Real-life data of abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide treatment in post-chemotherapy metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in Poland.

Background: Abiraterone acetate (ABI) and Enzalutamide (ENZA) are second-generation hormone drugs that show breakthrough activity in post-chemotherapy, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The leading oncological and urological guidelines indicate both drugs with the same strong recommendation. There is a lack of randomized trials which compare the efficacy of ABI and ENZA. The current study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the drugs with an analysis of prognostic factors related to those drugs. Patients and methods: The study included 420 patients with docetaxel (DXL) pretreated mCRPC from seven Polish cancer centers. Patients were treated according to inclusion and exclusion criteria in the Polish national drug program (1000 mg ABI and 10 mg prednisone, n=76.2%; ENZA, 160 mg; n=23.8%). The study retrospectively analyzed the overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure (TTF), PSA 50% decline rate (PSA 50%) and selected clinic-pathological data. Results: In the study group, the median OS was 17 months (95% CI: 15.6-18.3). The median OS (26.1 vs. 15.7 mo.; p<0.001), TTF (14.2 vs. 7.6 mo.; p<0.001) and PSA 50% (87.5 vs. 56%; p<0.001) were higher in ENZA than in ABI treatment. Multivariate analysis shows that ENZA treatment and PSA nadir <17.35 ng/mL during or after DXL treatment were related to longer TTF. ENZA treatment, DXL dose ≥750 mg, PSA nadir <17.35 ng/mL during or after DXL treatment was related to longer OS. Conclusions: ENZA treatment may be related to more favorable oncological outcomes than ABI treatment in the studied Polish population of patients. A 50% decline in PSA is an indicator of longer TTF and OS. Due to the non-randomized and retrospective nature of the analysis, the current results require prospective validation.

Cardiac Biomarkers and Geriatric Assessment in Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer During Abiraterone Acetate Therapy - A Cardio-Oncology Study.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate (AA) is a drug used in advanced prostate cancer. However, known clinical factors with predictive and prognostic value are scarce. This study evaluated cardiovascular (CV) factors and geriatric scales as potential markers of superior response during AA therapy. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study. Serum levels of high sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT), D-dimer, NT-proBNP and left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) were used for CV evaluation. Questionnaires of G8, VES-13, Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (iADL), and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) were included in the geriatric screening assessment. All measures were taken before AA initiation. Survival curves and Cox proportional hazard models (univariate and multivariate) were used to determine the predictors for a longer time to treatment failure (TTF). RESULTS: Forty nine patients were included in the study. Overall median TTF was 7.9 months (95% CI: 5.9-12.4). In univariate analysis, factors associated with inferior TTF were (P-value < .05): visceral metastases - HR 2.34; 95% CI: 1.24-4.45, history of coronary artery disease - HR 3.02; 95% CI: 1.19-7.66; LVEF < 50% - HR 2.53; 95% CI: 1.03-6.17; P = .041; age-adjusted D-dimer > upper reference limit (URL) - HR 3.53; 95% CI: 1.81-6.85; P < .001; hsTnT > URL - HR 2.17; 95% CI: 1.13-4.16; P = .016; NT-proBNP ≥ 300 pg/mL - HR 2.3; 95% CI: 1.22-4.34; P = .01; G8 score ≤14 points - HR 2.47; 95% CI: 1.29-4.74; P = .007. In multivariate analysis, age-adjusted D-dimer > URL, G8 score ≤ 14 points and visceral metastases remained statistically significant in prediction of inferior TTF. The number of these factors was associated with shorter median TTF: 0-1 factor - 14.1 months; 2 factors - 5.9 months; 3 factors - 2.7 months; P < .001, log-rank). CONCLUSIONS: Age-adjusted D-dimer, and geriatric G8 scores may predict TTF in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer during AA therapy. These observations require further study in a larger population.

Initial Experience of Clinical Use of [99mTc]Tc-PSMA-T4 in Patients with Prostate Cancer. A Pilot Study.

