Patients' self-assessment versus investigators' evaluation in a phase III trial in non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer (GETUG-AFU 15)

BACKGROUND

Toxicity, which is a key parameter in the evaluation of cancer treatments, can be underestimated by clinicians. We investigated differences between patients and physicians in reporting adverse events of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without docetaxel in a multicentre phase III trial in non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer.

METHODS

The 385 patients included were invited to complete a 26-symptom questionnaire 3 and 6 months after the start of treatment, among which eighteen symptoms were also assessed by physicians, reported in medical records and graded using the Common Toxicity Criteria of the National Cancer Institute. Positive and negative agreements as well as Kappa concordance coefficients were computed.

FINDINGS

Data were available for 220 and 165 patients at 3 and 6 months respectively. Physicians systematically under-reported patients' symptoms. Positive agreement rates (at respectively 3 and 6 months) for the five most commonly reported symptoms were: 61.0% and 64.3% hot flushes, 50.0% and 43.6% fatigue, 29.4% and 31.1% sexual dysfunction, 24.4% and 14.4% weigh gain/loss, 16.7% and 19.3% for joint/muscle pain. For symptoms most frequently reported as disturbing or very disturbing by patients, the clinicians' failure to report them ranged from 50.8% (hot flushes) to 89.5% (joint/muscle pain) at 3 months, and from 48.2% (hot flushes) to 88.4% (joint/muscle pain) at 6 months.

INTERPRETATION

Physicians often failed to report treatment-related symptoms, even the most common and disturbing ones. Patients' self-evaluation of toxicity should be used in clinical trials to improve the process of drug assessment in oncology.

FUNDING

French Health Ministry and Institut National du Cancer (PHRC), Sanofi-Aventis, Astra-Zeneca, and Amgen.

Identification of prognostic groups in patients with hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer at the present time: An analysis of the GETUG 15 phase III trial

26

Background: Patients with upfront metastases at the time of prostate cancer (PC) diagnosis are less frequent than in the past in Western countries, but still represent 5-10% of all patients and almost one half of PC patients will eventually die of the disease. Prognostic factors (lymph node metastases/appendicular vs axial bone disease, performance status > 1, Gleason score > 8 and PSA > 65 ng/ml) have been proposed (Glass et al., 2003), leading to the definition of three subgroups with good, intermediate and poor prognosis. However, the current natural history of metastatic prostate cancer has not been well described. Methods: Patients with hormone sensitive metastatic PC were randomized to receive continuous androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus docetaxel (75 mg/m²/21d up to 9 cycles) and prednisone or ADT alone. Glass risk groups were used as stratification factors. Results: From October 2004 to December 2008, 385 pts were included. They were distributed into good (50%), intermediate (29%), and poor (21%) prognosis groups. The median follow up was 50 months [95% CI: 49 - 54]. The primary endpoint analysis showed no difference in overall survival (OS) (HR: 1.01 [95%CI: 0.75-1.36]) between the 2 arms but a significant PFS improvement was observed in the docetaxel group (HR: 0.75 [0.59-0.94] p=0.0147) (Gravis, ESMO 2012). The median OS in the ADT alone arm was 54 months [42-NR]. It was 69 [95% CI: 60.9-NR], 47 [95% CI: 37.7-NR, HR = 1.6] and 37 [95% CI: 28.5-58.9, HR = 2.12] months respectively in the good, intermediate, and poor prognosis groups (p=0.001) in the whole cohort. No interaction between prognosis groups and treatment was found. A detailed analysis using the Cox model will be presented. Conclusions: At the present time, median life expectancy of patients with metastatic PC seems to exceed 4 years. Subgroups with favorable or unfavorable outcome can be identified. Clinical trial information: NCT00055731.

Androgen-deprivation therapy alone or with docetaxel in non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer (GETUG-AFU 15): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Early chemotherapy might improve the overall outcomes of patients with metastatic non-castrate (ie, hormone-sensitive) prostate cancer. We investigated the effects of the addition of docetaxel to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for patients with metastatic non-castrate prostate cancer.

METHODS

In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study, we enrolled patients in 29 centres in France and one in Belgium. Eligible patients were older than 18 years and had histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate and radiologically proven metastatic disease; a Karnofsky score of at least 70%; a life expectancy of at least 3 months; and adequate hepatic, haematological, and renal function. They were randomly assigned to receive to ADT (orchiectomy or luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists, alone or combined with non-steroidal antiandrogens) alone or in combination with docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) intravenously on the first day of each 21-day cycle; up to nine cycles). Patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio, with dynamic minimisation to minimise imbalances in previous systemic treatment with ADT, chemotherapy for local disease or isolated rising concentration of serum prostate-specific antigen, and Glass risk groups. Patients, physicians, and data analysts were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00104715.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 18, 2004, and Dec 31, 2008, 192 patients were randomly allocated to receive ADT plus docetaxel and 193 to receive ADT alone. Median follow-up was 50 months (IQR 39-63). Median overall survival was 58·9 months (95% CI 50·8-69·1) in the group given ADT plus docetaxel and 54·2 months (42·2-not reached) in that given ADT alone (hazard ratio 1·01, 95% CI 0·75-1·36). 72 serious adverse events were reported in the group given ADT plus docetaxel, of which the most frequent were neutropenia (40 [21%]), febrile neutropenia (six [3%]), abnormal liver function tests (three [2%]), and neutropenia with infection (two [1%]). Four treatment-related deaths occurred in the ADT plus docetaxel group (two of which were neutropenia-related), after which the data monitoring committee recommended treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. After this recommendation, no further treatment-related deaths occurred. No serious adverse events were reported in the ADT alone group.

