TY - JOUR
T1 - Managing lines of therapy in castration-resistant prostate cancer
T2 - real-life snapshot from a multicenter cohort
AU - Ferriero, Mariaconsiglia
AU - Mastroianni, Riccardo
AU - De Nunzio, Cosimo
AU - Cindolo, Luca
AU - Calabrò, Fabio
AU - Tema, Giorgia
AU - Leonardo, Costantino
AU - Flammia, Rocco Simone
AU - Tuderti, Gabriele
AU - Anceschi, Umberto
AU - Brassetti, Aldo
AU - Giacinti, Silvana
AU - Guaglianone, Salvatore
AU - Ghahhari, Jamil
AU - Schips, Luigi
AU - Tubaro, Andrea
AU - Gallucci, Michele
AU - Simone, Giuseppe
PY - 2019/1/1
Y1 - 2019/1/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Androgen receptor targeted agent
KW - Castration-resistant prostate cancer
KW - High volume disease
KW - Metastatic disease
KW - Systemic therapy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074539452&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85074539452&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00345-019-02974-6
DO - 10.1007/s00345-019-02974-6
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85074539452
JO - World Journal of Urology
JF - World Journal of Urology
SN - 0724-4983
ER -