Numerous different molecules of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) ligands are used to detect prostate cancer (PCa); most approaches utilize gallium PET and a few reports describe the role of SPECT/CT. [99mTc]Tc-PSMA-T4 is a new radiopharmaceutical designed for the diagnosis of patients with PCa. We conducted a single site, prospective, preliminary case series study that included 31 patients with PCa; all had undergone clinical, biochemical or imaging examination and exhibited clear or suspicious active disease or clinical/biochemical recurrence of PCa. Whole-body (WB) SPECT/CT after i.v. administration of [99mTc]Tc-PSMA-T4 was utilized; acquisition images were obtained at three time points. The clinical value of the images was assessed in regard to the evaluation of tumor extent in patients with confirmed PC that qualified for initial therapy and the evaluation of tumor recurrence; both provided encouraging results. The late acquisition of WB-SPECT resulted in better lesions delineation. The results of the analysis of the sensitivity/specificity were: 92%/100% in cases of primary cancer, 83%/100% in terms of pelvic lymph nodes disease, 100%/95% in other lymph nodes and soft tissue involvement, respectively, and bone mets were both 100%. An oncotropic SPECT [99mTc]Tc-PSMA-T4 can help in selecting a rational therapeutic strategy for a patient with an initial diagnosis of PCa by assessing the extent of cancer and also after complex radical or palliative therapy in case of biochemical recurrence for re-staging.

Angiotensin System Inhibitors May Improve Outcomes of Patients With Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer During Abiraterone Acetate Treatment-A Cardio-Oncology Study.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate (ABI) therapy improves overall survival in metastatic prostate cancer (PC) patients; however, this effect may be diminished by concurrent comorbidities. We aimed to evaluate the influence of pre-existing chronic diseases and concomitant medications on the course of ABI treatment among post-chemotherapy patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients (mCRPC). METHODS: From the Polish National Health Fund database, we identified 93 post-chemotherapy, mCRPC patients, who were qualified for ABI treatment in our oncology center between 2014 and 2018. Survival curves and Cox proportional hazard models (univariate and multivariate) were used to determine the predictors for longer time to treatment failure (TTF) of ABI therapy. RESULTS: Median TTF was 9,8 months (IQR: 0,6-56,5) Factors associated with longer TTF were: well controlled hypertension (HR, 0.59; 95% CI. 0.38-0.90; p = 0.02), stable coronary artery disease (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.95; p=0.03), the use of angiotensin system inhibitor (ASi) (HR, 0.61; 95% CI 0.4-0.94; p = 0,02). Patients who were receiving ASi had median TTF of 12.2 months versus 5.8 months in men who did not receive ASi before ABI initiation. At the start of ABI therapy, the aforementioned groups did not differ in terms of well-known prognostic factors: Gleason score, PSA level, or the number of patients with visceral metastases. In a multivariate analysis, the use of ASi remained statistically significant, even after adjustment for well-known oncological factors (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.34-0.98; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The use of ASi may enhance and prolong ABI therapy in post-docetaxel mCRPC patients and may potentially be considered a new, non-oncological, predictive factor for longer TTF. This association requires a prospective validation.

Safety and efficacy of atezolizumab in patients with autoimmune disease: Subgroup analysis of the SAUL study in locally advanced/metastatic urinary tract carcinoma.

