Lack of consensus identifies important areas for future clinical research: Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 findings

The Current Therapeutic Landscape for Metastatic Prostate Cancer

In 2024, there will be an estimated 1,466,718 cases of prostate cancer (PC) diagnosed globally, of which 299,010 cases are estimated to be from the US. The typical clinical approach for PC involves routine screening, diagnosis, and standard lines of treatment. However, not all patients respond to therapy and are subsequently diagnosed with treatment emergent neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC). There are currently no approved treatments for this form of aggressive PC. In this review, a compilation of the clinical trials regimen to treat late-stage NEPC using novel targets and/or a combination approach is presented. The novel targets assessed include DLL3, EZH2, B7-H3, Aurora-kinase-A (AURKA), receptor tyrosine kinases, PD-L1, and PD-1. Among these, the trials administering drugs Alisertib or Cabozantinib, which target AURKA or receptor tyrosine kinases, respectively, appear to have promising results. The least effective trials appear to be ones that target the immune checkpoint pathways PD-1/PD-L1. Many promising clinical trials are currently in progress. Consequently, the landscape of successful treatment regimens for NEPC is extremely limited. These trial results and the literature on the topic emphasize the need for new preventative measures, diagnostics, disease specific biomarkers, and a thorough clinical understanding of NEPC.

A Randomized, Open-label, Cross-over Phase 2 Trial of Darolutamide and Enzalutamide in Men with Asymptomatic or Mildly Symptomatic Metastatic Castrate-resistant Prostate Cancer: Patient Preference and Cognitive Function in ODENZA

BACKGROUND

Darolutamide and enzalutamide are second-generation androgen receptor inhibitors with activity in men with castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and different toxicity profiles.

OBJECTIVE

ODENZA is a prospective, randomized, multicenter, cross-over, phase 2 trial designed to assess preference between darolutamide and enzalutamide in men with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic metastatic CRPC (mCRPC).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either darolutamide 1200 mg/d for 12 wk followed by enzalutamide 160 mg/d for 12 wk or enzalutamide followed by darolutamide. In both arms, the second treatment was given in absence of cancer progression.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary endpoint was patient preference between the two drugs, as assessed by a preference questionnaire (p value calculated with the Prescott test). After week 24, patients entered an extension period during which they received their preferred treatment until progression or toxicity. The main secondary objectives included reasons for patient preference, response at week 12, tolerance of each drug, and measurement compared with baseline of cognitive outcomes assessed using tablet questionnaires.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Overall, 249 patients, with a median age of 72 yr, were randomized. Among the 200 patients who fulfilled the preplanned criteria for the evaluation of the primary endpoint of preference, 97 (49% [41; 56]), 80 (40% [33; 47]), and 23 (12% [7; 16]) chose darolutamide, chose enzalutamide, and had no preference, respectively (p = 0.92). Reduced fatigue, easier administration, and better quality of life were the main criteria that influenced patient choice. A moderate benefit in episodic memory from darolutamide was observed for the acquisition of new information (least square [LS] means difference = 2.2, effect size = 0.5) and for the recall of that information after a brief delay (LS means difference = 0.7, effect size = 0.3). Using the Brief Fatigue Inventory questionnaire, patients reported greater fatigue with enzalutamide (3.3 [3.0; 3.6]) than with darolutamide (2.7 [2.4; 3.0]). There was no difference in terms of depression, seizures, and falls.

CONCLUSIONS

The study did not show a difference in preference between the two treatments. In men with mCRPC, darolutamide was associated with a clinically meaningful benefit in episodic memory and less fatigue compared with enzalutamide.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Preference between darolutamide and enzalutamide was well balanced in men with castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Darolutamide was associated with a significant benefit in verbal learning and less fatigue compared with enzalutamide.

Hematological Toxicities with PARP Inhibitors in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Phase II/III Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) are an important class of therapeutics for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Unlike hormone-based treatments for mCRPC, PARPis are not without drug-related hematological adverse events.

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence on hematological toxicities, including anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia from PARPis in prostate cancer.

STUDY METHODOLOGY

A systematic review and meta-analysis using the PRISMA guidelines was performed for phase II and III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PARPis in prostate cancer. PubMed, Embase, and Ovid All EBM reviews-Cochrane were queried from inception to 9 June 2023. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to report risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all-grade and high-grade anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia toxicities.

RESULTS

The systematic review retrieved eight phase II and III RCTs; specifically, eight were included in the anemia, five in the all-grade thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, and four in the high-grade thrombocytopenia and neutropenia outcomes. Compared to a placebo and/or other non-PARPi treatments, PARPi use was associated with an increased risk of all-grade anemia (RR, 3.37; 95% CI, 2.37-4.79; p < 0.00001), thrombocytopenia (RR, 4.54; 95% CI, 1.97-10.44; p = 0.0004), and neutropenia (RR, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.60-6.03; p = 0.0008). High-grade anemia (RR, 6.94; 95% CI, 4.06-11.86; p < 0.00001) and thrombocytopenia (RR, 5.52; 95% CI, 2.80-10.88; p < 0.00001) were also associated with an increased risk, while high-grade neutropenia (RR, 3.63; 95% CI, 0.77-17.23; p = 0.10) showed no significant association. Subgroup stratification analyses showed differences in various all-grade and high-grade toxicities.

