamide in Older Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer in the CARD Study.

BACKGROUND: In the CARD study (NCT02485691), cabazitaxel significantly improved median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) versus abiraterone/enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had previously received docetaxel and progressed ≤12 mo on the alternative agent (abiraterone/enzalutamide). OBJECTIVE: To assess cabazitaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide in older (≥70 yr) and younger (<70 yr) patients in CARD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with mCRPC were randomized 1:1 to cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 plus prednisone and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg plus prednisone) or enzalutamide (160 mg). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Analyses of rPFS (primary endpoint) and safety by age were prespecified; others were post hoc. Treatment groups were compared using stratified log-rank or Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 255 patients randomized, 135 were aged ≥70 yr (median 76 yr). Cabazitaxel, compared with abiraterone/enzalutamide, significantly improved median rPFS in older (8.2 vs 4.5 mo; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38-0.89; p = 0.012) and younger (7.4 vs 3.2 mo; HR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.30-0.74; p < 0.001) patients. The median OS of cabazitaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide was 13.9 versus 9.4 mo in older patients (HR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.41-1.06; p = 0.084), and it was 13.6 versus 11.8 mo in younger patients (HR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.41-1.08; p = 0.093). Progression-free survival, prostate-specific antigen, and tumor and pain responses favored cabazitaxel, regardless of age. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 58% versus 49% of older patients receiving cabazitaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide and 48% versus 42% of younger patients. In older patients, cardiac adverse events were more frequent with abiraterone/enzalutamide; asthenia and diarrhea were more frequent with cabazitaxel. CONCLUSIONS: Cabazitaxel improved efficacy outcomes versus abiraterone/enzalutamide in patients with mCRPC after prior docetaxel and abiraterone/enzalutamide, regardless of age. TEAEs were more frequent among older patients. The cabazitaxel safety profile was manageable across age groups. PATIENT SUMMARY: Clinical trial data showed that cabazitaxel improved survival versus abiraterone/enzalutamide with manageable side effects in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had previously received docetaxel and the alternative agent (abiraterone/enzalutamide), irrespective of age.

Elucidating Prostate Cancer Behaviour During Treatment via Low-pass Whole-genome Sequencing of Circulating Tumour DNA.

BACKGROUND: Better blood tests to elucidate the behaviour of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are urgently needed to drive therapeutic decisions. Plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) comprises normal and circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA). Low-pass whole-genome sequencing (lpWGS) of ctDNA can provide information on mCRPC behaviour. OBJECTIVE: To validate and clinically qualify plasma lpWGS for mCRPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Plasma lpWGS data were obtained for mCRPC patients consenting to optional substudies of two prospective phase 3 trials (FIRSTANA and PROSELICA). In FIRSTANA, chemotherapy-naïve patients were randomised to treatment with docetaxel (75 mg/m2) or cabazitaxel (20 or 25 mg/m2). In PROSELICA, patients previously treated with docetaxel were randomised to 20 or 25 mg/m2 cabazitaxel. lpWGS data were generated from 540 samples from 188 mCRPC patients acquired at four different time points (screening, cycle 1, cycle 4, and end of study). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: lpWGS data for ctDNA were evaluated for prognostic, response, and tumour genomic measures. Associations with response and survival data were determined for tumour fraction. Genomic biomarkers including large-scale transition (LST) scores were explored in the context of prior treatments. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Plasma tumour fraction was prognostic for overall survival in univariable and stratified multivariable analyses (hazard ratio 1.75, 95% confidence interval 1.08-2.85; p = 0.024) and offered added value compared to existing biomarkers (C index 0.722 vs 0.709; p = 0.021). Longitudinal changes were associated with drug response. PROSELICA samples were enriched for LSTs (p = 0.029) indicating genomic instability, and this enrichment was associated with prior abiraterone and enzalutamide treatment but not taxane or radiation therapy. Higher LSTs were correlated with losses of RB1/RNASEH2B, independent of BRCA2 loss. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma lpWGS of ctDNA describes CRPC behaviour, providing prognostic and response data of clinical relevance. The added prognostic value of the ctDNA fraction over established biomarkers should be studied further. PATIENT SUMMARY: We studied tumour DNA in blood samples from patients with prostate cancer. We found that levels of tumour DNA in blood were indicative of disease prognosis, and that changes after treatment could be detected. We also observed a "genetic scar" in the results that was associated with certain previous treatments. This test allows an assessment of tumour activity that can complement existing tests, offer insights into drug response, and detect clinically relevant genetic changes.