AIM: Patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease (AID) are typically excluded from clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors, and there are limited data on outcomes in this population. The single-arm international SAUL study of atezolizumab enrolled a broader 'real-world' patient population. We present outcomes in patients with a history of AID. METHODS: Patients with locally advanced/metastatic urinary tract carcinoma received atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks until loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end-point was safety. Overall survival (OS) was a secondary end-point. Subgroup analyses of AID patients were prespecified. RESULTS: Thirty-five of 997 treated patients had AID at baseline, most commonly psoriasis (n = 15). Compared with non-AID patients, AID patients experienced numerically more adverse events (AEs) of special interest (46% versus 30%; grade ≥3 14% versus 6%) and treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs (26% versus 12%), but without relevant increases in treatment-related deaths (0% versus 1%) or AEs necessitating treatment discontinuation (9% versus 6%). Pre-existing AID worsened in four patients (11%; two flares in two patients); three of the six flares resolved, one was resolving, and two were unresolved. Efficacy was similar in AID and non-AID patients (median OS, 8.2 versus 8.8 months, respectively; median progression-free survival, 4.4 versus 2.2 months; disease control rate, 51% versus 39%). CONCLUSIONS: In 35 atezolizumab-treated patients with pre-existing AID, incidences of special- interest and treatment-related AEs appeared acceptable. AEs were manageable, rarely requiring atezolizumab discontinuation. Treating these patients requires caution, but pre-existing AID does not preclude atezolizumab therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02928406.

Durvalumab alone and durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (DANUBE): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Survival outcomes are poor for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who receive standard, first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy. We assessed the overall survival of patients who received durvalumab (a PD-L1 inhibitor), with or without tremelimumab (a CTLA-4 inhibitor), as a first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. METHODS: DANUBE is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial in patients with untreated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, conducted at 224 academic research centres, hospitals, and oncology clinics in 23 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to receive durvalumab monotherapy (1500 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks; durvalumab (1500 mg) plus tremelimumab (75 mg) administered intravenously every 4 weeks for up to four doses, followed by durvalumab maintenance (1500 mg) every 4 weeks; or standard-of-care chemotherapy (gemcitabine plus cisplatin or gemcitabine plus carboplatin, depending on cisplatin eligibility) administered intravenously for up to six cycles. Randomisation was done through an interactive voice-web response system, with stratification by cisplatin eligibility, PD-L1 status, and presence or absence of liver metastases, lung metastases, or both. The coprimary endpoints were overall survival compared between the durvalumab monotherapy versus chemotherapy groups in the population of patients with high PD-L1 expression (the high PD-L1 population) and between the durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus chemotherapy groups in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). The study has completed enrolment and the final analysis of overall survival is reported. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02516241, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2015-001633-24. FINDINGS: Between Nov 24, 2015, and March 21, 2017, we randomly assigned 1032 patients to receive durvalumab (n=346), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n=342), or chemotherapy (n=344). At data cutoff (Jan 27, 2020), median follow-up for survival was 41·2 months (IQR 37·9-43·2) for all patients. In the high PD-L1 population, median overall survival was 14·4 months (95% CI 10·4-17·3) in the durvalumab monotherapy group (n=209) versus 12·1 months (10·4-15·0) in the chemotherapy group (n=207; hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·71-1·11; p=0·30). In the intention-to-treat population, median overall survival was 15·1 months (13·1-18·0) in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group versus 12·1 months (10·9-14·0) in the chemotherapy group (0·85, 95% CI 0·72-1·02; p=0·075). In the safety population, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 47 (14%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 93 (27%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and in 188 (60%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event was increased lipase in the durvalumab group (seven [2%] of 345 patients) and in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (16 [5%] of 340 patients), and neutropenia in the chemotherapy group (66 [21%] of 313 patients). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 30 (9%) of 345 patients in the durvalumab group, 78 (23%) of 340 patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group, and 50 (16%) of 313 patients in the chemotherapy group. Deaths due to study drug toxicity were reported in two (1%) patients in the durvalumab group (acute hepatic failure and hepatitis), two (1%) patients in the durvalumab plus tremelimumab group (septic shock and pneumonitis), and one (<1%) patient in the chemotherapy group (acute kidney injury). INTERPRETATION: This study did not meet either of its coprimary endpoints. Further research to identify the patients with previously untreated metastatic urothelial carcinoma who benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors, either alone or in combination regimens, is warranted. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Evidence-based recommendations on androgen deprivation therapy for localized and advanced prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The management of prostate cancer (PC) is still evolving. Although, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is an established treatment option, particularly in patients with disseminated disease, important data regarding hormonal manipulation have recently emerged. The aim of this paper is to review the evidence on ADT, make recommendations and address areas of controversy associated with its use in men with PC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An expert panel was convened. Areas related to the hormonal management of patients with PC requiring evidence review were identified and questions to be addressed by the panel were determined. Appropriate literature review was performed and included a search of online databases, bibliographic reviews and consultation with experts. RESULTS: The panel was able to provide recommendations on: 1) which patients with localised PC should receive androgen deprivation in conjunction with radiotherapy (RT); 2) what standard initial treatment should be used in metastatic hormone-naïve PC (MHNPC); 3) efficacy of androgen deprivation agents; 4) whether ADT should be continued in patients with castration resistant PC (CRPC). However, no recommendations could be made for combined ADT and very high-dose RT in patients with an intermediate-risk disease. CONCLUSIONS: ADT remains the cornerstone of treatment for both metastatic hormone-naïve and castration-resistant PC. According to the expert panel's opinion, based on the ERG report, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists might not be equivalent but this needs to be confirmed in long-term data. The combined use of ADT and RT improves outcome and survival in men with high-risk localised disease. The benefits in patients with intermediate-risk disease, particularly those subject to escalated dose RT are controversial.

