Predictive modeling in prostate cancer. Conclusions and reflections

Validated prognostic factors are an integral part of any cancer diagnosis. The available proliferation of new markers and randomized clinical trial results leads to a complex decision making looking for optimal treatment and outcome results. Advanced mathematic models have been developed to weigh each specific prognostic factor into a single outcome number in nomograms modeled for specific predictive accuracy in key phases of the treated history of the disease. Despite this progress, it is important to realize that the results are an outcome stratification for groups rather than for the individual patient. It is clear that in the tumor prognosis, host and environmental factors need to be evaluated before any clinical decision is made. Cancer 2009;115(13 suppl):3160-2. (c) 2009 American Cancer Society.

Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study

BACKGROUND

The European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer was initiated in the early 1990s to evaluate the effect of screening with prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) testing on death rates from prostate cancer.

METHODS

We identified 182,000 men between the ages of 50 and 74 years through registries in seven European countries for inclusion in our study. The men were randomly assigned to a group that was offered PSA screening at an average of once every 4 years or to a control group that did not receive such screening. The predefined core age group for this study included 162,243 men between the ages of 55 and 69 years. The primary outcome was the rate of death from prostate cancer. Mortality follow-up was identical for the two study groups and ended on December 31, 2006.

RESULTS

In the screening group, 82% of men accepted at least one offer of screening. During a median follow-up of 9 years, the cumulative incidence of prostate cancer was 8.2% in the screening group and 4.8% in the control group. The rate ratio for death from prostate cancer in the screening group, as compared with the control group, was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.98; adjusted P=0.04). The absolute risk difference was 0.71 death per 1000 men. This means that 1410 men would need to be screened and 48 additional cases of prostate cancer would need to be treated to prevent one death from prostate cancer. The analysis of men who were actually screened during the first round (excluding subjects with noncompliance) provided a rate ratio for death from prostate cancer of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.56 to 0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

PSA-based screening reduced the rate of death from prostate cancer by 20% but was associated with a high risk of overdiagnosis. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN49127736.)

The prevention of prostate cancer

From our better understanding of the natural history of prostate cancer, it is not unreasonable to believe that the disease is preventable. Prostate cancer has become a major healthcare problem worldwide, as life expectancy increases. Moreover, the cancer is slow growing, with a period of about 20-25 years from initiation to the stage when the clinically detectable phenotype can be identified. This review provides a simple overview of the endocrinology of prostate cancer and discusses some of the pharmaceutical agents that have been or are being tested to restrain, possibly arrest, the progression of this slowly growing cancer. Also discussed are many of the dietary factors that may influence the molecular or endocrine events implicated in its development. Dietary factors are considered responsible for the geographical differences in prostate cancer incidence and mortality. Since about 50% of all men worldwide, from both East and West, show evidence of microscopic cancer by 50 years of age, growth restraint would appear to be the pragmatic option to the possibility of preventing initiation.

Estrogens and aspects of prostate disease

Estrogens have long been associated with the processes involved in prostate carcinogenesis, particularly in cancer suppression. However, the synergistic influence of low concentrations of estrogens, together with androgens, in promoting aberrant growth of the gland has also been recognized. As new insights into the complex molecular events implicated in growth regulation of the prostate are revealed, the role of the estrogens has become clearer. The present review considers this role in relation to the pathogenesis of prostate cancer and the potential cancer-repressive influence of the dietary estrogens.

Phase I and pharmacological study of the oral matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor, MMI270 (CGS27023A), in patients with advanced solid cancer

