Preliminary efficacy and tolerability of chemohormonal therapy in metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer: The first real-life experience in Asia

A global phase II randomized trial comparing oral taxane ModraDoc006/r to intravenous docetaxel in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer

STUDY AIM

ModraDoc006, an oral formulation of docetaxel, is co-administered with the cytochrome P450-3A4 and P-glycoprotein inhibitor, ritonavir (r): ModraDoc006/r. The preliminary efficacy and safety of oral ModraDoc006/r was evaluated in a global randomized phase II trial and compared to the current standard chemotherapy regimen of intravenous (i.v.) docetaxel and prednisone.

METHODS

103 mCRPC patients, chemotherapy-naïve with/without abiraterone and/or enzalutamide pretreated, with adequate organ function and evaluable disease per RECIST v1.1 and PCWG3 guidelines were randomized 1:1 into two cohorts. In Cohort 1, 49 patients received docetaxel 75 mg/m2 i.v. every 3 weeks (Q3W). In Cohort 2, 52 patients received ModraDoc006/r; 21 patients with a starting dose of ModraDoc006 30 mg with ritonavir 200 mg in the morning and ModraDoc006 20 mg with ritonavir 100 mg in the evening (30-20/200-100 mg) bi-daily-once-weekly (BIDW) on Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 21-day cycle. To alleviate tolerability, the starting dose was amended to ModraDoc006/r 20-20/200-100 mg in another 31 patients. All patients received prednisone 10 mg daily. Primary endpoint was rPFS.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in rPFS between the 2 arms (p = 0.1465). Median rPFS was 9.5 months and 11.1 months (95% CI) for ModraDoc006/r and i.v. docetaxel, respectively. Partial response was noted in 44.1% and 38.7% measurable disease patients, and 50% decline of PSA was seen in 23 (50%) and 26 (56.5%) evaluable cases treated with ModraDoc006/r and i.v. docetaxel, respectively. The safety profile of ModraDoc006/r 20-20/200-100 mg dose was significantly better than i.v. docetaxel, with mild (mostly Grade 1) gastrointestinal toxicities, no hematologic adverse events, and neuropathy and alopecia incidence of 11.5% and 25%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

ModraDoc006/r potentially represents a widely applicable, convenient, effective, and better tolerated oral taxane therapy option for mCRPC. Further investigation of ModraDoc006/r in a large randomized trial is warranted.

A territory-wide real-world efficacy and toxicity analysis of abiraterone acetate versus docetaxel in 574 Asian patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Abiraterone acetate (ABI) or docetaxel (DOC), in addition to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), are current treatment options for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). No randomized head-to-head trial has compared these 2 mHSPC treatments, and real-world data regarding their outcomes in Asian patients are lacking.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The medical records of mHSPC patients who began upfront ABI or DOC treatment in addition to ADT at seven public oncology centers in Hong Kong between 2015 and 2021 were reviewed. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, and toxicities. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 574 patients were included, of whom 419 received DOC and 155 received ABI. The median follow-up duration was 22.4 (DOC group: 23.8; ABI group: 17.3) months. The ABI group demonstrated significantly better PFS than the DOC group (not reached vs. 15.1 months: hazard ratio = 0.37; 95% confidence interval = 0.28-0.50; P < .001). No significant OS difference was observed (P = .58). Failure to achieve a ≥ 90% decline in PSA level at 3 months and failure to achieve an undetectable PSA nadir were each associated with unfavorable PFS and OS. Patients who received DOC had a higher rate of febrile neutropenia, whereas those who received ABI had higher rates of grade ≥ 3 hypokalemia and elevated alanine transaminase. Treatment discontinuation due to toxicities was more common in the DOC (3.6%) than the ABI (0.6%) group.

CONCLUSION

In Asian mHSPC patients, upfront ABI + ADT was associated with better PFS than DOC + ADT, with no significant OS difference. PSA kinetics may help stratify the prognosis for treatment intensification. Toxicity profiles were different, with a higher rate of toxicity-related treatment discontinuation in the DOC group.

Prostate cancer management in Southeast Asian countries: a survey of clinical practice patterns

Background

Prostate cancer (PC) has a serious public health impact, and its incidence is rising due to the aging population. There is limited evidence and consensus to guide the management of PC in Southeast Asia (SEA). We present real-world data on clinical practice patterns in SEA for advanced PC care.

Method

A paper-based survey was used to identify clinical practice patterns and obtain consensus among the panelists. The survey included the demographics of the panelists, the use of clinical guidelines, and clinical practice patterns in the management of advanced PC in SEA.

