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.

Do Contemporary Randomized Controlled Trials Meet ESMO Thresholds for Meaningful Clinical Benefit?

Background: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) recently released a magnitude of clinical benefit scale (ESMO-MCBS) for systemic therapies for solid cancers. Here, we evaluate contemporary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) against the proposed ESMO thresholds for meaningful clinical benefit. Methods: RCTs evaluating systemic therapy for breast cancer, nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), colorectal cancer (CRC), and pancreatic cancer published 2011-2015 were reviewed. Data were abstracted regarding trial characteristics and outcomes, and these were applied to the ESMO-MCBS. We also determined whether RCTs were designed to detect an effect that would meet clinical benefit as defined by the ESMO-MCBS. Results: About 277 eligible RCTs were included (40% breast, 31% NSCLC, 22% CRC, 6% pancreas). Median sample size was 532 and 83% were funded by industry. Among all 277 RCTs, the experimental therapy was statistically superior to the control arm in 138 (50%) trials: results of only 31% (43/138) of these trials met the ESMO-MCBS clinical benefit threshold. RCTs with curative intent were more likely to meet clinically meaningful thresholds than those with palliative intent [61% (19/31) versus 22% (24/107), P < 0.001]. Among the 226 RCTs for which the ESMO-MCBS could be applied, 31% (70/226) were designed to detect an effect size that could meet ESMO-MCBS thresholds. Conclusion: Less than one-third of contemporary RCTs with statistically significant results meet ESMO thresholds for meaningful clinical benefit, and this represents only 15% of all published trials. Investigators, funding agencies, regulatory agencies, and industry should adopt more stringent thresholds for meaningful benefit in the design of future RCTs.

Fatigue in people with localized colorectal cancer who do and do not receive chemotherapy: a longitudinal prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is associated with cancer and chemotherapy and may be sustained. Here, we describe a prospective longitudinal study evaluating fatigue and putative mechanisms in people with colorectal cancer (CRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: People with localized CRC completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment-Fatigue (FACT-F) questionnaire at baseline (before chemotherapy, if given), 6, 12, and 24 months. Healthy controls (HCs) were assessed at the first three time points. Fatigue was defined by standardized FACT-F scores ≤68/100. Quality-of-life (QoL, assessed by the FACT-G questionnaire), affective, and cognitive symptoms were evaluated. Associations were sought between fatigue, baseline factors, and blood tests (including hemoglobin, cytokines, and sex hormones). Regression analyses, Fisher's exact tests, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests assessed levels of fatigue at each time point and change in fatigue from baseline. A repeated-measures analysis investigated prognostic factors of fatigue across all time points. RESULTS: A total of 289 subjects with localized CRC (173 received chemotherapy) and 72 HCs were assessed. More CRC patients had fatigue than HCs at baseline (52% versus 26%, P < 0.001). Fatigue was increased in the chemotherapy (CTh) group at 6 months [CTh+ 70% versus CTh- 31% (P < 0.001), HCs 22%] and remained more common at 12 [CTh+ 44% versus CTh- 31% (P = 0.079)] and 24 months [CTh+ 39% versus CTh- 24% (P = 0.047)]. There was no significant difference between those not receiving chemotherapy and HCs at follow-up assessments. Fatigue was associated with poor QoL, affective and cognitive symptoms, but not consistently with cytokine levels. Predictors for sustained fatigue were baseline fatigue, treatment group, cognitive and affective symptoms, poorer QoL, and comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: CRC patients have more fatigue than HCs at baseline. Fatigue peaks immediately after adjuvant chemotherapy, but remains common for 2 years in those who receive chemotherapy. Cognitive and affective symptoms, QoL, comorbidities, chemotherapy, and baseline fatigue predict for longer term fatigue.

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.

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.