Immediate versus deferred chemotherapy after radical cystectomy in patients with pT3-pT4 or N+ M0 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (EORTC 30994): an intergroup, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder have poor survival after cystectomy. The EORTC 30994 trial aimed to compare immediate versus deferred cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy after radical cystectomy in patients with pT3-pT4 or N+ M0 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. METHODS: This intergroup, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial recruited patients from hospitals across Europe and Canada. Eligible patients had histologically proven urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, pT3-pT4 disease or node positive (pN1-3) M0 disease after radical cystectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy, with no evidence of any microscopic residual disease. Within 90 days of cystectomy, patients were centrally randomly assigned (1:1) by minimisation to either immediate adjuvant chemotherapy (four cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin, high-dose methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin [high-dose MVAC], or MVAC) or six cycles of deferred chemotherapy at relapse, with stratification for institution, pT category, and lymph node status according to the number of nodes dissected. Neither patients nor investigators were masked. Overall survival was the primary endpoint; all analyses were by intention to treat. The trial was closed after recruitment of 284 of the planned 660 patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00028756. FINDINGS: From April 29, 2002, to Aug 14, 2008, 284 patients were randomly assigned (141 to immediate treatment and 143 to deferred treatment), and followed up until the data cutoff of Aug 21, 2013. After a median follow-up of 7.0 years (IQR 5.2-8.7), 66 (47%) of 141 patients in the immediate treatment group had died compared with 82 (57%) of 143 in the deferred treatment group. No significant improvement in overall survival was noted with immediate treatment when compared with deferred treatment (adjusted HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.56-1.08; p=0.13). Immediate treatment significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with deferred treatment (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.4-0.73, p<0.0001), with 5-year progression-free survival of 47.6% (95% CI 38.8-55.9) in the immediate treatment group and 31.8% (24.2-39.6) in the deferred treatment group. Grade 3-4 myelosuppression was reported in 33 (26%) of 128 patients who received treatment in the immediate chemotherapy group versus 24 (35%) of 68 patients who received treatment in the deferred chemotherapy group, neutropenia occurred in 49 (38%) versus 36 (53%) patients, respectively, and thrombocytopenia in 36 (28%) versus 26 (38%). Two patients died due to toxicity, one in each group. INTERPRETATION: Our data did not show a significant improvement in overall survival with immediate versus deferred chemotherapy after radical cystectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy for patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. However, the trial is limited in power, and it is possible that some subgroups of patients might still benefit from immediate chemotherapy. An updated individual patient data meta-analysis and biomarker research are needed to further elucidate the potential for survival benefit in subgroups of patients. FUNDING: Lilly, Canadian Cancer Society Research.

