Adjuvant leuprolide with or without docetaxel in patients with high-risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy (TAX-3501): important lessons for future trials

Comprehensive evaluation of leuprorelin-associated adverse events: insights from FDA adverse event reporting system

BACKGROUND

Leuprorelin, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist, is widely used to treat hormone-related disorders. This study aims to explore and analyze the safety profile of leuprorelin by examining adverse event reports from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database.

METHODS

This study conducted a retrospective pharmacovigilance analysis using FAERS data from Q1 2004 to Q1 2024. Adverse drug events (ADEs) related to leuprorelin were identified and categorized by system organ class and specific adverse events. Statistical methods such as Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR), Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR), Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network (BCPNN), and Empirical Bayesian Geometric Mean (EBGM) were used to detect safety signals.

RESULTS

A total of 63,928 ADE reports implicated leuprorelin, with 500 preferred terms and 25 system organ classes showing significant disproportionality. Notable rare ADEs identified were bulbospinal muscular atrophy congenital (n = 26; ROR 1282.72, PRR 1282.52, IC 7.91, EBGM 241.28), follicular cystitis (n = 3; ROR 126.84, PRR 126.84, IC 6.48, EBGM 89.09), and anaplastic meningioma (n = 3; ROR 46.73, PRR 46.73, IC 5.34, EBGM 40.5).

CONCLUSION

Most findings were expected, but new signals like follicular cystitis, previously unreported, emerged. Further studies are essential to validate these findings, crucial for clinical monitoring and risk identification of leuprorelin.

MRI software and cognitive fusion biopsies in people with suspected prostate cancer: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Magnetic resonance imaging localises cancer in the prostate, allowing for a targeted biopsy with or without transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy. Targeted biopsy methods include cognitive fusion, where prostate lesions suspicious on magnetic resonance imaging are targeted visually during live ultrasound, and software fusion, where computer software overlays the magnetic resonance imaging image onto the ultrasound in real time. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of software fusion technologies compared with cognitive fusion biopsy are uncertain.

Objectives

To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of software fusion biopsy technologies in people with suspected localised and locally advanced prostate cancer. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, clinical efficacy and practical implementation of nine software fusion devices compared to cognitive fusion biopsies, and with each other, in people with suspected prostate cancer. Comprehensive searches including MEDLINE, and Embase were conducted up to August 2022 to identify studies which compared software fusion and cognitive fusion biopsies in people with suspected prostate cancer. Risk of bias was assessed with quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-comparative tool. A network meta-analysis comparing software and cognitive fusion with or without concomitant systematic biopsy, and systematic biopsy alone was conducted. Additional outcomes, including safety and usability, were synthesised narratively. A de novo decision model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of targeted software fusion biopsy relative to cognitive fusion biopsy with or without concomitant systematic biopsy for prostate cancer identification in biopsy-naive people. Scenario analyses were undertaken to explore the robustness of the results to variation in the model data sources and alternative assumptions.

Results

Twenty-three studies (3773 patients with software fusion, 2154 cognitive fusion) were included, of which 13 informed the main meta-analyses. Evidence was available for seven of the nine fusion devices specified in the protocol and at high risk of bias. The meta-analyses show that patients undergoing software fusion biopsy may have: (1) a lower probability of being classified as not having cancer, (2) similar probability of being classified as having non-clinically significant cancer (International Society of Urological Pathology grade 1) and (3) higher probability of being classified at higher International Society of Urological Pathology grades, particularly International Society of Urological Pathology 2. Similar results were obtained when comparing between same biopsy methods where both were combined with systematic biopsy. Evidence was insufficient to conclude whether any individual devices were superior to cognitive fusion, or whether some software fusion technologies were superior to others. Uncertainty in the relative diagnostic accuracy of software fusion versus cognitive fusion reduce the strength of any statements on its cost-effectiveness. The economic analysis suggests incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for software fusion biopsy versus cognitive fusion are within the bounds of cost-effectiveness (£1826 and £5623 per additional quality-adjusted life-year with or with concomitant systematic biopsy, respectively), but this finding needs cautious interpretation.

Limitations

There was insufficient evidence to explore the impact of effect modifiers.

Conclusions

Software fusion biopsies may be associated with increased cancer detection in relation to cognitive fusion biopsies, but the evidence is at high risk of bias. Sufficiently powered, high-quality studies are required. Cost-effectiveness results should be interpreted with caution given the limitations of the diagnostic accuracy evidence.

Study registration

This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022329259.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: 135477) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 61. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further information.

Postradical prostatectomy prostate-specific antigen outcomes after 6 versus 18 months of perioperative androgen-deprivation therapy in men with localized, unfavorable intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer: Results of part 2 of a randomized phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with localized, unfavorable intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer have an increased risk of relapse after radical prostatectomy (RP). The authors previously reported on part 1 of this phase 2 trial testing neoadjuvant apalutamide, abiraterone, prednisone, plus leuprolide (AAPL) or abiraterone, prednisone, and leuprolide (APL) for 6 months followed by RP. The results demonstrated favorable pathologic responses (tumor <5 mm) in 20.3% of patients (n = 24 of 118). Herein, the authors report the results of part 2.

METHODS

For part 2, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either AAPL for 12 months (arm 2A) or observation (arm 2B), stratified by neoadjuvant therapy and pathologic tumor classification. The primary end point was 3-year biochemical progression-free survival. Secondary end points included safety and testosterone recovery (>200 ng/dL).