INTERPRETATION

Docetaxel should not be used as part of first-line treatment for patients with non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer.

FUNDING

French Health Ministry and Institut National du Cancer (PHRC), Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, and Amgen.

Supportive care in cancer organization in France: State of the art

e19640

Background: Second Cancer Act was defined in France in December 2009 including enhancement of supportive care in Cancer (SCC). How are supportive care organized in France? Are patients informed about supportive treatment side effects? Methods: The AFSOS (French Speaking Association for Supportive Care in Cancer) conducted this observational study to evaluate practices, organizations and informations given to patients (pts) about SCC. Among 1621 french medical doctors (MD) caring cancer pts who were sent an adhoc questionnaire, 20% (330 MD including 44% medical oncologists) answered. Results: Three different organizations were described: Single MD, transversal team and specific structure specialized in global care (specifically developed in comprehensive cancer centers-CCC). Psycho-oncology, palliative care, nutrition and pain care were the four main items considered as supportive care. During their disease, 68% of pts are receiving SCC, presented by their MD (88%) or nurse devoted to announcement of disease and SCC information (57%). Supportive care is more dispensed during palliative period (90%) than at diagnosis (44%). Patients information is rather supplied during palliative care (85%) than at diagnosis (52%) using a specific questionnaire for outpatient (20%) or specific supportive care session (17%). 71% of cancer department have a cross team to provide supportive care, with specific SCC team particularly in CCC (62%; p=0.01)). 37% have inpatient specific units. Only 40% have a specific organization in home care connection, more in CCC than in public or private centers (respectively 69%, 45%, 20%; p=0.01). 73% use specific financial valorization of CSC activity. Adverse events information is dispensed to 54% of the pts for erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ASE), 74% for biphosphonates and 94% for opioids treatments, rather by medical oncologist than other specialists (p=0.01). Conclusions: Specific organization developed especially in comprehensive cancer centers seems to facilitate SCC organization and information to pts. In the mean time, recommendations include this information, involvement in supportive care team and methods have to be enhanced. Further results compared with patient point of views are expected.

[Radiofrequency ablation for palliation of soft tissue tumor pain]

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy of radiofrequency (RF) ablation for palliation of soft tissue tumor pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective study of 12 patients receiving palliative treatment for soft tissue tumors (5 primary tumors including 4 sarcomas and 1 PEComa and 7 metastatic tumors) with pain refractory to standard management. RF ablation was performed under CT or ultrasound guidance.

RESULTS

The efficacy was determined by using pain scores and treatment regimen modifications after RF ablation. Response was graded as absent, partial or complete. Short term symptomatic relief was observed in 100% of cases, with complete response in 43% of cases ; Mid term and long term symptomatic relief was observed in 70% and 83% of cases respectively. We also observed dosage reduction for narcotics with corresponding reduction in related side-effects and functional improvement in some patients. A single case of complication with serosanguinous collection within a region of necrosis was observed.

CONCLUSION

Radiofrequency ablation for palliation of soft tissue tumor pain may be a useful complement to standard management. It results in symptomatic improvement with few complications.

Docetaxel reintroduction in patients with metastatic castration-resistant docetaxel-sensitive prostate cancer: a retrospective multicentre study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the potential benefit of reintroducing docetaxel chemotherapy in patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had initially responded to first-line docetaxel-based regimen.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Records were evaluated retrospectively from French patients with mCRPC who had been included in seven controlled clinical studies of docetaxel as first-line treatment. We identified patients who were confirmed as responders to first-line treatment, discontinued for reasons other than disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, and who received further docetaxel chemotherapy for disease progression. The primary objective was to assess efficacy in terms of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response after resuming a docetaxel-based chemotherapy. Secondary objectives were overall survival and tolerance.

RESULTS

Of the 148 patients who responded to first-line docetaxel, 50 received further therapy with docetaxel and were analysed. The median (range) response duration to first-line docetaxel was 10.3 (4.6-45.7) months and the median docetaxel-free interval was 18.4 (5.0-46.7) months. Docetaxel was reintroduced as second-line therapy in 52% of patients and as further lines in 48%. After docetaxel reintroduction, 24 patients (48%) had a 50% decrease in PSA level (95% confidence interval, CI, 34.1-61.8%). The median (95% CI) overall survival from docetaxel reintroduction was 16 (13-20) months. Re-treatment was well tolerated (6% of grade 3-4 haemotoxicity).

CONCLUSION

Docetaxel reintroduction appears to be effective, with favourable tolerance profiles, in patients with mCRPC having responded to first-line docetaxel, and should be prospectively assessed in clinical trials against alternative therapies or investigational agents given alone or in combination, to define further management.