This Phase I study of MMI270, an p.o. administered matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor, assessed toxicity, pharmacokinetics, and tumor response data and investigated markers of biological activity to recommend a dose for Phase II studies. MMI270 was administered continuously at seven dose levels (50 mg once daily to 600 mg three times/day). Patients were evaluated for toxicity and tumor response, and blood and urine samples were taken for pharmacokinetics, bone resorption markers, direct targets of the inhibitor [matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2), MMP-8, and MMP-9], indirect targets [tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 (TIMP-1), TIMP-2, basic fibroblast growth factor, vascular endothelial growth factor, vascular cell adhesion molecule-1, soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor, and cathepsins B and H] and for a tumor necrosis factor-alpha cytokine release assay. Ninety-two patients were entered. There was no myelotoxicity. Eighteen patients developed a widespread maculopapular rash, which increased in frequency and severity at doses > or = 300 mg bid. Thirty nine patients developed musculoskeletal side effects, which were related to duration of treatment, not to dose level. Pharmacokinetics were linear, and MMI270 was rapidly absorbed and eliminated with minimal accumulation on chronic dosing. Sustained plasma concentrations in excess of 4 x mean IC(50) for the target enzymes were observed at dose levels > or = 150 mg bid. There were no tumor regressions; however, 19 patients had stable disease for > or = 90 days. There was a dose-response increase of MMP-2 and TIMP-1 with MMI270. Transient effects on the bone resorption markers were detected. MMI270 was generally well tolerated, with adequate plasma levels for target enzyme inhibition. The two main toxicities were rash, resulting in a maximum tolerated dose of 300 mg bid and musculoskeletal side effects. Biological marker data indicate drug effects. The rise in TIMP-1 suggests that a reflex rise in inhibitors could modify the effects of MMI270. The recommended Phase II dose is 300 mg bid.

Why phase III trials of maximal androgen blockade versus castration in M1 prostate cancer rarely show statistically significant differences

BACKGROUND

The meta-analysis of maximal androgen blockade (MAB) concluded that there is no survival advantage of MAB over castration alone. However, the results from the largest trials yield conflicting results.

METHODS

The design and results of three trials were examined.

RESULTS

Most studies were planned to detect an over-optimistic difference in survival and immature data were published. The survival curves show that statistical assumptions are not fulfilled. Excluding from the meta-analysis all trials where a negative impact of disease flare on survival could not be excluded resulted in no difference in survival between MAB and castration.

CONCLUSIONS

Trials of MAB should be planned to detect differences of no more than 5-10% in median survival. The analyses should only be carried out on mature data and should take into account the possibility of a negative impact on survival due to disease flare if no anti-androgen has been given initially with an LH-RH agonist.

The role of active treatment in early prostate cancer

The dramatic increase in the number of patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in the last decade presents a difficult challenge for physicians. Because the window of opportunity for cure is short it is vital to begin treatment before the cancer cells invade neighbouring tissues and organs or metastasise to other sites. This pressure of increased patient numbers provided clinicians with the opportunity to investigate other treatment options. New surgical techniques including laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, improving therapeutic radiation by the introduction of conformal radiotherapy, neutron radiation, cryosurgery, high intensity focussed ultrasound (HIF) and the revival of brachytherapy with or without external beam radiation are currently being investigated. The goal of these techniques is to treat localized prostate cancer based on the endpoints of disease specific mortality, no evidence of disease, absent or low levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA), reduced side-effects, improved quality of life and importantly increased cost-efficacy. It is important to remember however, that watchful waiting and endocrine therapy are still valid therapy options in certain patient groups. The lack of randomized, prospective trials on local treatment of prostate cancer, makes it difficult to compare the efficacy of the different treatments, especially in terms of disease-specific survival. Trials are now in progress but it will be several years before results are available. In the meantime, we need to focus on surrogate endpoints, side effects, quality of life and the cost-efficacy of each treatment. It is also important to ensure that patients are kept informed and up-to-date with any new therapeutic developments.

Maximal androgen blockade: final analysis of EORTC phase III trial 30853. EORTC Genito-Urinary Tract Cancer Cooperative Group and the EORTC Data Center

OBJECTIVES

This prospective, randomized phase III study was initiated to compare the efficacy and side effects of bilateral orchiectomy versus a combination of a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist depot formulation, goserelin acetate (3.6 mg s.c. once every 4 weeks) and flutamide (250 mg 3 x daily) in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

METHODS

Relative treatment efficacy was assessed by comparing the two treatment groups with respect to response, time to first progression, progression-free survival, duration of survival and time to death due to malignant disease.

RESULTS

There was a difference in response only with respect to a more frequent decrease to normal of the serum prostate acid phosphatase in patients assigned to maximal androgen blockade treatment. Additionally, maximal androgen blockade treatment showed significantly better results for duration of survival (p = 0.04), time to death due to malignant disease (p = 0.008), time to first progression (p = 0.009) and progression-free survival (p = 0.02). The most frequent side effects for both treatments included hot flushes and gynaecomastia.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased time to progression and duration of survival is achieved by the combination of flutamide and goserelin when compared to bilateral orchiectomy.