RESULTS

Overall, 82 of 118 patients (69%) enrolled in part 1 were randomized to part 2. A higher proportion of patients who were not randomized to adjuvant therapy had a favorable prostatectomy pathologic response (32.3% in nonrandomized patients compared with 17.1% in randomized patients). In the intent-to-treat analysis, the 3-year biochemical progression-free survival rate was 81% for arm 2A and 72% for arm 2B (hazard ratio, 0.81; 90% confidence interval, 0.43-1.49). Of the randomized patients, 81% had testosterone recovery in the AAPL group compared with 95% in the observation group, with a median time to recovery of <12 months in both arms.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, because 30% of patients declined adjuvant treatment, part B was underpowered to detect differences between arms. Future perioperative studies should be biomarker-directed and include strategies for investigator and patient engagement to ensure compliance with protocol procedures.

Novel Approaches in the Systemic Management of High-Risk Prostate Cancer

Locally advanced prostate cancer comprises approximately 20% of new prostate cancer diagnoses. For these patients, international guidelines recommend treatment with radiotherapy (RT) to the prostate in combination with long-term (2-3 years) androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), or radical prostatectomy in combination with extended pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) as another treatment option for selected patients as part of multimodal therapy. Improvements in overall survival with docetaxel or an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor have been achieved in patients with metastatic castration sensitive or castration resistant prostate cancer. However, the role of systemic therapy combinations for high risk and/or unfavorable prostate cancer is unclear. In this context, the aim of this review is to assess the current evidence for systemic treatment combinations as part of primary definitive therapy in patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer.

Androgen deprivation therapy in localized prostate cancer. Current status and future trends

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer (PCa) has been recognized as an androgen-sensitive disease since the investigations from Huggins and Hodges in 1941. Thanks to these findings, they received the Nobel Prize in 1966. This was the beginning of the development of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) as treatment for patients with PCa.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the current indications of ADT in localized PCa.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We conducted a comprehensive English and Spanish language literature research, focused on the main indications for ADT in localized PCa.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Nowadays, the indications for ADT as monotherapy in localized PCa have been limited to specific situations, to patients unwilling or unable to receive any form of local treatment if they have a PSA-DT < 12 months, and either a PSA > 50 ng/mL, a poorly differentiated tumor, or troublesome local disease-related symptoms. ADT can be used in combination with local treatment in different scenarios. Although neoadjuvant treatment with ADT prior to surgery with curative intent has no clear oncological impact, as a future sight, PCa is a heterogeneous disease, and there could be a group of patients with high-risk localized disease that could benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

We need to optimize the treatment with ADT in localized PCa, selecting the patients accordingly to their disease characteristics. Given that the therapeutic armamentarium evolves day by day, there is a need for the development of new clinical trials, as well as a molecular studies of patients to identify those who might benefit from an early multimodal treatment.

Is time to castration resistant prostate cancer a potential intermediate end-point for time to metastasis among men initiating androgen deprivation therapy for non-metastatic prostate cancer with rapid PSA doubling time (<9 months)?

PURPOSE

Metastasis-free survival (MFS) is a surrogate for overall survival (OS) in men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), but this endpoint may take years to develop in men with non-metastatic castrate-sensitive disease. The study objective was to examine whether progression to CRPC is a potential intermediate endpoint for developing metastatic disease in patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Men with BCR following RP who had PSA doubling times (PSADT) < 9 months and no metastasis at the time of initiating androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (n = 210) were included. The primary objective was to assess the correlation between CRPC-free survival (CRPC-FS) and MFS, and the secondary objective was to assess the correlation between time to metastasis and time to CRPC. Kendall's Tau was used to test the correlation for the primary and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The median MFS was 104 months (95% CI: 83-114) and median CRPC-FS was 100 months (95% CI: 80-114). Based on the Kaplan-Meier curve, the greatest difference in time to MFS and CRPC-FS was around 70% free survival, which was reached at 61.2 months for MFS and 49.6 months for CRPC-FS. Kendall's Tau for the correlation between CRPC-FS and MFS and between time to CRPC and time to metastasis was 0.867 (95% CI: 0.765-0.968) and 0.764 (95% CI: 0.644-0.884), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the high correlation between CRPC-FS and MFS, after validation, CRPC-FS may serve as a potential intermediate endpoint in trials for men with BCR initiating ADT following local therapy.

Current Status and Future Perspective on the Management of Lymph Node-Positive Prostate Cancer after Radical Prostatectomy

Pathological lymph node involvement (pN1) after a pelvic lymph node dissection represents one of the most unfavorable prognostic factors for disease recurrence and cancer-specific mortality in prostate cancer. However, optimal management for pN1 patients remains unclear. Thus, the guideline from the European Association of Urology recommends discussing three following management options with pN1 patients after an extended pelvic lymph node dissection, based on nodal involvement characteristics: (i) offer adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy, (ii) offer adjuvant androgen-deprivation therapy with additional radiotherapy and (iii) offer observation (expectant management) to a patient with ≤2 nodes and a prostate-specific antigen <0.1 ng/mL. Treatment intensification may reduce risks of recurrence and cancer-specific mortality, but it may increase adverse events and impair quality of life. Few randomized control trials for pN1 are under investigation. In addition, there are limited reports on the quality of life and patient-reported outcomes in patients with pN1. Therefore, more research is needed to establish an optimal therapeutic strategy for patients with pN1. This review summarizes current evidence on the treatments available for men with pN1, summarizes randomized control trials that included pN1 prostate cancer, and discusses future perspectives.