Post Hoc Health-Related Quality of Life Analysis According to Response Among Patients with Prostate Cancer in the PROSELICA and FIRSTANA Studies.

BACKGROUND: The phase III PROSELICA (NCT01308580) and FIRSTANA (NCT01308567) trials investigated taxane chemotherapy among men with postdocetaxel metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) or chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC, respectively. We present a post hoc analysis of patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQL) among patients with or without a clinical (pain, tumor, or prostate-specific antigen [PSA]) response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PROSELICA and FIRSTANA HRQL and pain data were collected and analyzed using protocol-defined Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) and McGill-Melzack (Present Pain Intensity scale) questionnaires. Outcomes included definitive FACT-P Total Score (TS) improvements and longitudinal assessment of FACT-P TS. RESULTS: In PROSELICA and FIRSTANA, the proportion of patients receiving taxane chemotherapy with a definitive FACT-P TS improvement was significantly higher among patients with versus without a pain or PSA response (pain: PROSELICA: 67% vs. 33.5%; p < .001; FIRSTANA: 75.2% vs. 45.8%; p < .001; PSA: PROSELICA: 50.3% vs. 34.2%; p < .001; FIRSTANA: 49.8% vs. 38.9%; p = .001). In PROSELICA, the proportion of patients receiving taxane chemotherapy with a definitive FACT-P TS improvement was significantly higher among patients with versus without a tumor response; the proportion was numerically higher in FIRSTANA (PROSELICA: 54.4% vs. 36.7%; p = .001; FIRSTANA: 50.6% vs. 45.3%). FACT-P TS was significantly improved or maintained for the majority of treatment cycles analyzed. CONCLUSION: In PROSELICA and FIRSTANA, HRQL improvements were significantly higher among patients with a pain, tumor, or PSA response versus those without, with the exception of patients with a tumor response in FIRSTANA. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Using data from the FIRSTANA and PROSELICA phase III clinical trials, this study demonstrated that patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) receiving docetaxel or cabazitaxel who exhibited a response (pain, tumor, prostate-specific antigen), often experienced significantly greater improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQL) compared with patients without a response. For patients with a pain response, significant HRQL improvements occurred early and were maintained. This study provides further insight into the impact of taxane chemotherapy on the HRQL of patients with mCRPC and allows for a better understanding of the relationship between treatment, response, and HRQL, supporting therapeutic decision making.

Cabazitaxel versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: post hoc analysis of the CARD study excluding chemohormonal therapy for castrate-naive disease.

BACKGROUND: In the CARD study (NCT02485691), cabazitaxel significantly improved clinical outcomes versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitor. However, some patients received docetaxel or the prior alternative androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitor in the metastatic hormone-sensitive (mHSPC) setting. Therefore, the CARD results cannot be directly translated to a Japanese population. METHODS: Patients (N = 255) received cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 IV Q3W, prednisone, G-CSF) versus abiraterone (1000 mg PO, prednisone) or enzalutamide (160 mg PO) after prior docetaxel and progression ≤12 months on the alternative androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitor. Patients who received combination therapy for mHSPC were excluded (n = 33) as docetaxel is not approved in this setting in Japan. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients (median age 70 years) were included in this subanalysis. Median number of cycles was higher for cabazitaxel versus androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitors (7 versus 4). Clinical outcomes favoured cabazitaxel over abiraterone or enzalutamide including, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS; median 8.2 versus 3.4 months; P < 0.0001), overall survival (OS; 13.9 versus 11.8 months; P = 0.0102), PFS (4.4 versus 2.7 months; P < 0.0001), confirmed prostate-specific antigen response (37.0 versus 14.4%; P = 0.0006) and objective tumour response (38.9 versus 11.4%; P = 0.0036). For cabazitaxel versus androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitor, grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in 55% versus 44% of patients, with adverse events leading to death on study in 2.7% versus 5.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Cabazitaxel significantly improved outcomes including rPFS and OS versus abiraterone or enzalutamide and are reflective of the Japanese patient population. Cabazitaxel should be considered the preferred treatment option over abiraterone or enzalutamide in this setting.