Larotaxel with Cisplatin in the first-line treatment of locally advanced/metastatic urothelial tract or bladder cancer: a randomized, active-controlled, phase III trial (CILAB).

BACKGROUND: This open-label, randomized phase III trial evaluated larotaxel/cisplatin versus gemcitabine/cisplatin as first-line treatment for locally advanced (T4b) or metastatic urothelial tract or bladder cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomized to larotaxel 50 mg/m(2) with cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks (larotaxel/cisplatin) or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 with cisplatin 70 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 4 weeks (gemcitabine/cisplatin). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The trial was prematurely closed following the sponsor's decision to stop clinical development of larotaxel (n = 337 randomized). The larotaxel dose was reduced to 40 mg/m(2) and cisplatin to 60 mg/m(2) following a data monitoring committee safety review of the first 97 patients. At the time of analysis, the median OS was 13.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.2-17.1] with larotaxel/cisplatin and 14.3 months (95% CI 10.5 to not reached) with gemcitabine/cisplatin [hazard ratio (HR) 1.21; 95% CI 0.83-1.76; p = 0.33]. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.6 months (95% CI 4.1-6.2) with larotaxel/cisplatin and 7.6 months (95% CI 6.6-9.1) with gemcitabine/cisplatin (HR 1.67; 95% CI 1.24-2.25). More myelosuppression was observed with gemcitabine/cisplatin. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in OS. Although the trial was closed prematurely, PFS appeared worse with larotaxel/cisplatin, suggesting that larotaxel/cisplatin does not improve outcomes versus cisplatin/gemcitabine.

Aflibercept versus placebo in combination with docetaxel and prednisone for treatment of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (VENICE): a phase 3, double-blind randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel plus prednisone is standard first-line chemotherapy for men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Aflibercept is a recombinant human fusion protein that binds A and B isoforms of VEGF and placental growth factor, thereby inhibiting angiogenesis. We assessed whether the addition of aflibercept to docetaxel and prednisone would improve overall survival in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer compared with the addition of placebo to docetaxel and prednisone. METHODS: VENICE was a phase 3, multicentre, randomised double-blind placebo-controlled parallel group study done in 31 countries (187 sites). Men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, adequate organ function, and no prior chemotherapy were treated with docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) intravenously every 3 weeks) and oral prednisone (5 mg twice daily) and randomly allocated (1:1) to receive aflibercept (6 mg/kg) or placebo, intravenously, every 3 weeks. Treatment allocation was done centrally via an interactive voice response system, using a computer-generated sequence with a permuted-block size of four and stratified according Eastern Co-operative Group performance status (0-1 vs 2). Patients, investigators, and other individuals responsible for study conduct and data analysis were masked to treatment assignment. Aflibercept or placebo vials were supplied in identical boxes. The primary endpoint was overall survival using intention-to-treat analysis. This is the primary analysis of the completed trial. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00519285 FINDINGS: Between Aug 17, 2007, and Feb 11, 2010, 1224 men were randomly allocated to treatment: 612 to each group. At final analysis, median follow-up was 35 months (IQR 29-41) and 873 men had died. Median overall survival was 22·1 months (95·6% CI 20·3-24·1) in the aflibercept group and 21·2 months (19·6-23·8) in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio 0·94, 95·6% CI 0·82-1·08; p=0·38). We recorded a higher incidence of grade 3-4 gastrointestinal disorders (182 [30%] vs 48 [8·0%]), haemorrhagic events (32 [5·2%] vs ten [1·7%]), hypertension (81 [13%] vs 20 [3·3%]), fatigue (97 [16%] vs 46 [7·7%]), infections (123 [20%] vs 60 [10%]) and treatment-related fatal adverse events (21 [3·4%] vs nine [1·5%]) in the aflibercept group than in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Aflibercept in combination with docetaxel and prednisone given as first-line chemotherapy for men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer resulted in no improvement in overall survival and added toxicity compared with placebo. Docetaxel plus prednisone remains the standard treatment for such men who need first-line chemotherapy. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Randomized phase III study comparing paclitaxel/cisplatin/gemcitabine and gemcitabine/cisplatin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer without prior systemic therapy: EORTC Intergroup Study 30987.

