Real-world effectiveness of third-line cabazitaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: CARD-like analysis of data from a post-marketing surveillance in Japan.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The CARD trial was conducted in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had received docetaxel and experienced disease progression within 1 year on an androgen receptor-axis-targeted therapy (ARAT). Subsequent treatment with cabazitaxel had improved clinical outcomes compared with an alternative ARAT. This study aims to confirm the effectiveness of cabazitaxel in real-world patients in Japan and compare their characteristics with those of patients from the CARD trial. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of a nationwide post-marketing surveillance registering all patients who were prescribed cabazitaxel in Japan between September 2014 and June 2015. Included patients had received docetaxel and ≤ 1 year of an ARAT (abiraterone or enzalutamide) prior to receiving cabazitaxel or an alternative ARAT, as their third-line therapy. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the time to treatment failure (TTF) of the third-line therapy. Patients were matched (11) from the cabazitaxel and second ARAT arms based on propensity score (PS). RESULTS: Of the 535 patients analysed, 247 received cabazitaxel and 288 the alternative ARAT as their third-line therapy, of which, 91.3% (n = 263/288) received abiraterone and 8.7% (n = 25/288) received enzalutamide as their second third-line ARAT. Patients in the cabazitaxel and second ARAT arms had TNM classification of M1 or MX in 73.3% and 68.1%, Gleason score of 8-10 in 78.5% and 79.2% and mean (standard deviation) serum PSA levels of 483 (1370) and 594 (1241) ng/mL, respectively. Initial cabazitaxel dose was ≤ 20 mg/m2 in 61.9% (n = 153/247) of the patients in the cabazitaxel arm. The median TTF (95% confidence interval [CI]) of the third-line therapy was 109 (94-128) days for cabazitaxel and 58 (57-66) days for the second ARAT, with a hazard ratio (95% CI) of 0.339 (0.279-0.413) favouring cabazitaxel. Similar results were obtained after PS-matching, with a hazard ratio (95% CI) of 0.323 (95% CI 0.258-0.402) favouring cabazitaxel. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the CARD trial, cabazitaxel demonstrated superior effectiveness over a second alternative ARAT in a real-world patient population in Japan, despite the population having more advanced disease status and a lower dose of cabazitaxel being more frequently administered, than in the CARD trial.