1. |
- Ryan, Charles J, et al.
(författare)
-
Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone versus placebo plus prednisone in chemotherapy-naive men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (COU-AA-302) : final overall survival analysis of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study
- 2015
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Oncology. - 1474-5488. ; 16:2, s. 60-152
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival compared with placebo plus prednisone in men with chemotherapy-naive castration-resistant prostate cancer at the interim analyses of the COU-AA-302 trial. Here, we present the prespecified final analysis of the trial, assessing the effect of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone on overall survival, time to opiate use, and use of other subsequent therapies.METHODS: In this placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised phase 3 study, 1088 asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients with chemotherapy-naive prostate cancer stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology performance status (0 vs 1) were randomly assigned with a permuted block allocation scheme via a web response system in a 1:1 ratio to receive either abiraterone acetate (1000 mg once daily) plus prednisone (5 mg twice daily; abiraterone acetate group) or placebo plus prednisone (placebo group). Coprimary endpoints were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00887198.FINDINGS: At a median follow-up of 49.2 months (IQR 47.0-51.8), 741 (96%) of the prespecified 773 death events for the final analysis had been observed: 354 (65%) of 546 patients in the abiraterone acetate group and 387 (71%) of 542 in the placebo group. 238 (44%) patients initially receiving prednisone alone subsequently received abiraterone acetate plus prednisone as crossover per protocol (93 patients) or as subsequent therapy (145 patients). Overall, 365 (67%) patients in the abiraterone acetate group and 435 (80%) in the placebo group received subsequent treatment with one or more approved agents. Median overall survival was significantly longer in the abiraterone acetate group than in the placebo group (34.7 months [95% CI 32.7-36.8] vs 30.3 months [28.7-33.3]; hazard ratio 0.81 [95% CI 0.70-0.93]; p=0.0033). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events of special interest were cardiac disorders (41 [8%] of 542 patients in the abiraterone acetate group vs 20 [4%] of 540 patients in the placebo group), increased alanine aminotransferase (32 [6%] vs four [<1%]), and hypertension (25 [5%] vs 17 [3%]).INTERPRETATION: In this randomised phase 3 trial with a median follow-up of more than 4 years, treatment with abiraterone acetate prolonged overall survival compared with prednisone alone by a margin that was both clinically and statistically significant. These results further support the favourable safety profile of abiraterone acetate in patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.
|
|
2. |
- Beer, Tomasz M, et al.
(författare)
-
Enzalutamide in metastatic prostate cancer before chemotherapy
- 2014
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 371:5, s. 33-424
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide is an oral androgen-receptor inhibitor that prolongs survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in whom the disease has progressed after chemotherapy. New treatment options are needed for patients with metastatic prostate cancer who have not received chemotherapy, in whom the disease has progressed despite androgen-deprivation therapy.METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 study, we randomly assigned 1717 patients to receive either enzalutamide (at a dose of 160 mg) or placebo once daily. The coprimary end points were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival.RESULTS: The study was stopped after a planned interim analysis, conducted when 540 deaths had been reported, showed a benefit of the active treatment. The rate of radiographic progression-free survival at 12 months was 65% among patients treated with enzalutamide, as compared with 14% among patients receiving placebo (81% risk reduction; hazard ratio in the enzalutamide group, 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15 to 0.23; P<0.001). A total of 626 patients (72%) in the enzalutamide group, as compared with 532 patients (63%) in the placebo group, were alive at the data-cutoff date (29% reduction in the risk of death; hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.84; P<0.001). The benefit of enzalutamide was shown with respect to all secondary end points, including the time until the initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.35), the time until the first skeletal-related event (hazard ratio, 0.72), a complete or partial soft-tissue response (59% vs. 5%), the time until prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (hazard ratio, 0.17), and a rate of decline of at least 50% in PSA (78% vs. 3%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Fatigue and hypertension were the most common clinically relevant adverse events associated with enzalutamide treatment.CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide significantly decreased the risk of radiographic progression and death and delayed the initiation of chemotherapy in men with metastatic prostate cancer. (Funded by Medivation and Astellas Pharma; PREVAIL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01212991.).
|
|
3. |
- De Bono, Johann S., et al.