PURPOSE: The combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) is a standard regimen in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. A phase I/II study suggested that a three-drug regimen that included paclitaxel had greater antitumor activity and might improve survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized phase III study to compare paclitaxel/cisplatin/gemcitabine (PCG) with GC in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate, and toxicity. RESULTS: From 2001 to 2004, 626 patients were randomly assigned; 312 patients were assigned to PCG, and 314 patients were assigned to GC. After a median follow-up of 4.6 years, the median OS was 15.8 months on PCG versus 12.7 months on GC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; P = .075). OS in the subgroup of all eligible patients was significantly longer on PCG (3.2 months; HR, 0.82; P = .03), as was the case in patients with bladder primary tumors. PFS was not significantly longer on PCG (HR, 0.87; P = .11). Overall response rate was 55.5% on PCG and 43.6% on GC (P = .0031). Both treatments were well tolerated, with more thrombocytopenia and bleeding on GC than PCG (11.4% v 6.8%, respectively; P = .05) and more febrile neutropenia on PCG than GC (13.2% v 4.3%, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The addition of paclitaxel to GC provides a higher response rate and a 3.1-month survival benefit that did not reach statistical significance. Novel approaches will be required to obtain major improvements in survival of incurable urothelial cancer.

Randomized phase III study comparing paclitaxel-bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) to standard BEP in intermediate-prognosis germ-cell cancer: intergroup study EORTC 30983.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of four cycles of paclitaxel-bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (T-BEP) to four cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) in previously untreated patients with intermediate-prognosis germ-cell cancer (GCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either T-BEP or standard BEP. Patients assigned to the T-BEP group received paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) in a 3-hour infusion. Patients who were administered T-BEP received primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis. The study was designed as a randomized open-label phase II/III study. To show a 10% improvement in 3-year progression-free survival (PFS), the study aimed to recruit 498 patients but closed with 337 patients as a result of slow accrual. RESULTS: Accrual was from November 1998 to April 2009. A total of 169 patients were administered BEP, and 168 patients were administered T-BEP. Thirteen patients in both arms were ineligible, mainly as a result of a good prognosis of GCC (eight patients administered BEP; six patients administered T-BEP) or a poor prognosis of GCC (one patient administered BEP; four patients administered T-BEP). PFS at 3 years (intent to treat) was 79.4% in the T-BEP group versus 71.1% in the BEP group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; CI, 0.47 to 1.13; P [log-rank test] = 0.153). PFS at 3 years in all eligible patients was 82.7% versus 70.1%, respectively (HR, 0.60; CI: 0.37 to 0.97) and was statistically significant (P = 0.03). Overall survival was not statistically different. CONCLUSION: T-BEP administered with G-CSF seems to be a safe and effective treatment regimen for patients with intermediate-prognosis GCC. However, the study recruited a smaller-than-planned number of patients and included 7.7% ineligible patients. The primary analysis of the trial could not demonstrate statistical superiority of T-BEP for PFS. When ineligible patients were excluded, the analysis of all eligible patients demonstrated a 12% superior 3-year PFS with T-BEP, which was statistically significant.

Randomized phase II/III trial assessing gemcitabine/carboplatin and methotrexate/carboplatin/vinblastine in patients with advanced urothelial cancer who are unfit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy: EORTC study 30986.