Quality of life in patients with metastatic prostate cancer following treatment with cabazitaxel versus abiraterone or enzalutamide (CARD): an analysis of a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study.

BACKGROUND: In the CARD study, cabazitaxel significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. Here, we report the quality-of-life outcomes from the CARD study. METHODS: CARD was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study involving 62 clinical sites across 13 European countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2) with confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of an interactive voice-web response system to receive cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks, 10 mg daily prednisone, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg orally once daily plus 5 mg prednisone twice daily) or enzalutamide (160 mg orally daily). Stratification factors were ECOG performance status, time to disease progression on the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor, and timing of the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival; here, we present more detailed analyses of pain (assessed using item 3 on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF]) and symptomatic skeletal events, alongside preplanned patient-reported outcomes, assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire and the EuroQoL-5 dimensions, 5 level scale (EQ-5D-5L). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Pain response was analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of BPI-SF item 3, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of either FACT-P or EQ-5D-5L (PRO population). Analyses of skeletal-related events were also done in the intention-to-treat population. The CARD study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02485691, and is no longer enrolling. FINDINGS: Between Nov 17, 2015, and Nov 28, 2018, of 303 patients screened, 255 were randomly assigned to cabazitaxel (n=129) or abiraterone or enzalutamide (n=126). Median follow-up was 9·2 months (IQR 5·6-13·1). Pain response was observed in 51 (46%) of 111 patients with cabazitaxel and 21 (19%) of 109 patients with abiraterone or enzalutamide (p<0·0001). Median time to pain progression was not estimable (NE; 95% CI NE-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·5 months (4·9-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·55, 95% CI 0·32-0·97; log-rank p=0·035). Median time to symptomatic skeletal events was NE (95% CI 20·0-NE) with cabazitaxel and 16·7 months (10·8-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·35-1·01; log-rank p=0·050). Median time to FACT-P total score deterioration was 14·8 months (95% CI 6·3-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·9 months (6·3-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·72, 95% CI 0·44-1·20; log-rank p=0·21). There was a significant treatment effect seen in changes from baseline in EQ-5D-5L utility index score in favour of cabazitaxel over abiraterone or enzalutamide (p=0·030) but no difference between treatment groups for change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (p=0·060). INTERPRETATION: Since cabazitaxel improved pain response, time to pain progression, time to symptomatic skeletal events, and EQ-5D-5L utility index, clinicians and patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer can be reassured that cabazitaxel will not reduce quality of life when compared with treatment with a second androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. FUNDING: Sanofi.

Effect of Baseline Characteristics on Cabazitaxel Treatment Duration in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Compassionate Use/Expanded Access Programs and CAPRISTANA Registry.

We examined factors that may impact cabazitaxel treatment duration in a real-life setting in a compassionate use program, expanded access program, and prospective observational study in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Patients with mCRPC previously treated with docetaxel (N = 1,621) received cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression, death, unacceptable toxicity or physician/patient decision. The median number of cabazitaxel cycles was six (range, 1-49); 708 patients (43.7%) received >6 cycles. Patients receiving >6 cycles tended to have a better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 (p = 0.0017 for ≤6 vs. >6 cycles). Overall, 348 patients (21.5%) were ≥75 years of age; 139 (39.9%) received >6 cycles. The main reason for discontinuation was disease progression; however, in patients receiving 1-2 cycles, the main reason for discontinuation was adverse events. Only 52 patients (3.2%) progressed during cycles 1-2. Cabazitaxel was well tolerated in these studies, which included some elderly and frail patients, offering clinicians an important treatment option in the management of mCRPC. Proactive management of adverse events may allow patients to receive a higher number of cabazitaxel cycles and derive greater benefit.