Prostate cancer dormancy and recurrence

Prostate cancer can progress rapidly after diagnosis, but can also become undetectable after curative intent radiation or surgery, only to recur years or decades later. This capacity to lie dormant and recur long after a patient was thought to be cured, is relatively unique to prostate cancer, with estrogen receptor positive breast cancer being the other common and well-studied example. Most investigators agree that the bone marrow is an important site for dormant tumor cells, given the frequency of bone metastases and that multiple studies have reported disseminated tumor cells in patients with localized disease. However, while more difficult to study, lymph nodes and the prostate bed are likely to be important reservoirs as well. Dormant tumor cells may be truly quiescent and in the G0 phase of the cell cycle, which is commonly called cellular dormancy. However, tumor growth may also be held in check through a balance of proliferation and cell death (tumor mass dormancy). For induction of cellular dormancy, prostate cancer cells respond to signals from their microenvironment, including TGF-β2, BMP-7, GAS6, and Wnt-5a, which result in signals transduced in part through p38 MAPK and pluripotency associated transcription factors including SOX2 and NANOG, which likely affect the epi-genome through histone modification. Clinical use of adjuvant radiation or androgen deprivation has been modestly successful to prevent recurrence. With the rapid pace of discovery in this field, systemic adjuvant therapy is likely to continue to improve in the future.

Machine Learning Approach for Active Vaccine Safety Monitoring

BACKGROUND

Vaccine safety surveillance is important because it is related to vaccine hesitancy, which affects vaccination rate. To increase confidence in vaccination, the active monitoring of vaccine adverse events is important. For effective active surveillance, we developed and verified a machine learning-based active surveillance system using national claim data.

METHODS

We used two databases, one from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency, which contains flu vaccination records for the elderly, and another from the National Health Insurance Service, which contains the claim data of vaccinated people. We developed a case-crossover design based machine learning model to predict the health outcome of interest events (anaphylaxis and agranulocytosis) using a random forest. Feature importance values were evaluated to determine candidate associations with each outcome. We investigated the relationship of the features to each event via a literature review, comparison with the Side Effect Resource, and using the Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanation method.

RESULTS

The trained model predicted each health outcome of interest with a high accuracy (approximately 70%). We found literature supporting our results, and most of the important drug-related features were listed in the Side Effect Resource database as inducing the health outcome of interest. For anaphylaxis, flu vaccination ranked high in our feature importance analysis and had a positive association in Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanation analysis. Although the feature importance of vaccination was lower for agranulocytosis, it also had a positive relationship in the Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanation analysis.

CONCLUSION

We developed a machine learning-based active surveillance system for detecting possible factors that can induce adverse events using health claim and vaccination databases. The results of the study demonstrated a potentially useful application of two linked national health record databases. Our model can contribute to the establishment of a system for conducting active surveillance on vaccination.

Impact of Sequencing of Androgen Suppression and Radiation Therapy on Testosterone Recovery in Localized Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

We performed a secondary analysis of a phase 3 randomized trial to determine the influence of sequencing of radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) on posttreatment testosterone recovery and implications of testosterone recovery on subsequent relapse.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with localized prostate cancer with Gleason score ≤7, clinical stage T1b to T3a, and prostate-specific antigen <30 ng/mL were randomized to neoadjuvant and concurrent ADT for 6 months starting 4 months before prostate radiation therapy (NHT arm) or concurrent and adjuvant ADT for 6 months starting simultaneously with radiation therapy (CAHT arm). Full testosterone recovery (FTR) was defined as recovery of testosterone to >10.5 nmol/L in patients with baseline ≥10.5 nmol/L or to baseline level in patients with baseline <10.5 nmol/L. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) since ADT initiation to supracastrate testosterone level (>1.7 nmol/L), and to FTR was compared between the arms using a truncation time point of 36 months.

RESULTS

The adjusted difference in RMST to supracastrate testosterone between the CAHT and NHT arm was 1.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-2.5; P = .005). No difference was noted in RMST to FTR between the arms (18.7 vs 18.5 months, adjusted difference: 0.5; 95% CI, -1.4 to 2.4; P = .61). There was no evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effect (interaction P = .76) on risk of relapse over subgroups stratified by testosterone recovery to supracastrate level at 15 months after start of ADT. Based on a multistate Markov model, no independent effect of time to FTR on risk of subsequent relapse was observed (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.02; 95% CI, 0.96-1.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients should be counseled that an additional 12 months on average is needed for FTR to occur after treatment with prostate radiation therapy and 6 months of ADT. This is independent of the sequencing of ADT and radiation therapy. Furthermore, recovery of testosterone does not appear to affect the risk of subsequent relapse.

Cancer epithelia-derived mitochondrial DNA is a targetable initiator of a paracrine signaling loop that confers taxane resistance

The work provides a conceptual advance in functionally defining the cross talk of tumor epithelia with cancer-associated fibroblastic cells contributing to tumor progression and therapeutic resistance. Independent of protein-based signaling molecules, prostate cancer cells secreted mitochondrial DNA to induce associated fibroblasts to generate anaphylatoxin C3a to support tumor progression in a positive feedback loop. Interestingly, the standard of care chemotherapy, docetaxel, used to treat castrate-resistant prostate cancer was found to further potentiate this paracrine-signaling axis to mediate therapeutic resistance. Blocking anaphylatoxin C3a signaling cooperatively sensitized prostate cancer tumors to docetaxel. We reveal that docetaxel resistance is not a cancer cell-autonomous phenomena and that targeting an immune modulator derived from cancer-associated fibroblasts can limit the expansion of docetaxel-resistant tumors.