CONCLUSION

PARPis were associated with an increased risk of hematological AEs. Future studies with more pooled RCTs will enhance this understanding and continue to inform patient-physician shared decision-making. Future studies may also have a role in improving the current management strategies for these AEs.

Efficacy and safety outcomes of darolutamide in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with comorbidities and concomitant medications from the randomised phase 3 ARAMIS trial

PURPOSE

In patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) in the Androgen Receptor Antagonizing Agent for Metastasis-free Survival (ARAMIS) trial, darolutamide significantly improved median metastasis-free survival by nearly 2 years and reduced the risk of death by 31% versus placebo, with a favourable safety/tolerability profile. This post hoc analysis of ARAMIS evaluated efficacy and safety in patients by number of comorbidities and concomitant medications.

METHODS

Patients with nmCRPC were randomised 2:1 to darolutamide (n = 955) or placebo (n = 554) while continuing androgen-deprivation therapy. Overall survival (OS) and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were evaluated in subgroups by median numbers of ongoing comorbidities and concomitant medications. HRs were determined from univariate analysis using Cox regression.

FINDINGS

Median numbers of comorbidities and concomitant medications were 6 and 10, respectively, with 41.6% of patients having >6 comorbidities and 48.8% taking >10 concomitant medications. For patients with ≤ 6 and >6 comorbidities, darolutamide increased OS versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65 and 0.73, respectively), and this benefit was consistent for cardiovascular, metabolic, and other comorbidities (HR range: 0.39-0.88). For patients taking ≤ 10 and >10 concomitant medications, increased OS was also observed with darolutamide versus placebo (HR 0.76 and 0.66, respectively), and the benefit was consistent across medication classes (HR range: 0.45-0.80). Incidences of TEAEs and TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation with darolutamide were similar to placebo across subgroups by numbers of comorbidities and concomitant medications.

CONCLUSIONS

The OS benefit and safety of darolutamide remained consistent with that observed in the overall ARAMIS population, even in patients with high numbers of comorbidities or concomitant medications.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV REGISTRATION

NCT02200614.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Darolutamide increased overall survival versus placebo, and incidences of most adverse events were similar between treatments in patients with ≤ 6 or >6 comorbidities and those taking ≤ 10 or >10 concomitant medications.

Current Principles, Challenges, and New Metrics in pH-Responsive Drug Delivery Systems for Systemic Cancer Therapy

The paradigm of drug delivery via particulate formulations is one of the leading ideas that enable overcoming limitations of traditional chemotherapeutic agents. The trend toward more complex multifunctional drug carriers is well-traced in the literature. Nowadays, the prospectiveness of stimuli-responsive systems capable of controlled cargo release in the lesion nidus is widely accepted. Both endogenous and exogenous stimuli are employed for this purpose; however, endogenous pH is the most common trigger. Unfortunately, scientists encounter multiple challenges on the way to the implementation of this idea related to the vehicles' accumulation in off-target tissues, their immunogenicity, the complexity of drug delivery to intracellular targets, and finally, the difficulties in the fabrication of carriers matching all imposed requirements. Here, we discuss fundamental strategies for pH-responsive drug delivery, as well as limitations related to such carriers' application, and reveal the main problems, weaknesses, and reasons for poor clinical results. Moreover, we attempted to formulate the profiles of an "ideal" drug carrier in the frame of different strategies drawing on the example of metal-comprising materials and considered recently published studies through the lens of these profiles. We believe that this approach will facilitate the formulation of the main challenges facing researchers and the identification of the most promising trends in technology development.

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer-metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022

BACKGROUND

Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

TWITTER SUMMARY

Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer.

TAKE-HOME MESSAGE

At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

BACKGROUND

Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management.

OBJECTIVE

To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

Rucaparib or Physician's Choice in Metastatic Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

In a phase 2 study, rucaparib, an inhibitor of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP), showed a high level of activity in patients who had metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer associated with a deleterious BRCA alteration. Data are needed to confirm and expand on the findings of the phase 2 study.

METHODS

In this randomized, controlled, phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients who had metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer with a BRCA1, BRCA2, or ATM alteration and who had disease progression after treatment with a second-generation androgen-receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI). We randomly assigned the patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or a physician's choice control (docetaxel or a second-generation ARPI [abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide]). The primary outcome was the median duration of imaging-based progression-free survival according to independent review.

RESULTS

Of the 4855 patients who had undergone prescreening or screening, 270 were assigned to receive rucaparib and 135 to receive a control medication (intention-to-treat population); in the two groups, 201 patients and 101 patients, respectively, had a BRCA alteration. At 62 months, the duration of imaging-based progression-free survival was significantly longer in the rucaparib group than in the control group, both in the BRCA subgroup (median, 11.2 months and 6.4 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.69) and in the intention-to-treat group (median, 10.2 months and 6.4 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80; P<0.001 for both comparisons). In an exploratory analysis in the ATM subgroup, the median duration of imaging-based progression-free survival was 8.1 months in the rucaparib group and 6.8 months in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.52). The most frequent adverse events with rucaparib were fatigue and nausea.