Results

Most panelists (81%) voted prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as the most effective test for early PC diagnosis and risk stratification. Nearly 44% of panelists agreed that prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography-computed tomography imaging for PC diagnostic and staging information aids local and systemic therapy decisions. The majority of the panel preferred abiraterone acetate (67%) or docetaxel (44%) as first-line therapy for symptomatic mCRPC patients. Abiraterone acetate (50%) is preferred over docetaxel as a first-line treatment in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer patients with high-volume disease. However, the panel did not support the use of abiraterone acetate in non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) patients. Apalutamide (75%) is the preferred treatment option for patients with nmCRPC. The cost and availability of modern treatments and technologies are important factors influencing therapeutic decisions. All panelists supported the use of generic versions of approved therapies.

Conclusion

The survey results reflect real-world management of advanced PC in a SEA country. These findings could be used to guide local clinical practices and highlight the financial challenges of modern healthcare.

Effectiveness of Adding Docetaxel to Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer in Korean Real-World Practice

PURPOSE

Evidence in favor of adding docetaxel in treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has led to docetaxel in conjunction with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) as standard therapy. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of docetaxel with ADT for Korean patients with mHSPC in real-world practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed at six Korean hospitals for patients with mHSPC treated with docetaxel plus ADT. Patients were treated every 3 weeks for up to six cycles with 75 mg/m² of docetaxel. The primary endpoint was time to castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).

RESULTS

This study included 46 eligible patients from June 2016 to February 2021. Median age was 68.5 years (range, 52-84) and all patients present with de novo M1 with high-volume disease. The median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at ADT initiation was 205.4 (7.7-1933) ng/mL, and time from ADT to docetaxel was 2.4 months (0-5.3). All six planned cycles of docetaxel were delivered in 36 patients (78%), 7 patients (15%) discontinued treatment due to adverse events, and 3 patients (7%) discontinued due to progression. At the time of the analysis, CRPC had developed in 34 patients (74%), and the median time to CRPC was 18.0 (95% confidence interval, 14.1-21.9) months. PSA <0.2 ng/mL was achieved in 11 patients (24%) after 6 months of ADT and in 10 patients (22%) after 12 months. At last follow-up, 35 patients (76%) were alive; the median overall survival was not reached.

CONCLUSION

The effect of docetaxel combined with ADT for Korean patients with mHSPC is comparable with prior results in Western studies.

Japanese subgroup analysis of EV-301: An open-label, randomized phase 3 study to evaluate enfortumab vedotin versus chemotherapy in subjects with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Enfortumab vedotin (EV) is an antibody-drug conjugate showing significant overall survival (OS) benefit versus chemotherapy for patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) in EV-301. This subgroup analysis was conducted to further analyze the efficacy and safety in a Japanese population.

METHODS

In the open-label, phase 3 EV-301 trial, patients with la/mUC were randomized 1:1 to EV 1.25 mg/kg on Days 1, 8, and 15 for 28-day cycles or investigator-preselected standard chemotherapy (SC; docetaxel or paclitaxel for patients in Japan) on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Primary endpoint was OS and secondary efficacy endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR). Safety/tolerability was also evaluated.

RESULTS

As of the July 15, 2020 cut-off date for the interim analysis, the Japanese subgroup included 86 patients (EV: n = 36; SC: n = 50). Median OS was 15.18 months for EV and 10.55 months for SC (HR: 0.437 [95% CI: 0.209, 0.914]). Median PFS was 6.47 months for EV and 5.39 months for SC (HR: 0.464 [95% CI: 0.258, 0.835]). Confirmed ORR was 34.4% for EV and 21.3% for SC. A higher proportion of patients receiving SC versus EV had treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs; 97.9% vs. 91.7%, respectively), including grade ≥ 3 TRAEs (75.0% vs. 63.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

This subgroup analysis confirmed that EV, with consistent efficacy and safety/tolerability in the EV-301 Japanese subgroup and overall study population, represents an important treatment option for previously treated patients with la/mUC.

Safety Profile of Ipatasertib Plus Abiraterone vs Placebo Plus Abiraterone in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Adding ipatasertib to abiraterone and prednisone/prednisolone significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) with PTEN-loss tumours by immunohistochemistry in the IPATential150 trial (NCT03072238). Here we characterise the safety of these agents in subpopulations and assess manageability of key adverse events (AEs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial, patients with previously untreated asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic mCRPC were randomised 1:1 to receive ipatasertib-abiraterone or placebo-abiraterone (all with prednisone/prednisolone). AEs were analysed, focusing on key AEs of diarrhoea, hyperglycaemia, rash and transaminase increased.