Stromal-epithelial interactions dictate cancer progression and therapeutic response. Prostate cancer (PCa) cells were identified to secrete greater concentration of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) compared to noncancer epithelia. Based on the recognized coevolution of cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAF) with tumor progression, we tested the role of cancer-derived mtDNA in a mechanism of paracrine signaling. We found that prostatic CAF expressed DEC205, which was not expressed by normal tissue-associated fibroblasts. DEC205 is a transmembrane protein that bound mtDNA and contributed to pattern recognition by Toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9). Complement C3 was the dominant gene targeted by TLR9-induced NF-κB signaling in CAF. The subsequent maturation complement C3 maturation to anaphylatoxin C3a was dependent on PCa epithelial inhibition of catalase in CAF. In a syngeneic tissue recombination model of PCa and associated fibroblast, the antagonism of the C3a receptor and the fibroblastic knockout of TLR9 similarly resulted in immune suppression with a significant reduction in tumor progression, compared to saline-treated tumors associated with wild-type prostatic fibroblasts. Interestingly, docetaxel, a common therapy for advanced PCa, further promoted mtDNA secretion in cultured epithelia, mice, and PCa patients. The antiapoptotic signaling downstream of anaphylatoxin C3a signaling in tumor cells contributed to docetaxel resistance. The inhibition of C3a receptor sensitized PCa epithelia to docetaxel in a synergistic manner. Tumor models of human PCa epithelia with CAF expanded similarly in mice in the presence or absence of docetaxel. The combination therapy of docetaxel and C3 receptor antagonist disrupted the mtDNA/C3a paracrine loop and restored docetaxel sensitivity.

Effect of Adding Docetaxel to Androgen-Deprivation Therapy in Patients With High-Risk Prostate Cancer With Rising Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels After Primary Local Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) plus docetaxel is the standard of care in hormone-naive metastatic prostate cancer but is of uncertain benefit in a nonmetastatic, high-risk prostate cancer setting.

Objective

To assess the benefit of ADT plus docetaxel in patients presenting with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels after primary local therapy and high-risk factors but no evidence of metastatic disease.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This open-label, phase 3, randomized superiority trial comparing ADT plus docetaxel vs ADT alone enrolled patients from 28 centers in France between June 4, 2003, and September 25, 2007; final follow-up was conducted April 12, 2017, and analysis was performed May 2 to July 31, 2017. Patients had undergone primary local therapy for prostate cancer, were experiencing rising PSA levels, and were considered to be at high risk of metastatic disease. Stratification was by prior local therapy and PSA-level doubling time (≤6 vs >6 months), and intention-to-treat analysis was used.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned to receive ADT (1 year) plus docetaxel, 70 mg/m2 (every 3 weeks [6 cycles]), or ADT alone (1 year).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS). Secondary end points were PSA response, radiologic PFS, overall survival, safety, and quality of life.

Results

Overall, 254 patients were randomized (1:1) to the trial; median age, 64 years in the ADT plus docetaxel arm, 66 years in the ADT alone arm. At a median follow-up of 30.0 months, the median PSA-PFS was 20.3 (95% CI, 19.0-21.6) months in the ADT plus docetaxel arm vs 19.3 (95% CI, 18.2-20.8) months in the ADT alone arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.62-1.16; P = .31). At a median follow-up of 10.5 years, there was no significant between-arm difference in radiologic PFS (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.74-1.43; P = .88). Overall survival data were not mature. The most common grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxic effects in the ADT plus docetaxel arm were neutropenia (60 of 125 patients [48.0%]), febrile neutropenia (10 [8.0%]), and thrombocytopenia (4 [3.0%]). There was no significant between-arm difference in overall quality of life.

Conclusions and Relevance

Compared with ADT alone, combined ADT plus docetaxel therapy with curative intent did not significantly improve PSA-PFS in patients with high-risk prostate cancer and rising PSA levels and no evidence of metastatic disease.

Trial Registration

French Health Products Safety Agency identifier: 030591; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00764166.

Systemic treatments for high-risk localized prostate cancer

The majority of patients with prostate cancer who later develop lethal metastatic disease have high-risk localized disease at presentation, emphasizing the importance of effective treatment strategies at this stage. Multimodal treatment approaches that combine systemic and local therapies offer a promising strategy for improving the clinical outcomes of patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. Combinations of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, or chemohormonal therapy are considered to be the standard of care in most solid tumours and should be investigated in the future for the treatment of prostate cancer to improve patient outcomes. However, although the combination of androgen deprivation therapy and radiotherapy is a standard of care in high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer, the benefit of chemotherapy or chemohormonal therapy has yet to be demonstrated outside of the metastatic setting. Moreover, the benefit of neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant systemic therapies in combination with radical prostatectomy has not been proved. The development of next-generation hormonal agents, which have been approved for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer, offers further therapeutic possibilities that are being assessed in early-phase clinical trials.

[Optimizing local control of high-risk prostate cancers through multimodal treatments]

Prostate cancer is a sensitive adenocarcinoma, in more than 80 % of cases, to chemical castration, due to its hormone dependence. Locally advanced and/or high-risk cancer is defined based on clinical stage, initial PSA value or high Gleason score. Hormone therapy associated with radiation therapy is the standard of management and improves local control, reduces the risk of distant metastasis and improves specific and overall survival. Duration of hormone therapy, dose level of radiation therapy alone or associated with brachytherapy are controversial data in the literature. Radical prostatectomy surgery is a therapeutic option that must be performed with extensive lymph node dissection and is often part of a multimodal care sequence. The therapeutic choice, multidisciplinary, depends on the age and co-morbidity of the patient, the prognostic criteria of the pathology and the urinary function of the patient. Current research focuses on optimizing local and distant control of these aggressive forms and incorporates neo-adjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy and also new hormone therapies.

Clinical studies investigating the use of leuprorelin for prostate cancer in Asia

Background

Leuprorelin is a well-established treatment for prostate cancer (PCa); however, there is limited information on its use in Asian males. This review of English language publications between January 2000 and 2016 describes the outcomes of clinical trials on leuprorelin in Asian males with PCa of any grade, stage, or histopathology.

Methods

The literature search was undertaken using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases.