(författare)
-
Cabazitaxel shows a consistently greater survival benefit compared to mitoxantrone in patients with mCRPC
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Nowotwory. - : Via Medica. - 0029-540X. ; 64:1, s. 1-6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aim: This sub analysis of TROPIC study evaluates overall survival (OS) under cabazitaxel in patients who had no initial response to docetaxel (D ) and discontinued D for disease progression and those who initially responded to D but experienced disease progression <3 months since last D dose. These patients are believed unlikely to benefit from D re-treatment and need new treatment options such as cabazitaxel.Methods: Of the 755 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) enrolled in TROPIC study, 362 (47.9%) had no initial response to D and discontinued it for disease progression, 155 (20.5%) had an initial response to D therapy according to investigator judgment but progressed <3 months since last D dose and 238 (31.5%) did not belong to these two subgroups. All patients were randomized to receive cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 or mitoxantrone 12 mg/m2 both every 3 weeks and prednisone 10 mg per os daily.Results: Median OS with cabazitaxel was consistently longer than with mitoxantrone in all subgroups. The highest survival benefit versus mitoxantrone was observed for patients who initially responded to D and then progressed <3 months since last D dose (median OS 15.7 versus 11.6 months, Hazard ratio (HR) 0.52 [95% CI 0.35-0.76]). Median PFS was also significantly improved in the latter subgroup compared to mitoxantrone (2.6 versus 1.4 months, HR 0.66 [0.48-0.91]).Conclusion: Cabazitaxel plus prednisone consistently shows a greater survival benefit compared to mitoxantrone plus prednisone whatever the subgroup considered, including responders to first-line D who progressed <3 months since last D and pts without initial response to D who discontinued it for disease progression.
|
|
4. |
- Gasi Tandefelt, Delila, 1982, et al.
(författare)
-
Circulating cell-free DNA: Translating prostate cancer genomics into clinical care.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Molecular aspects of medicine. - : Elsevier BV. - 1872-9452 .- 0098-2997. ; 72
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Only in the past decade tremendous advances have been made in understanding prostate cancer genomics and consequently in applying new treatment strategies. As options regarding treatments are increasing so are the challenges in selecting the right treatment option for each patient and not the least, understanding the optimal time-point and sequence of applying available treatments. Critically, without reliable methods that enable sequential monitoring of evolving genotypes in individual patients, we will never reach effective personalised driven treatment approaches. This review focuses on the clinical implications of prostate cancer genomics and the potential of cfDNA in facilitating treatment management.
|
|
5. |
- Jhavar, Sameer, et al.
(författare)
-
Integration of ERG gene mapping and gene-expression profiling identifies distinct categories of human prostate cancer
- 2009
-
Ingår i: BJU International. - 1464-4096. ; 103:9, s. 1256-1269
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE To integrate the mapping of ERG alterations with the collection of expression microarray (EMA) data, as previous EMA analyses have failed to consider the genetic heterogeneity and complex patterns of ERG alteration frequently found in cancerous prostates. MATERIALS AND METHODS We determined genome-wide expression levels with GeneChip Human Exon 1.0 ST arrays (Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA, USA) using RNA prepared from 35 specimens of prostate cancer from 28 prostates. RESULTS The expression profiles showed clustering, in unsupervised hierarchical analyses, into two distinct prostate cancer categories, with one group strongly associated with indicators of poor clinical outcome. The two categories are not tightly linked to ERG status. By analysis of the data we identified a subgroup of cancers lacking ERG rearrangements that showed an outlier pattern of SPINK1 mRNA expression. There was a major distinction between ERG rearranged and non-rearranged cancers that involves the levels of expression of genes linked to exposure to beta-oestradiol, and to retinoic acid. CONCLUSIONS Expression profiling of prostate cancer samples containing single patterns of ERG alterations can provide novel insights into the mechanism of prostate cancer development, and support the view that factors other than ERG status are the major determinants of poor clinical outcome.
|
|