Cabazitaxel versus Abiraterone or Enzalutamide in Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel, as compared with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were previously treated with docetaxel and had progression within 12 months while receiving the alternative inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) are unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had previously received docetaxel and an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) to receive cabazitaxel (at a dose of 25 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously every 3 weeks, plus prednisone daily and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) or the other androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (either 1000 mg of abiraterone plus prednisone daily or 160 mg of enzalutamide daily). The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival. Secondary end points of survival, response, and safety were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 255 patients underwent randomization. After a median follow-up of 9.2 months, imaging-based progression or death was reported in 95 of 129 patients (73.6%) in the cabazitaxel group, as compared with 101 of 126 patients (80.2%) in the group that received an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median imaging-based progression-free survival was 8.0 months with cabazitaxel and 3.7 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. The median overall survival was 13.6 months with cabazitaxel and 11.0 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.89; P = 0.008). The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months with cabazitaxel and 2.7 months with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.68; P<0.001), a prostate-specific antigen response occurred in 35.7% and 13.5% of the patients, respectively (P<0.001), and tumor response was noted in 36.5% and 11.5% (P = 0.004). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 56.3% of patients receiving cabazitaxel and in 52.4% of those receiving an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Cabazitaxel significantly improved a number of clinical outcomes, as compared with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had been previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen-signaling-targeted agent (abiraterone or enzalutamide). (Funded by Sanofi; CARD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02485691.).

Real-world experience with cabazitaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a final, pooled analysis of the compassionate use programme and early access programme.

BACKGROUND: Cabazitaxel is a second-generation taxane approved for use in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) previously treated with docetaxel. Early access programmes were established to allow eligible patients with mCRPC access to cabazitaxel before regulatory approval. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The primary objective was to allow access to cabazitaxel before commercial availability for patients with mCRPC whose disease had progressed during or after chemotherapy with docetaxel; the secondary objective was overall safety. Patients received cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 on Day 1 of a 21-day cycle, with daily oral 10 mg prednisone/prednisolone. G-CSF was administered per ASCO guidelines. RESULTS: In total, 1432 patients received cabazitaxel across 41 countries between 2010 and 2014 (median 6.0 treatment cycles [range 1-49]). The most frequently occurring treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) possibly related to treatment were diarrhoea (33.3%), fatigue (25.4%) and anaemia (23.7%); the most frequently occurring possibly related Grade 3/4 TEAEs were neutropenia (18.7%) and febrile neutropenia (6.9%). G-CSF was administered in ≥ 1 cycle in 64% of patients (10.1% therapeutic use; 57.8% prophylactic use; 9.7% both uses). CONCLUSION: The safety profile of cabazitaxel in this pooled analysis of two cabazitaxel early access programmes was manageable and consistent with previous Phase III trials (TROPIC, PROSELICA).

An observational, multicentre study of cabazitaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel (CAPRISTANA).

OBJECTIVES: To obtain routine clinical practice data on cabazitaxel usage patterns for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and to describe physician-assessed cabazitaxel effectiveness, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CAPRISTANA was an international, observational cohort study examining cabazitaxel use for the treatment of patients with mCRPC. Effectiveness was assessed by overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF) and disease control rate. HRQoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate questionnaire (FACT-P) and the three-level European Quality of Life questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L). Safety was assessed by adverse event (AE) reporting. RESULTS: A total of 189 patients were treated across 54 centres between April 2012 and June 2016. At baseline, 58.7% had ≥1 comorbidity, 93.7% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1, and 60.1% had a Gleason score at diagnosis of ≥8. Patients received a median of 6 cabazitaxel cycles; 84.7% received cabazitaxel as second-line therapy. The median OS, PFS and TTF were 13.2, 5.6 and 4.4 months, respectively. Cabazitaxel led to disease control in 52.9% of patients. HRQoL was maintained (40.3%) or improved (32.2%) in 72.5% of patients based on total FACT-P scores. Interestingly, 53.6% of patients reported pain improvement and a further 21.2% maintained pain control based on FACT-P prostate cancer-specific pain scores. The most common treatment-related grade ≥3 AEs were neutropenia (7.9%) and anaemia (2.1%). CONCLUSION: Patients in CAPRISTANA treated with cabazitaxel had similar disease outcomes and safety profiles compared with large phase III clinical trials. Most patients had maintained or improved HRQoL scores; >70% of patients had maintained or improved pain control.