PURPOSE: This is the first randomized phase II/III trial comparing two carboplatin-based chemotherapy regimens in patients with urothelial cancer who are ineligible ("unfit") for cisplatin chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The primary objective of the phase III part of this study was to compare the overall survival (OS) of chemotherapy-naive patients with measurable disease and an impaired renal function (glomerular filtration rate < 60 but > 30 mL/min) and/or performance score of 2 who were randomly assigned to receive either gemcitabine/carboplatin (GC) or methotrexate/carboplatin/vinblastine (M-CAVI). To detect an increase of 50% in median survival with GC compared with M-CAVI (13.5 v 9 months) based on a two-sided log-rank test at error rates α = .05 and ß = .20, 225 patients were required. Secondary end points were overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and quality of life. RESULTS: In all, 238 patients were randomly assigned by 29 institutions over a period of 7 years. The median follow-up was 4.5 years. Best ORRs were 41.2% (36.1% confirmed response) for patients receiving GC versus 30.3% (21.0% confirmed response) for patients receiving M-CAVI (P = .08). Median OS was 9.3 months in the GC arm and 8.1 months in the M-CAVI arm (P = .64). There was no difference in PFS (P = .78) between the two arms. Severe acute toxicity (death, grade 4 thrombocytopenia with bleeding, grade 3 or 4 renal toxicity, neutropenic fever, or mucositis) was observed in 9.3% of patients receiving GC and 21.2% of patients receiving M-CAVI. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in efficacy between the two treatment groups. The incidence of severe acute toxicities was higher for those receiving M-CAVI.

Randomized phase II/III trial assessing gemcitabine/ carboplatin and methotrexate/carboplatin/vinblastine in patients with advanced urothelial cancer "unfit" for cisplatin-based chemotherapy: phase II--results of EORTC study 30986.

PURPOSE: There is no standard treatment for patients with advanced urothelial cancer who are ineligible ("unfit") for cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CHT). To compare the activity and safety of two CHT combinations in this patient group, a randomized phase II/III trial was conducted by the EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer). We report here the phase II results of the study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CHT-naïve patients with measurable disease and impaired renal function (30 mL/min < glomerular filtration rate [GFR] < 60 mL/min) and/or performance status (PS) 2 were randomly assigned to receive either GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 and carboplatin area under the serum concentration-time curve [AUC] 4.5) for 21 days or M-CAVI (methotrexate 30 mg/m(2) on days 1, 15, and 22; carboplatin AUC 4.5 on day 1; and vinblastine 3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 15, and 22) for 28 days. End points of response and severe acute toxicity (SAT) were evaluated with respect to treatment group, renal function, PS, and Bajorin risk groups. RESULTS: Three of 178 patients who were ineligible or did not start treatment were excluded. SAT was reported in 13.6% of patients on GC and in 23% on M-CAVI. Overall response rates were 42% (37 of 88) for GC and 30% (26 of 87) for M-CAVI. Patients with PS 2 and GFR less than 60 mL/min and patients in Bajorin risk group 2 showed a response rate of only 26% and 20% and an SAT rate of 26% and 25%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both combinations are active in this group of unfit patients. However, patients with PS 2 and GFR less than 60 mL/min do not benefit from combination CHT. Alternative treatment modalities should be sought in this subgroup of poor-risk patients.