Results

We identified nine studies from Japan, two studies from South Korea, and one international, multisite study which included Asian sites, with a total of 1,652 males previously diagnosed with PCa. All studies included subcutaneous or depot administration of leuprorelin at varying dose levels including 3.75 mg four weekly, 11.25 mg 12 weekly, or 22.5 mg every 12 or 24 weeks. Leuprorelin was administered as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy or hormonal therapy. Leuprorelin appears well tolerated in Asian males and is effective in reducing serum testosterone to castration levels (<50 ng/dL (<1.7 nmol/L)) and prostate-specific antigen levels. Common adverse events included hot flushes and mild hepatic dysfunction. Leuprorelin was shown to provide reasonable survival rates in PCa (T1b-T3N0M0) and in metastatic disease; another reasonable option for these patients is radiation therapy. Leuprorelin treatment also improved the quality of life.

Conclusion

Leuprorelin may be an appropriate and efficacious treatment for males with PCa (T1b-T3N0M0). Leuprorelin treatment was well tolerated and associated with improvement in the quality of life.

Overview of Systemic Therapy Augmenting Management of High-risk Localized Prostate Cancer

One of the standard management options for high-risk localized prostate cancer is radiotherapy combined with long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Trials involving chemotherapy or next-generation hormone therapies in combination with a local treatment are ongoing for this specific subgroup.

The effect of additional chemotherapy on high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The role of additional chemotherapy in the treatment of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) remains a controversy. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effect of additional chemotherapy on high-risk PCa.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about additional chemotherapy for high-risk PCa were searched in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We extracted HRs of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for each trial and performed the meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs involving 4,007 patients were included. Data from four trials, which could collect OS, showed that additional chemotherapy could not significantly improve the OS in patients with high-risk PCa (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.79-1.09; P=0.37). However, the pooled analysis suggested significantly longer PFS in high-risk PCa patients treated with additional chemotherapy (HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.74-0.90; P<0.0001). The meta-analysis showed additional chemotherapy to androgen-deprivation therapy improved PFS (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74-0.91; P=0.0002). Greater improvement in PFS was found in high-risk PCa patients treated with additional docetaxel-based chemotherapy (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.64-0.83; P<0.00001). No prolonged PFS was observed in high-risk PCa patients with non-docetaxel-based chemotherapy (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.83-1.14; P=0.74).

CONCLUSION

Additional chemotherapy, especially docetaxel-based chemotherapy, could significantly improve the PFS in high-risk PCa patients. More evidence about the effect of additional chemotherapy on OS is needed. Further investigations in PCa should also focus on the suitable population for chemotherapy as well as optimal use of chemotherapy.

The addition of chemotherapy in the definitive management of high risk prostate cancer

In attempt to improve long-term disease control outcomes for high-risk prostate cancer, numerous clinical trials have tested the addition of chemotherapy (CTX)-either adjuvant or neoadjuvant-to definitive local therapy, either radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation therapy (RT). Neoadjuvant trials generally confirm safety, feasibility, and pre-RP PSA reduction, but rates of pathologic complete response are rare, and no indications for neoadjuvant CTX have been firmly established. Adjuvant regimens have included CTX alone or in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Here we provide a review of the relevant literature, and also quantify utilization of CTX in the definitive management of localized high-risk prostate cancer by querying the National Cancer Data Base. Between 2004 and 2013, 177 patients (of 29,659 total) treated with definitive RT, and 995 (of 367,570 total) treated with RP had CTX incorporated into their treatment regimens. Low numbers of RT + CTX patients precluded further analysis of this population, but we investigated the impact of CTX on overall survival (OS) for patients treated with RP +/- CTX. Disease-free survival or biochemical-recurrence-free survival are not available through the National Cancer Data Base. Propensity-score matching was conducted as patients treated with CTX were a higher-risk group. For nonmatched groups, OS at 5-years was 89.6% for the CTX group vs. 95.6%, for the no-CTX group (P < 0.01). The difference in OS between CTX and no-CTX groups did not persist after propensity-score matching, with 5-year OS 89.6% vs. 90.9%, respectively (Hazard ratio 0.99; P = 0.88). In summary, CTX was not shown to improve OS in this retrospective study. Multimodal regimens-such as RP followed by ADT, RT, and CTX; or RT in conjunction with ADT followed by CTX-have shown promise, but long-term follow-up of randomized data is required.

Systematic Review of Systemic Therapies and Therapeutic Combinations with Local Treatments for High-risk Localized Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT

Systemic therapies, combined with local treatment for high-risk prostate cancer, are recommended by the international guidelines for specific subgroups of patients; however, for many of the clinical scenarios, it remains a research field.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review, and describe current evidence and perspectives about the multimodal treatment of high-risk prostate cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a systematic review of PubMED, Embase, Cochrane Library, European Society of Medical Oncology/American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual proceedings, and clinicalTrial.gov between January 2010 and February 2018 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Seventy-seven prospective trials were identified. According to multiple randomized trials, combining androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) outperforms EBRT alone for both relapse-free and overall survival. Neoadjuvant ADT did not show significant improvement compared with prostatectomy alone. The role of adjuvant ADT after prostatectomy in patients with high-risk disease is still debated, with lack of data from phase 3 trials in pN0 patients. Novel androgen pathway inhibitors have been tested only in early-phase trials in addition to primary treatment. GETUG 12, RTOG 0521, and nonmetastatic subgroup of the STAMPEDE trial showed improved relapse-free survival for docetaxel in patients treated with EBRT plus ADT, although mature metastasis-free survival data are still pending. Both the SPCG-12 and the VACSP#553 trial showed no improvement in relapse-free survival for adjuvant docetaxel after prostatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to the clearly demonstrated survival benefits of long-term adjuvant ADT when used with EBRT, its role after prostatectomy remains unclear especially in pN0 patients. Adding docetaxel to EBRT-ADT improves relapse-free survival, with immature results on overall survival. Novel androgen receptor pathway inhibitors are currently being tested in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Treatment of high-risk prostate cancer is based on a multimodality approach that includes systemic treatments. The best treatment or therapy combination remains to be defined.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment in high-risk prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

