Format

Send to

Choose Destination
World J Urol. 2019 Oct 12. doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02974-6. [Epub ahead of print]

Managing lines of therapy in castration-resistant prostate cancer: real-life snapshot from a multicenter cohort.

Author information

1
Department of Urology, "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute of Rome, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00154, Rome, Italy. marilia.ferriero@gmail.com.
2
Department of Urology, "La Sapienza" University of Rome, Viale dell'Università 33, 00185, Rome, Italy.
3
Department of Urology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University "La Sapienza", Sant'Andrea Hospital, Via di Grottarossa, 1035, 00189, Rome, Italy.
4
Department of Urology, S. Pio Da Pietrelcina Hospital, Via S. Camillo de Lellis, 66054, Vasto, Italy.
5
Department of Medical Oncology, San Camillo-Forlanini Hospital, Circonvallazione Gianicolense, 87, 00152, Rome, Italy.
6
Department of Urology, "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute of Rome, Via Elio Chianesi 53, 00154, Rome, Italy.
7
Department of Urology, "G.D'Annunzio" University, Via dei Vestini, 31, 66100, Chieti, Italy.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To provide a snapshot of toxicities and oncologic outcomes of Abiraterone (AA) and Enzalutamide (EZ) in a chemo-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCPRC) population from a longitudinal real-life multicenter cohort.

METHODS:

We prospectively collected data on chemo-naïve mCRPC patients treated with AA or EZ. Primary outcomes were PSA response, oncologic outcomes and toxicity profile. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare differences in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) between AA vs EZ and high- vs low-volume disease cohorts. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of PFS. Toxicity, PSA response rates and oncologic outcomes on second line were compared with those observed on first line.

RESULTS:

Out of 137 patients, 88 received AA, and 49 EZ. On first line, patients receiving EZ had significantly higher PSA response compared with AA (95.9% vs 67%, p < 0.001), comparable toxicity rate (10.2% vs 16.3%, p = 0.437) and PFS probabilities (p = 0.145). Baseline PSA and high-volume disease were predictors of lower PFS probabilities at univariable analysis (p = 0.027 and p = 0.007, respectively). Overall, 28 patients shifted to a second-line therapy (EZ or radiometabolic therapy). Toxicity and PSA response rates on second line were comparable to those observed on first line (11.1% vs 12.4%, p = 0.77; 73.1% vs 77.4%, p = 0.62, respectively); 2-year PFS, cancer-specific and overall survival probabilities were comparable to those displayed in first-line cohort (12.1% vs 16.2%, p = 0.07; 85.7% vs 86.4%, p = 0.98; 71% vs 80.3%, p = 0.66, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS:

Toxicity profile, PSA response rate and oncological outcomes were comparable between first-line and second-line courses in patients treated with either AA or EZ for mCRPC. Our findings showed the tolerability and oncological effectiveness, when feasible, of two lines of therapy other than chemotherapy.

KEYWORDS:

Androgen receptor targeted agent; Castration-resistant prostate cancer; High volume disease; Metastatic disease; Systemic therapy

PMID:
31605196
DOI:
10.1007/s00345-019-02974-6

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center