Oral paclitaxel and concurrent cyclosporin A: targeting clinically relevant systemic exposure to paclitaxel

Oral paclitaxel is not inherently bioavailable because of the overexpression of P-glycoprotein by intestinal cells and the significant first-pass extraction by cytochrome P450-dependent processes. This study sought to simulate the toxicological and pharmacological profile of a clinically relevant schedule of paclitaxel administered on clinically relevant i.v. dosing schedules in patients with advanced solid malignancies using oral paclitaxel administered with cyclosporin A, an inhibitor of both P-glycoprotein and P450 CYP3A. Nine patients were treated with a single course of oral paclitaxel in its parenteral formulation at a paclitaxel dose level of 180, 360, or 540 mg. Cyclosporin A was administered at a dose of 5 mg/kg p.o. 1 h before and concurrently with oral paclitaxel. Blood sampling was performed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel, 6-alpha-hydroxypaclitaxel, 3-p-hydroxypaclitaxel, and cyclosporin A. The pharmacokinetic behavior of paclitaxel was characterized using both compartmental and noncompartmental methods. Model-estimated parameters were used to simulate paclitaxel concentrations after once daily and twice daily oral administration of paclitaxel and cyclosporin A. Aside from an unpleasant taste, the oral regimen was well tolerated, and there were no grade 3 or 4 drug-related toxicities. The systemic exposure to paclitaxel, as assessed by maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC) values, did not increase as the dose of paclitaxel was increased from 180 to 540 mg, and there was substantial interindividual variability (4-6-fold) at each dose level. Mean paclitaxel Cmax values approached plasma concentrations achieved with clinically relevant parenteral dose schedules, averaging 268+/-164 ng/ml. AUC values averaged 3306+/-1977 ng x h/ ml, which was significantly lower than AUC values achieved with clinically relevant i.v. paclitaxel dose schedules. However, computer simulations using pharmacokinetic parameters derived from the present study demonstrated that pharmacodynamically relevant steady-state plasma paclitaxel concentrations of at least 0.06 microM would be achieved after protracted once daily and twice daily dosing with oral paclitaxel and cyclosporin A. Paclitaxel metabolites were detectable in three patients, and the 6-alpha-hydroxypaclitaxel: paclitaxel and 3-p-hydroxypaclitaxel:paclitaxel AUC ratios averaged 0.63 and 0.86, respectively; these values were substantially higher than values reported in patients treated with i.v. paclitaxel. Oral paclitaxel was bioavailable in humans when administered in combination with oral cyclosporin A 5 mg/kg 1 h before and concurrently with paclitaxel treatment, and plasma paclitaxel concentrations achieved with this schedule were biologically relevant and approached concentrations attained with clinically relevant parenteral dose schedules. However, treatment of patients with oral paclitaxel using a single oral dose administration schedule failed to achieve sufficiently high systemic drug exposure and pharmacodynamic effects. In contrast, computer simulations demonstrated that clinically relevant pharmacodynamic effects are likely to be achieved with multiple once daily and twice daily oral paclitaxel-cyclosporin A dosing schedules.

Phase I and pharmacological study of weekly administration of the polyamine synthesis inhibitor SAM 486A (CGP 48 664) in patients with solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Early Clinical Studies Group

A single-agent dose-escalating Phase I and pharmacological study of the polyamine synthesis inhibitor SAM 486A was performed. A dosing regimen of four weekly infusions followed by 2 weeks off therapy was studied. Fifty patients were entered into the study. Dose levels studied were 1.25, 2.5, 5, 8, 16, 32, 48, 70, 110, 170, 270, and 325 mg/m2/week. Pharmacokinetic sampling was done on day 1, and trough samples were taken weekly during the first treatment cycle. Pharmacodynamic sampling was done on days 1 and 22. At 325 mg/m2/week, dose-limiting toxicity was seen (one patient each with grade 4 febrile neutropenia, grade 3 neurotoxicity, and grade 3 hypotension with syncope and T-wave inversions on electrocardiogram). The recommended dose for further testing was set at 270 mg/m2/week. Infusion time was increased from 10 to 180 min due to facial paresthesias and flushing and somnolence. Drug exposure increased linearly with dose. Mean +/- SD t1,2 at 70-325 mg/m2 doses was 61.4+/-26.2 h, with a large volume of distribution at steady state. In peripheral blood leukocytes, a clear relationship between dose and inhibitory effect on S-adenosylmethionine decarboxylase or changes in intracellular polyamine pools was not recorded. SAM 486A can be administered safely using a dosing regimen of four weekly infusions followed by 2 weeks off therapy. The recommended dose for Phase II studies using this regimen is 270 mg/m2/week.