High-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) represents a heterogeneous disease with potential risk for local and distant progression. In these patients, a multi-modal approach consisting of neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant systemic therapies has been proposed. The aim of this review is to summarize the emerging roles of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies in HRPCa patients. Areas covered: This review collects the most relevant phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the effect of neoadjuvant and adjuvant systemic therapies in combination with radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT) for HRPCa patients. Specifically, the review examines the benefit provided by androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), chemotherapy (CHT), and novel antiandrogen agents in this setting. A search of bibliographic databases for peer-reviewed literature was conducted. Expert commentary: Three decades of RCTs demonstrated that adjuvant ADT is fundamental in HRPCa treated with RT. Conversely, ADT and CHT did not improve the survival of HRPCa patients managed with RP. The recent introduction of novel antiandrogen agents combined with an appropriated selection of patients at risk of cancer progression, may ultimately extend the indication of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy in surgical- and radio-treated patients.

Docetaxel in prostate cancer: a familiar face as the new standard in a hormone-sensitive setting

The increasing knowledge of prostate cancer is leading to many questions about its natural history and to reconsider conventional therapeutic strategies. Androgen ablation therapy has been the standard therapy in the advanced setting. Although docetaxel has demonstrated increased survival in patients with metastatic prostate cancer who had progressed to hormone treatments, due to its potential toxicity the role of chemotherapy has been relegated to patients who were symptomatic or who had high tumor burden. Several studies have assessed whether docetaxel could have a role in hormone-sensitive disease or even in earlier stages with no distant metastases. In the CHAARTED and STAMPEDE studies, docetaxel provides an unprecedented increase in overall survival (OS). This review summarizes the evidence behind the paradigm shift to strengthening docetaxel as a new standard of treatment that prolongs survival in earlier stages of prostate cancer.

The very-high-risk prostate cancer: a contemporary update

BACKGROUND

Treatment of high-risk prostate cancer has evolved considerably over the past two decades, yet patients with very-high-risk features may still experience poor outcome despite aggressive therapy. We review the contemporary literature focusing on current definitions, role of modern imaging and treatment alternatives in very-high-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE database for all clinical trials or practice guidelines published in English between 2000 and 2016, with the following search terms: 'prostatic neoplasms' (MeSH Terms) AND ('high risk' (keyword) OR 'locally advanced' (keyword) OR 'node positive' (keyword)). Abstracts pertaining to very-high-risk prostate cancer were evaluated and 40 pertinent studies served as the basis for this review.

RESULTS

The term 'very'-high-risk prostate cancer remains ill defined. The European Association of Urology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines provide the only available definitions, categorizing those with clinical stage T3-4 or minimal nodal involvement as very high risk irrespective of PSA level or biopsy Gleason score. Modern imaging with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography-prostate-specific membrane antigen scans has a role in pre-treatment assessment. Local definitive therapy by external beam radiation combined with androgen deprivation is supported by several randomized clinical trials, whereas the role of surgery in the very-high-risk setting combined with adjuvant radiation/androgen deprivation therapy is emerging. Growing evidence suggest neoadjuvant taxane-based chemotherapy in the context of a multimodal approach may be beneficial.

CONCLUSIONS

Men with very-high-risk tumors may benefit from local definitive treatment in the setting of a multimodal regimen, offering local control and possibly cure in well selected patients. Further studies are necessary to better characterize the 'very'-high-risk category and determine the optimal therapy for the individual patient.

Androgen deprivation therapy with Leuprolide acetate for treatment of advanced prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Hormone sensitive advanced prostate cancer (PCa) is an incurable disease that is treated with a variety of hormonal therapies targeting the androgen/androgen receptor signaling axis. For decades androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) by surgical or chemical castration is the gold standard for the treatment of advanced PCa. Areas covered: This review discusses the pharmacological features of Leuprolide, a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists/analog and the most commonly used drug in ADT. Expert opinion: Although Leuprolide has been on the market for more than 30 years it is still the leading option for ADT and serves as a basis for most multimodal therapy concepts. The fact that with the onset of castration-resistance in late stage metastatic disease, a prolongation of ADT in combination with a second line hormonal manipulation is recommended supports the importance of the compound for daily clinical practice.

The STAMPEDE trial: paradigm-changing data through innovative trial design

Despite the numerous regulatory approvals for prostate cancer, metastatic prostate cancer remains a huge burden for men worldwide. In an exciting development, James et al. recently published data from the Systemic Therapy in Advanced or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy: a multi-stage multi-arm randomised control trial (STAMPEDE). This is an innovative multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) trial that has utilized one control arm and several comparator arms in order to provide evidence for the inclusion of therapies beyond standard androgen deprivation alone. The patient population included: (I) men with high-risk, non-metastatic, node-negative disease; (II) men with distant-metastatic or node-positive disease; and (III) men with previously-treated prostate cancer by prostatectomy or definitive radiotherapy presenting with relapse. Men were to continue androgen deprivation for at least 2 years. The current data published by this group supports earlier results and provides additional evidence that docetaxel utilized in an up-front fashion provides a survival benefit in men with hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer. Moreover, the initial results from STAMPEDE show how therapies without a demonstrated survival benefit can be efficiently excluded from further study once the likelihood of a benefit is ruled out by a predetermined analysis. In this piece, we will review the STAMPEDE data, contrast it with existing results, and provide our perspectives on how this will affect future trial conduct in the field of prostate cancer.

Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Long-term hormone therapy has been the standard of care for advanced prostate cancer since the 1940s. STAMPEDE is a randomised controlled trial using a multiarm, multistage platform design. It recruits men with high-risk, locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent prostate cancer who are starting first-line long-term hormone therapy. We report primary survival results for three research comparisons testing the addition of zoledronic acid, docetaxel, or their combination to standard of care versus standard of care alone.

METHODS

Standard of care was hormone therapy for at least 2 years; radiotherapy was encouraged for men with N0M0 disease to November, 2011, then mandated; radiotherapy was optional for men with node-positive non-metastatic (N+M0) disease. Stratified randomisation (via minimisation) allocated men 2:1:1:1 to standard of care only (SOC-only; control), standard of care plus zoledronic acid (SOC + ZA), standard of care plus docetaxel (SOC + Doc), or standard of care with both zoledronic acid and docetaxel (SOC + ZA + Doc). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) was given for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly until 2 years, and docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) for six 3-weekly cycles with prednisolone 10 mg daily. There was no blinding to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Pairwise comparisons of research versus control had 90% power at 2·5% one-sided α for hazard ratio (HR) 0·75, requiring roughly 400 control arm deaths. Statistical analyses were undertaken with standard log-rank-type methods for time-to-event data, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ControlledTrials.com (ISRCTN78818544).

FINDINGS

2962 men were randomly assigned to four groups between Oct 5, 2005, and March 31, 2013. Median age was 65 years (IQR 60-71). 1817 (61%) men had M+ disease, 448 (15%) had N+/X M0, and 697 (24%) had N0M0. 165 (6%) men were previously treated with local therapy, and median prostate-specific antigen was 65 ng/mL (IQR 23-184). Median follow-up was 43 months (IQR 30-60). There were 415 deaths in the control group (347 [84%] prostate cancer). Median overall survival was 71 months (IQR 32 to not reached) for SOC-only, not reached (32 to not reached) for SOC + ZA (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·79-1·11; p=0·450), 81 months (41 to not reached) for SOC + Doc (0·78, 0·66-0·93; p=0·006), and 76 months (39 to not reached) for SOC + ZA + Doc (0·82, 0·69-0·97; p=0·022). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect (for any of the treatments) across prespecified subsets. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported for 399 (32%) patients receiving SOC, 197 (32%) receiving SOC + ZA, 288 (52%) receiving SOC + Doc, and 269 (52%) receiving SOC + ZA + Doc.

INTERPRETATION

Zoledronic acid showed no evidence of survival improvement and should not be part of standard of care for this population. Docetaxel chemotherapy, given at the time of long-term hormone therapy initiation, showed evidence of improved survival accompanied by an increase in adverse events. Docetaxel treatment should become part of standard of care for adequately fit men commencing long-term hormone therapy.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen, Astellas, NIHR Clinical Research Network, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research.

Addition of docetaxel or bisphosphonates to standard of care in men with localised or metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analyses of aggregate data

BACKGROUND

Results from large randomised controlled trials combining docetaxel or bisphosphonates with standard of care in hormone-sensitive prostate cancer have emerged. In order to investigate the effects of these therapies and to respond to emerging evidence, we aimed to systematically review all relevant trials using a framework for adaptive meta-analysis.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, conference proceedings, review articles, and reference lists of trial publications for all relevant randomised controlled trials (published, unpublished, and ongoing) comparing either standard of care with or without docetaxel or standard of care with or without bisphosphonates for men with high-risk localised or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For each trial, we extracted hazard ratios (HRs) of the effects of docetaxel or bisphosphonates on survival (time from randomisation until death from any cause) and failure-free survival (time from randomisation to biochemical or clinical failure or death from any cause) from published trial reports or presentations or obtained them directly from trial investigators. HRs were combined using the fixed-effect model (Mantel-Haenzsel).

FINDINGS

We identified five eligible randomised controlled trials of docetaxel in men with metastatic (M1) disease. Results from three (CHAARTED, GETUG-15, STAMPEDE) of these trials (2992 [93%] of 3206 men randomised) showed that the addition of docetaxel to standard of care improved survival. The HR of 0·77 (95% CI 0·68-0·87; p<0·0001) translates to an absolute improvement in 4-year survival of 9% (95% CI 5-14). Docetaxel in addition to standard of care also improved failure-free survival, with the HR of 0·64 (0·58-0·70; p<0·0001) translating into a reduction in absolute 4-year failure rates of 16% (95% CI 12-19). We identified 11 trials of docetaxel for men with locally advanced disease (M0). Survival results from three (GETUG-12, RTOG 0521, STAMPEDE) of these trials (2121 [53%] of 3978 men) showed no evidence of a benefit from the addition of docetaxel (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·69-1·09]; p=0·218), whereas failure-free survival data from four (GETUG-12, RTOG 0521, STAMPEDE, TAX 3501) of these trials (2348 [59%] of 3978 men) showed that docetaxel improved failure-free survival (0·70 [0·61-0·81]; p<0·0001), which translates into a reduced absolute 4-year failure rate of 8% (5-10). We identified seven eligible randomised controlled trials of bisphosphonates for men with M1 disease. Survival results from three of these trials (2740 [88%] of 3109 men) showed that addition of bisphosphonates improved survival (0·88 [0·79-0·98]; p=0·025), which translates to 5% (1-8) absolute improvement, but this result was influenced by the positive result of one trial of sodium clodronate, and we found no evidence of a benefit from the addition of zoledronic acid (0·94 [0·83-1·07]; p=0·323), which translates to an absolute improvement in survival of 2% (-3 to 7). Of 17 trials of bisphosphonates for men with M0 disease, survival results from four trials (4079 [66%] of 6220 men) showed no evidence of benefit from the addition of bisphosphonates (1·03 [0·89-1·18]; p=0·724) or zoledronic acid (0·98 [0·82-1·16]; p=0·782). Failure-free survival definitions were too inconsistent for formal meta-analyses for the bisphosphonate trials.