CONCLUSIONS

The duration of imaging-based progression-free survival was significantly longer with rucaparib than with a control medication among patients who had metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer with a BRCA alteration. (Funded by Clovis Oncology; TRITON3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02975934.).

SPOP Mutations as a Predictive Biomarker for Androgen Receptor Axis-Targeted Therapy in De Novo Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Intensification of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with either docetaxel or androgen receptor axis-targeted therapies (ARAT) are the current standard of care for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). However, biomarkers guiding treatment selection are lacking. We hypothesized that ADT intensification with ARAT, but not with docetaxel, would be associated with improved outcomes in patients with de novo (dn)-mCSPC harboring SPOP mutations.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Patient-level data from a deidentified nationwide (U.S.-based) prostate cancer clinico-genomic database between January 2011 and December 2021 were extracted. Eligibility criteria: diagnosis of metastatic disease within 30 days of original prostate cancer diagnosis, genomic profiling of a tissue biopsy collected within 90 days of original diagnosis, and initiation of ARAT or docetaxel within 120 days of initial diagnosis. The log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare time to castration-resistant prostate cancer (TTCRPC) and overall survival (OS) for patients with and without SPOP mutations undergoing ADT intensification with ARAT or docetaxel.

RESULTS

In the ARAT cohort, presence of SPOP mutation compared with wild-type was associated with more favorable TTCRPC [not reached (NR) vs. 16.7 months; adjusted HR (aHR), 0.20; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.06-0.63; P = 0.006] and OS (NR vs. 27.2 months; aHR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.79; P = 0.022). In contrast, SPOP mutation status was not associated with TTCRPC or OS in docetaxel-treated cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world settings, SPOP mutations were associated with improved outcomes to ADT plus ARAT (but not ADT plus docetaxel) in patients with dn-mCSPC. This may serve as a predictive biomarker to guide treatment selection for patients with mCSPC.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021

BACKGROUND

Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To present the voting results from APCCC 2021.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The voting reflected the opinions of panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making.

Abiraterone plus prednisone added to androgen deprivation therapy and docetaxel in de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (PEACE-1): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study with a 2 × 2 factorial design

BACKGROUND

Current standard of care for metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer supplements androgen deprivation therapy with either docetaxel, second-generation hormonal therapy, or radiotherapy. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of abiraterone plus prednisone, with or without radiotherapy, in addition to standard of care.

METHODS

We conducted an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study with a 2 × 2 factorial design (PEACE-1) at 77 hospitals across Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Spain, and Switzerland. Eligible patients were male, aged 18 years or older, with histologically confirmed or cytologically confirmed de novo metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 (or 2 due to bone pain). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy alone or with intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m² once every 3 weeks), standard of care plus radiotherapy, standard of care plus abiraterone (oral 1000 mg abiraterone once daily plus oral 5 mg prednisone twice daily), or standard of care plus radiotherapy plus abiraterone. Neither the investigators nor the patients were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary endpoints were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. Abiraterone efficacy was first assessed in the overall population and then in the population who received androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel as standard of care (population of interest). This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01957436.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 27, 2013, and Dec 20, 2018, 1173 patients were enrolled (one patient subsequently withdrew consent for analysis of his data) and assigned to receive standard of care (n=296), standard of care plus radiotherapy (n=293), standard of care plus abiraterone (n=292), or standard of care plus radiotherapy plus abiraterone (n=291). Median follow-up was 3·5 years (IQR 2·8-4·6) for radiographic progression-free survival and 4·4 years (3·5-5·4) for overall survival. Adjusted Cox regression modelling revealed no interaction between abiraterone and radiotherapy, enabling the pooled analysis of abiraterone efficacy. In the overall population, patients assigned to receive abiraterone (n=583) had longer radiographic progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54, 99·9% CI 0·41-0·71; p<0·0001) and overall survival (0·82, 95·1% CI 0·69-0·98; p=0·030) than patients who did not receive abiraterone (n=589). In the androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel population (n=355 in both with abiraterone and without abiraterone groups), the HRs were consistent (radiographic progression-free survival 0·50, 99·9% CI 0·34-0·71; p<0·0001; overall survival 0·75, 95·1% CI 0·59-0·95; p=0·017). In the androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel population, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 217 (63%) of 347 patients who received abiraterone and 181 (52%) of 350 who did not; hypertension had the largest difference in occurrence (76 [22%] patients and 45 [13%], respectively). Addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel did not increase the rates of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, fatigue, or neuropathy compared with androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel alone.

INTERPRETATION

Combining androgen deprivation therapy, docetaxel, and abiraterone in de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer improved overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival with a modest increase in toxicity, mostly hypertension. This triplet therapy could become a standard of care for these patients.

FUNDING

Janssen-Cilag, Ipsen, Sanofi, and the French Government.