| 1. |
- Beer, Tomasz M., et al.
(författare)
-
Enzalutamide in Men with Chemotherapy-naïve Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer : Extended Analysis of the Phase 3 PREVAIL Study
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0302-2838. ; 71:2, s. 151-154
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Enzalutamide significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) among men with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer at the prespecified interim analysis of PREVAIL, a phase 3, double-blind, randomized study. We evaluated the longer-term efficacy and safety of enzalutamide up to the prespecified number of deaths in the final analysis, which included an additional 20 mo of follow-up for investigator-assessed rPFS, 9 mo of follow-up for OS, and 4 mo of follow-up for safety. Enzalutamide reduced the risk of radiographic progression or death by 68% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28–0.37; p < 0.0001) and the risk of death by 23% (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67–0.88; p = 0.0002). Median investigator-assessed rPFS was 20.0 mo (95% CI 18.9–22.1) in the enzalutamide arm and 5.4 mo (95% CI 4.1–5.6) in the placebo arm. Median OS was 35.3 mo (95% CI 32.2–not yet reached) in the enzalutamide arm and 31.3 mo (95% CI 28.8–34.2) in the placebo arm. At the time of the OS analysis, 167 patients in the placebo arm had crossed over to receive enzalutamide. The most common adverse events in the enzalutamide arm were fatigue, back pain, constipation, and arthralgia. This final analysis of PREVAIL provides more complete assessment of the clinical benefit of enzalutamide. PREVAIL is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01212991. Patient summary According to data from longer follow-up, enzalutamide continued to provide benefit over placebo in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
|
|
| 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. |
- Lopes, Renato D., et al.
(författare)
-
Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide in Patients With Prostate Cancer : The Primary Results of the PRONOUNCE Randomized Trial
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - 1524-4539. ; 144:16, s. 1295-1307
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The relative cardiovascular safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists compared with GnRH agonists in men with prostate cancer and known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains controversial. METHODS: In this international, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label trial, men with prostate cancer and concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive the GnRH antagonist degarelix or the GnRH agonist leuprolide for 12 months. The primary outcome was the time to first adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular event (composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) through 12 months. RESULTS: Because of slower-than-projected enrollment and fewer-than-projected primary outcome events, enrollment was stopped before the 900 planned participants were accrued. From May 3, 2016, to April 16, 2020, a total of 545 patients from 113 sites across 12 countries were randomly selected. Baseline characteristics were balanced between study groups. The median age was 73 years, 49.8% had localized prostate cancer; 26.3% had locally advanced disease, and 20.4% had metastatic disease. A major adverse cardiovascular event occurred in 15 (5.5%) patients assigned to degarelix and 11 (4.1%) patients assigned to leuprolide (hazard ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.59-2.79]; P=0.53). CONCLUSIONS: PRONOUNCE (A Trial Comparing Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease) is the first, international, randomized clinical trial to prospectively compare the cardiovascular safety of a GnRH antagonist and a GnRH agonist in patients with prostate cancer. The study was terminated prematurely because of the smaller than planned number of participants and events, and no difference in major adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year between patients assigned to degarelix or leuprolide was observed. The relative cardiovascular safety of GnRH antagonists and agonists remains unresolved. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02663908.
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
- Campbell, Kristin L, et al.
(författare)
-
Exercise Recommendation for People With Bone Metastases : Expert Consensus for Health Care Providers and Exercise Professionals.
- 2022
-
Ingår i: JCO oncology practice. - 2688-1535. ; 18:5, s. e697-e709
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE: Exercise has been underutilized in people with advanced or incurable cancer despite the potential to improve physical function and reduce psychosocial morbidity, especially for people with bone metastases because of concerns over skeletal complications. The International Bone Metastases Exercise Working Group (IBMEWG) was formed to develop best practice recommendations for exercise programming for people with bone metastases on the basis of published research, clinical experience, and expert opinion.METHODS: The IBMEWG undertook sequential steps to inform the recommendations: (1) modified Delphi survey, (2) systematic review, (3) cross-sectional survey to physicians and nurse practitioners, (4) in-person meeting of IBMEWG to review evidence from steps 1-3 to develop draft recommendations, and (5) stakeholder engagement.RESULTS: Recommendations emerged from the contributing evidence and IBMEWG discussion for pre-exercise screening, exercise testing, exercise prescription, and monitoring of exercise response. Identification of individuals who are potentially at higher risk of exercise-related skeletal complication is a complex interplay of these factors: (1) lesion-related, (2) cancer and cancer treatment-related, and (3) the person-related. Exercise assessment and prescription requires consideration of the location and presentation of bone lesion(s) and should be delivered by qualified exercise professionals with oncology education and exercise prescription experience. Emphasis on postural alignment, controlled movement, and proper technique is essential.CONCLUSION: Ultimately, the perceived risk of skeletal complications should be weighed against potential health benefits on the basis of consultation between the person, health care team, and exercise professionals. These recommendations provide an initial framework to improve the integration of exercise programming into clinical care for people with bone metastases.
|
|
| 6. |
- Nelson, Adam J., et al.
(författare)
-
Cardiovascular Effects of GnRH Antagonists Compared With Agonists in Prostate Cancer : A Systematic Review
- 2023
-
Ingår i: JACC: CardioOncology. - 2666-0873. ; 5:5, s. 613-624
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Androgen deprivation therapy is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with advanced prostate cancer. Meta-analysis of small, oncology-focused trials suggest gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists may be associated with fewer adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared with GnRH agonists. Objectives: This study sought to determine whether GnRH antagonists were associated with fewer major adverse cardiovascular events compared with GnRH agonists. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for all prospective, randomized trials comparing GnRH antagonists with agonists. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiovascular event as defined by the following standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms: “myocardial infarction,” “central nervous system hemorrhages and cerebrovascular conditions,” and all-cause mortality. Bayesian meta-analysis models with random effects were fitted. Results: A total of 11 eligible studies of a maximum duration of 3 to 36 months (median = 12 months) enrolling 4,248 participants were included. Only 1 trial used a blinded, adjudicated event process, whereas potential bias persisted in all trials given their open-label design. A total of 152 patients with primary outcome events were observed, 76 of 2,655 (2.9%) in GnRH antagonist-treated participants and 76 of 1,593 (4.8%) in agonist-treated individuals. Compared with GnRH agonists, the pooled OR of GnRH antagonists for the primary endpoint was 0.57 (95% credible interval: 0.37-0.86) and 0.58 (95% credible interval: 0.32-1.08) for all-cause death. Conclusions: Despite the addition of the largest, dedicated cardiovascular outcome trial, the volume and quality of available data to definitively answer this question remain suboptimal. Notwithstanding these limitations, the available data suggest that GnRH antagonists are associated with fewer cardiovascular events, and possibly mortality, compared with GnRH agonists.
|
|