INTERPRETATION

The addition of docetaxel to standard of care should be considered standard care for men with M1 hormone-sensitive prostate cancer who are starting treatment for the first time. More evidence on the effects of docetaxel on survival is needed in the M0 disease setting. No evidence exists to suggest that zoledronic acid improves survival in men with M1 or M0 disease, and any potential benefit is probably small.

FUNDING

Medical Research Council UK.

Hormonal therapy and chemotherapy in hormone-naive and castration resistant prostate cancer

The management of advanced castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) has been rapidly changing and is still evolving. In the last years, there has been an increasing knowledge of prostate cancer biology. New therapeutic agents and approaches have been evaluated demonstrating benefits in survival and quality of life in patients with metastatic prostate cancer.

Optimal sequencing of docetaxel and abiraterone in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Recent advances have yielded multiple new life-prolonging treatments for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) including chemotherapy, next-generation hormonal therapy, immunotherapy, and radiopharmaceutical products. However, the optimal sequencing of these agents to maximize clinical benefit remains unclear. Recent data from the CHAARTED and STAMPEDE studies suggest that early use of docetaxel in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) significantly improves survival, but whether early compared with delayed use of chemotherapy also provides a survival advantage in mCRPC is unknown.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of consecutive mCRPC patients treated at Johns Hopkins is reported. Patients included were treated with sequential docetaxel and abiraterone, in either order. The combined progression-free survival (combined PFS: PFS1 + PFS2) of abiraterone-to-docetaxel is compared to the reverse sequence, where PFS1 and PFS2 represent progression-free survival on the first and second agents respectively. Overall survival (OS) from the start of the first therapy to death is compared between groups. Baseline characteristics are reported prior to the start of the first agent in the sequence. Propensity score-weighted multivariable models and Kaplan-Meier analysis are used for evaluation of the primary and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients who began treatment for mCRPC between January 2011 (the year of abiraterone's FDA-approval) and February 2015 were identified: 26 were in the docetaxel-to-abiraterone group and 32 were in the abiraterone-to-docetaxel group. Patients in the abiraterone-to-docetaxel group had more Gleason 8-10 tumors, greater metastatic burden in bone, and higher median PSAs than those in the docetaxel-to-abiraterone group. Propensity score-weighted univariate analyses for combined PFS (HR 0.82; 95%CI 0.50-1.33; P = 0.41) and OS (HR 0.79; 95%CI 0.50-1.25; P = 0.31) do not identify any significant differences based on treatment sequence. Propensity score-weighted multivariate analyses for combined PFS (HR 0.91; 95%CI 0.52-1.60; P = 0.74) and OS (HR 0.98; 95%CI 0.59-1.63; P = 0.95) also do not identify any significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We do not observe differences in clinical outcomes based on alternative sequencing of abiraterone and docetaxel in men with mCRPC. Treatment sequencing should be determined by patient and disease characteristics, comorbidities and end-organ function, ability to tolerate side effects, and patient preferences. Studies evaluating biomarkers to inform optimal treatment sequencing in men with mCRPC are urgently needed.

Docetaxel, bevacizumab, and androgen deprivation therapy for biochemical disease recurrence after definitive local therapy for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with biochemical disease recurrence (BCR) after definitive treatment for prostate cancer comprise a heterogeneous population for whom standard therapy options are lacking. The purpose of the current trial was to evaluate the feasibility, toxicity, and efficacy of early multimodality systemic therapy in men with BCR.

METHODS

Eligible patients had an increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, a PSA doubling time ≤10 months, and no evidence of metastases after radical prostatectomy (RP) and/or radiotherapy (RT) for localized disease. Treatment consisted of docetaxel at a dose of 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, bevacizumab at a dose of 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 8 cycles, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for 18 months. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who were free from PSA progression 1 year after the completion of therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 41 patients were included in the analysis. At 1 year after the completion of ADT, 45% of patients (13 of 29 patients) and 29% of patients (5 of 17 patients) with a testosterone level ≥100 ng/dL and ≥240 ng/dL, respectively, had a PSA <0.2 ng/mL. The median follow-up was 27.5 months (interquartile range, 21.8-38.1 months). Eight patients (20%) were free from PSA progression, 19 patients (46%) did not reinitiate ADT, and 34 patients (83%) were free from metastasis. Sixteen patients (39%) experienced grade 3 and 5 patients (12%) experienced grade 4 toxicities (toxicity was assessed using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 3.0]).

CONCLUSIONS

Multimodality systemic therapy with docetaxel, bevacizumab, and ADT is feasible and produces PSA responses in men with BCR. Long-term follow-up is needed to determine the percentage of patients with a durable PSA response who are able to avoid having to reinitiate prostate cancer therapy.

Cytotoxic chemotherapy in the contemporary management of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)

For several years, docetaxel was the only treatment shown to improve survival of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). There are now several novel agents available, although chemotherapy with docetaxel and cabazitaxel continues to play an important role. However, the increasing number of available agents will inevitably affect the timing of chemotherapy and therefore it may be important to offer this approach before declining performance status renders patients ineligible for chemotherapy. Patient selection is also important to optimise treatment benefit. The role of predictive biomarkers has assumed greater importance due to the development of multiple agents and resistance to available agents. In addition, the optimal sequence of treatments remains undefined and requires further study in order to maximize long-term outcomes. We provide an overview of the clinical data supporting the role of chemotherapy in the treatment of mCRPC and the emerging role in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. We review the key issues in the management of patients including selection of patients for chemotherapy, when to start chemotherapy, and how best to sequence treatments to maximise outcomes. In addition, we briefly summarise the promising new chemotherapeutic agents in development in the context of emerging therapies.