Endocrine treatment in prostate cancer

Over its natural course, prostate cancer is a heterogeneous tumour with a generally slow but constant rate of growth. The androgen dependence of the prostate gland was demonstrated more than half a century ago by the landmark studies of Professor C. Huggins and colleagues. They established that androgens are implicated not only in growth regulation of the normal gland but also in the pathogenesis of prostate cancer, and that this malignant tissue retains some degree of androgen dependence. This concept was supported by studies of symptomatic clinical cancer, with androgen ablative therapy bringing relief to the patient in more than 80% of the cases. The classical treatment consisted of either bilateral orchiectomy, or administration of diethylstilbestrol (DES). Other forms of therapy followed, involving successive waves of new compounds that either withdrew androgen support from the cancer or blocked the androgens from their receptors in the prostate cancer cells. Chronologically, the progestagens can be well recognised, with one in particular: The successful derivative, cyproterone acetate (CPA). There also have been a number of oral vs. parenteral estrogens, the development of the luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists (LH-RHA), the introduction of the non-steroidal anti-androgens characterised by flutamide and casodex, and more recently, the introduction of the LH-RHA. Moreover, there have been multiple possible forms of combination treatment to obtain maximal androgen blockade (MAB). However, no major differences in treatment outcome have been reported during the last 5 decades and most treatment choices have been based on tradition, associated side effects, the preferences of a particular doctor and patient, together with economic considerations. Furthermore, endocrine treatment has never been shown to cure clinical prostate cancer, which consequently has led to initiatives to defer endocrine treatment or to use it intermittently or use it as a form of neo-adjuvant or adjuvant treatment with surgery or radiotherapy. The history of endocrine therapy is replete with clinical trials that do not represent the patient population in general, and these trials share the clinical fact that they ignore the 20% to 30% of all patients who lack an initial response to a given endocrine treatment. Thus, it is no wonder that prognostic factors determine the outcome more than the treatment itself. Important to current endocrine treatment, however, is the shift to earlier stages of prostate cancer at initial diagnosis. Integration of endocrine treatment at this earlier phase in the pathogenesis of prostate cancer will substantially alter the treatment strategy in relation to long-term benefit with regard to survival, associated side effects, and costs. This complex adjustment is enhanced by recent discoveries in the molecular biology of the prostate which show, on the one hand, that the dihydrotestosterone-androgen receptor (DHT-AR) complex is important in the regulation of gene expression, but also that a number of intrinsic factors (e.g., peptide growth regulatory factors) can, through various paracrine, autocrine or intracrine interactions, exercise a major influence on cellular homeostasis and the regulation of prostatic growth.

Finasteride in association with either flutamide or goserelin as combination hormonal therapy in patients with stage M1 carcinoma of the prostate gland. International Prostate Health Council (IPHC) Trial Study Group

BACKGROUND

It was very reasonable to consider that the combination of the 5alpha-reductase, finasteride, and a pure antiandrogen such as flutamide should provide an effective form of maximal androgen blockade (MAB). Finasteride decreases intraprostatic levels of 5alpha-dihydrotestosterone (DHT), and the antiandrogen would restrain the biological action of the residual DHT by interfering with its association with androgen receptor. This form of MAB should sustain the concentration of testosterone in plasma, thereby maintaining sexual function and reasonable quality of life. In order to investigate this, a randomized multicenter phase II clinical trial of patients with untreated M1 cancer of the prostate was developed and undertaken.

METHODS

Patients were randomly allocated to one of three treatment schedules: 1) goserelin, 3.6 mg, s.c., monthly in combination with flutamide, 250 mg., t.i.d. and a placebo, daily, in the image of 2 x 5 mg finasteride; 2) goserelin, 3.6 mg., s.c., monthly in combination with finasteride, 10 mg (2 x 5 mg, daily) and a placebo (t.i.d.) in the image of flutamide; and 3) finasteride, 10 mg (2 x 5 mg, daily) in combination with flutamide (250 mg, t.i.d.). The reduction in concentration of serum PSA at 24 weeks was the endpoint of interest.

