Taxane-based chemohormonal therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a Cochrane Review.

To provide a precis of the Cochrane Collaboration Review of taxane-based chemohormonal therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer by Sathianathen NJ, Philippou YA, Kuntz GM et al. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD012816. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd012816.pub2.

Taxane-based chemohormonal therapy for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: There has been considerable development in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer over the last decade. A number of agents, including docetaxel, cabazitaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide and sipuleucel-T, have been reported to improve outcomes in men with castration-resistant disease and their use is being explored in hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of early taxane-based chemohormonal therapy for newly diagnosed, metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 10 August 2018. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials in which participants were administered taxane-based chemotherapy with systemic androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) within 120 days of beginning ADT versus ADT alone at the time of diagnosis of metastatic disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the quality of evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified three studies in which 2,261 participants were randomized to receive either ADT alone, or taxane-based chemotherapy at a dose of 75mg per square meter of body surface area at three-weekly intervals for six or nine cycles in addition to ADT.Primary outcomesEarly treatment with taxane-based chemotherapy in addition to ADT probably reduces death from any cause compared to ADT alone (hazard ratio (HR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 0.87; moderate-certainty evidence); this would result in 94 fewer deaths per 1,000 men (95% CI 51 to 137 fewer deaths). We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to study limitations related to potential performance bias. Based on the results of one study with 375 participants, the addition of taxane-based chemotherapy to ADT may increase the incidence of Grade III to V adverse events compared to ADT alone (risk ratio (RR) 2.98, 95% CI 2.19 to 4.04; low-certainty evidence); this would result in 405 more Grade III to V adverse events per 1,000 men (95% CI 243 to 621 more events). We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to study limitations and imprecision.Secondary outcomesEarly taxane-based chemotherapy in addition to ADT probably reduces the risk of prostate cancer-specific death (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.89; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to study limitations related to potential performance and detection bias. The addition of taxane-based chemotherapy also probably reduces disease progression compared to ADT alone (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.71; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of study limitations related to potential performance bias. The addition of taxane-based chemotherapy to ADT may result in a large increase in the risk of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 79.41, 95% CI 4.92 to 1282.78; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence due to study limitations and imprecision. This estimate is derived from a single study with no events in the control arm but a discontinuation rate of 20% in the intervention arm. Taxane-based chemotherapy may increase the incidence of adverse events of any grade (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.17; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded our assessment of the certainty of evidence due to very serious study limitations. There may be a small improvement, which may not be clinically important, in quality of life at 12 months with combination treatment (mean difference (MD) 2.85 on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate scale, 95% CI 0.13 higher to 5.57 higher; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations related to potential performance, detection and attrition bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to ADT alone, the early (within 120 days of beginning ADT) addition of taxane-based chemotherapy to ADT for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer probably prolongs both overall and disease-specific survival and delays disease progression. There may be an increase in toxicity with taxane-based chemotherapy in combination with ADT. There may also be a small, clinically unimportant improvement in quality of life at 12 months with taxane-based chemotherapy and ADT treatment.

Penile rehabilitation for postprostatectomy erectile dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Despite efforts to preserve the neurovascular bundles with nerve-sparing surgery, erectile dysfunction remains common following radical prostatectomy. Postoperative penile rehabilitation seeks to restore erectile function but results have been conflicting. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of penile rehabilitation strategies in restoring erectile function following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase), the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) and a grey literature repository (Grey Literature Report) from their inception through to 3 January 2018. We also searched the reference lists of other relevant publications and abstract proceedings. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials with a parallel or cross-over design. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Two review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and rated quality of evidence according to GRADE on a per-outcome basis. Primary outcomes were self-reported potency, erectile function measured by validated questionnaires (with potency defined as an International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) score of 19 or greater and or an IIEF-5 of score of 17 or greater) and serious adverse events. For all quality of life assessments on a continuous scale, higher values indicated better quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight randomised controlled trials with 1699 participants across three comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of this review only.Scheduled phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5I) versus placebo or no treatmentScheduled PDE5I may have little or no effect on short-term (up to 12 months) self-reported potency (risk ratio (RR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to1.41; very low quality evidence), which corresponds to 47 more men with self-reported potency per 1000 (95% CI 33 fewer to 149 more) and short-term erectile function as assessed by a validated instrument (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.55; very low quality evidence), which corresponds to 28 more men per 1000 (95% CI 50 fewer to 138 more), but we are very uncertain of both of these findings. Scheduled PDE5I may result in fewer serious adverse events compared to placebo (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.94; low quality evidence), though this does not appear biologically plausible and may represent a chance finding. We are also very uncertain of this finding. We found no long-term (longer than 12 months) data for any of the three primary outcomes.Scheduled PDE5I versus on-demand PDE5I Daily PDE5I appears to result in little to no difference in both short-term and long-term (greater than 12 months) self-reported potency (short term: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.53; long term: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67; both very low quality evidence); this corresponds to nine fewer men with self-reported short-term potency per 1000 (95% CI 119 fewer to 166 more) and zero fewer men with self-reported long-term potency per 1000 (95% CI 153 fewer to 257 more). We are very uncertain of these findings. Daily PDE5I appears to result in little to no difference in short-term and long-term erectile function (short term: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.55; long term; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.14; both very-low quality evidence), which corresponds to zero men with short-term erectile dysfunction per 1000 (95% CI 80 fewer to 125 more) and 119 fewer men with long-term erectile dysfunction per 1000 (95% CI 239 fewer to 64 more). We are very uncertain of these findings. Scheduled PDE5I may result in little or no effects on short-term adverse events (RR 0.69 95% CI 0.12 to 4.04; very low quality evidence), which corresponds to seven fewer men with short-term serious adverse events (95% CI 18 fewer to 64 more), but we are very uncertain of these findings. We found no long-term data for serious adverse events.Scheduled PDE5I versus scheduled intraurethral prostaglandin E1At short-term follow-up, daily PDE5I may result in little or no effect on self-reported potency (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.79, to 1.52; very low quality evidence), which corresponds to 46 more men per 1000 (95% CI 97 fewer to 241 more). Daily PDE5I may result in a small improvement of erectile function (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.20; very low quality evidence), which corresponds to 92 more men per 1000 (95% CI 23 fewer to 318 more) but we are very uncertain of both these findings. We found no long-term (longer than 12 months) data for any of the three primary outcomes.We found no evidence for any other comparisons and were unable to perform any of the preplanned subgroup analyses based on nerve-sparing approach, age or baseline erectile function. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on mostly very-low and some low-quality evidence, penile rehabilitation strategies consisting of scheduled PDE5I use following radical prostatectomy may not promote self-reported potency and erectile function any more than on demand use.