Prostate-specific antigen flare phenomenon with docetaxel-based chemotherapy in patients with androgen-independent prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 'flare' phenomenon in patients with androgen-independent prostate cancer (AIPC) treated with docetaxel, as flare is a known effect of androgen-deprivation therapy in hormone-dependent prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The charts of 56 patients who received docetaxel-based chemotherapy in three different centres from August 1999 to August 2007 were reviewed retrospectively. The biochemical response was characterized according to the Bubley criteria. There was an immediate PSA response (PSA decline >or= 50%) in 23 (41%) patients, PSA stabilization (PSA decline < 50%) in 16 (29%) and PSA progression in nine (16%). There was also a fourth response, i.e. PSA flare, defined as an increase in PSA level with no symptomatic progression, after starting docetaxel-based chemotherapy administered every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Eight (14%) patients with PSA flare were identified; all had osseous disease and five had additional soft-tissue disease. The PSA flare lasted a median (range) of 21 (21-42) days and it spread over a median of 1 (1-2) cycles. The temporary PSA surge exceeded baseline values by a median (range) of 61.5 (12-404)%. There was a subsequent PSA response in six of the eight patients and PSA stabilized in the remaining two. Patients with flare received a median of 8.5 (5-12) treatment cycles, vs a median of 8 (2-12) in the immediate PSA response group (P = 0.103, Student's t-test). The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria evaluation showed one patient with a partial response and six with stable disease. The median survival of patients with PSA flare was 12.5 months, while that of the immediate PSA responders was 20.1 months (not statistically significant, P = 0.168, log-rank test). CONCLUSION: Of patients with AIPC, 14% had an initial PSA flare after starting docetaxel-based chemotherapy. The occurrence of PSA flare had no effect on treatment duration or outcome. With lack of clinical progression, docetaxel-based chemotherapy should be administered for at least two 3-week cycles before further decisions are made about efficacy.

Progression after docetaxel-based chemotherapy in androgen-independent prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical pattern of progression and prostate-specific antigen doubling time (PSA-DT) after exposure to docetaxel-based chemotherapy in patients with androgen-independent prostate cancer (AIPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-five patients received docetaxel-based chemotherapy; data were collected retrospectively from three different departments. Progression was known in 44 (79%) and the PSA-DT was available in 33 patients. RESULTS: Of the 29 patients with soft-tissue and soft-tissue plus bone metastases, 22 (76%) developed soft-tissue progression. Among the 35 patients with bone and bone plus soft-tissue metastases, 27 (77%) had osseous progression. There was no difference between the PSA-DT at progression before and after docetaxel-based therapy (mean 3.1 vs 2.7 months, P = 0.592, Student's t-test.). However, the median (range) PSA-DT at progression after docetaxel-based therapy was 0.84 (0.3-4) months in patients with a PSA response, significantly shorter than the median of 3.1 (0.3-12) months of patients with no biochemical response (P = 0.002, Student's t-test). The PSA-DT dynamics at progression had no effect on survival (P = 0.63, log-rank test). CONCLUSION: The pattern of progression after docetaxel-based chemotherapy is predominantly osseous in patient with bone metastases and mostly soft-tissue in those with soft-tissue disease. Progression after docetaxel-based chemotherapy in AIPC does not modify the PSA-DT before docetaxel. Evaluation of a larger population is needed to assess the clinical relevance of PSA dynamics after docetaxel therapy.

Pharmacotherapy of bladder cancer--practice and prospects.

In contrast to the US, the incidence and mortality rates of bladder cancer are still increasing in some European countries, despite the fact that most new cases are diagnosed as early, superficial tumours. The standard of care of superficial tumours consists of cytoscopic electroresection of the tumour followed by intravesical immunotherapy or chemotherapy. Immunotherapy with bacillus-Calmette Guerin (BCG) prevents recurrence in most treated patients and has a positive impact on survival; however, approximately 30% are BCG-refractory, progressive tumours. Pharmacogenomics will enable to distinguish those high-risk patients in clinical practice soon. New immunotherapy approaches, such as BCG combined with low-dose interferon or recombinant BCG strains, are promising approaches which need to be explored in prospective trials. The use of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy is still controversial but the results of recent trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally-advanced bladder tumours convinced some leading centres to implement neoadjuvant chemotherapy in selected groups of patients. By far, the four-drug methotrexate-vinblastine-doxorubicin-cisplatin regimen was widely used in metastatic and locally-advanced disease. Recently, two-drug combination gemcitabine-cisplatin proved to be equally effective and less toxic. New chemotherapies tested in clinical trials include gemcitabine, taxanes and new drugs that interfere with signal transduction. Individualisation of established and investigational treatment options based on molecular tumour characteristics, such as p53 status, is probably the future of bladder cancer pharmacotherapy.