RESULTS

Baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of the patients in the three groups were very similar. There was a substantial decrease in levels of PSA in the three groups prior to the end of the study, the percent decrease in the groups being: 1) goserelin and flutamide combination, 99.1% (95% Confidence interval (CI), 97.7, 99.6); 2) goserelin and finasteride combination, 98.75% (95% CI, 97.1, 99.5); and 3) finasteride and flutamide combination, 97.6%, 95% CI, 94.5, 98.9). In the Generalized linear model (GLM) analysis, there was no center by treatment group interaction (P = 20), and there were no significant differences between centers (P = 0.059) nor among the three treatment groups (P = 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

The decrease in levels of PSA in such a group of patients with M1 cancer of the prostate over a 24-week period was surprisingly large, and the differences in these decreased levels between the three treatment arms were remarkably small. There were no apparent differences in bone scan scores, World Health Organization (WHO) performance status, and pain scores between the arms. With regard to sexual function associated with quality of life, there were the understandable difficulties of data collection from patients treated with goserelin.

Quality-adjusted survival (Q-TWiST) analysis of EORTC trial 30853: comparing goserelin acetate and flutamide with bilateral orchiectomy in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer

BACKGROUND

The first data analysis of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 30853 trial indicated a significantly longer time to progression and duration of survival for the maximal androgen blockade (MAB) treatment arm. However, the MAB treatment arm had a higher frequency of reported side effects.

METHODS

The quality-adjusted survival (Q-TWiST) method was applied to perform a secondary analysis of the EORTC 30853 trial in order to obtain a quality-adjusted survival (QAS) analysis. Two models with different definitions of the progression health state were used for the analysis. In the first model, progression was defined by both objective and subjective criteria, and in the second model only by increase in pain score. The approach was also extended to include an analysis using actual utility scores (Q-tility) of patients in the relevant health states.

RESULTS

Based on Q-tility scores obtained from a separate study of a cohort of prostate cancer patients, the QAS analysis resulted in a 5.2-month difference (95% CI, -1.1; 11.5 months) in favor of zoladex and flutamide, equal in magnitude to the benefit found in the unadjusted survival analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

A QAS analysis such as the Q-TWiST method may be preferred over the unadjusted approach in clinical trials where the health states are clearly distinct, and differ significantly in either duration or quality of life (QOL), or both. The second model, with progression defined as increase in pain score, made no difference to the results in this study because of the small difference in duration of the pain-progression health state between treatment arms. However, Q-tility scores from the separate cross-sectional study that was used in this Q-TWiST analysis showed that a subjective definition of health states better reflects differences in QOL between the health states that the patients experience during follow-up.

Matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors: present achievements and future prospects

Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) are a class of structurally related enzymes that function in the degradation of extracellular matrix proteins that constitute the pericellular connective tissue and play an important role in both normal and pathological tissue remodelling. Increased MMP activity is detected in a wide range of cancers and seems correlated to their invasive and metastatic potential. MMPs thus seem an attractive target for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Several synthetic matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors (MMPIs) are currently being developed. Preclinical studies are promising as they suggest inhibition of several steps in the metastatic process. Marimastat is the first MMPI to enter comparative phase III trials after early clinical trials established the safety profile. Clinical trials will need to be specifically designed to optimally evaluate the therapeutic potential of this novel class of cytostatic drugs. Safety studies should consider the markedly different toxicity profile and determine the range of biologically active dosage, while efficacy studies should be performed in selected clinical settings with appropriate end-points. We review the present achievements in preclinical and clinical studies with MMPIs, discuss specific considerations for appropriate study design and reflect on the future prospects of this novel class of agents.

Prospective evaluation plan for randomised trials of prostate cancer screening. The International Prostate Cancer Screening Trial Evaluation Group

To enable pooled analyses of continuing and planned randomised trials of prostate cancer screening, guidelines for minimal data required for such analyses were developed in the recent meeting of the International Prostate Screening Trial Evaluation Group (IPSTEG). The aim of the pooled analysis with data on individual level will be: (a) Estimation of the effect of screening on prostate cancer mortality with greater precision than individual studies (b) Assessment of optimal screening procedures and interval (c) Identification of subgroups within the populations that might receive most benefit from screening (d) Evaluation of the quality of life effects and cost effectiveness of screening. All studies included in the combined analysis share a common core protocol with minimum data requirements. The protocol allows, however, adaptation of the procedures to local circumstances within defined options. It should be noted that the process is continuing and the protocol is subject to evaluation and revision in the meetings of the IPSTEG on a regular basis.