RESULTS

1097 patients received study medication and were assessed for safety (47% with PTEN-loss tumours by immunohistochemistry and 20% were Asian). Ipatasertib was associated with increased Grade 3/4 AEs and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation vs placebo. The rate of discontinuation of ipatasertib was 18% in patients with PTEN-loss and 21% overall. The frequencies of all-grade, Grade 3/4 and serious AEs were similar between the PTEN-loss and overall populations. Diarrhoea, hyperglycaemia, rash and transaminase elevation were more frequent in ipatasertib-treated patients, appearing rapidly after treatment initiation (median onset: 8-43 days for ipatasertib arm and 56-104 days for placebo). The ipatasertib discontinuation rate was 32% and 18% in Asian and non-Asian patients, respectively, despite similar baseline characteristics and Grade 3/4 AE frequencies between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Ipatasertib plus abiraterone had an overall tolerable safety profile consistent with known toxicities. More AEs leading to drug discontinuation were observed with ipatasertib than placebo, but incidence would likely be lessened with prophylactic measures.

Efficacy and safety of therapies for advanced prostate cancer in Asia: Evidence from a systematic literature review

Objectives

Several therapies are available for the treatment of advanced/metastatic prostate cancer (PC). However, the systematic assessment of evidence pertaining to the use of these therapies in Asian patients is lacking.

Methods

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted using PubMed/Medline search in May 2021 to identify the randomized/nonrandomized controlled trials (RCTs/non-RCTs) and real-world observational studies (prospective/retrospective). Only studies published as full manuscripts in English were included if reporting the efficacy, effectiveness, and/or safety of treatments in Asian patients with advanced/metastatic PC.

Results

Of the 1,898 retrieved publications, 24 studies were included. These studies had patients with nonmetastatic castration-resistant PC (n = 2), metastatic castration-sensitive PC (n = 4), and metastatic castration-resistant PC (n = 18). Study designs included RCTs (n = 7), non-RCTs (n = 2), and real-world studies (n = 15). Treatments used in included studies were abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AAP; n = 6), enzalutamide, lutetium-177 prostate-specific membrane antigen (177Lu-PSMA; n = 4 each), docetaxel (n = 3), apalutamide, radium-223 (n = 2 each), darolutamide, cabazitaxel, and pembrolizumab (n = 1 each). The evidence from RCTs (i.e., ARAMIS, SPARTAN, ARCHES, TITAN, LATITUDE, PREVAIL) demonstrated the clinical benefits of apalutamide, darolutamide, enzalutamide, and AAP in terms of overall, disease-free, and metastasis-free survival in Asian patients. These treatments were reported to be well tolerated, with no new safety signals identified in Asian population. The efficacy and safety profiles in Asian patients were consistent with the overall trial population. Data from real-world studies supported the effectiveness and tolerability of AAP, enzalutamide, radium-223, docetaxel, cabazitaxel, 177Lu-PSMA, and pembrolizumab in patients with advanced/metastatic PC.

Conclusions

This SLR of the Asian data on therapies for advanced PC from the pivotal and real-world studies confirms similar efficacy and safety outcomes, consistent with the results from the pivotal clinical trials. These findings will help clinicians make better treatment decisions in clinical practice for patients with advanced/metastatic PC.

Ethnic Pharmacogenomic Differences in the Management of Asian Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Progression to metastatic disease occurs in about half of all men who develop prostate cancer (PC), one of the most common cancers in men worldwide. Androgen deprivation therapy has been the mainstay therapy for patients with metastatic PC (mPC) since the 1940s. In the last decade, there has been unprecedented advancement in systemic therapies, e.g., taxane, androgen-signalling pathway inhibitors, and biomarker-driven targeted therapies for various stages of disease, resulting in overall survival improvement. Adding to ongoing controversies over how best to treat these patients is the recognition that ethnicity may influence prognosis and outcomes. This review discusses recent evidence for the impacts of Asian ethnicity specifically, which includes environmental, sociocultural, and genetic factors, on the approach to pharmacological management of mPC. Clear inter-ethnic differences in drug tolerability, serious adverse events (AEs), and genetic heterogeneity must all be considered when dosing and scheduling for treatment, as well as designing future precision studies in PC.

Epidemiology and genomics of prostate cancer in Asian men

Prostate cancer is a global health problem, but incidence varies considerably across different continents. Asia is traditionally considered a low-incidence area, but the incidence and mortality of prostate cancer have rapidly increased across the continent. Substantial differences in epidemiological features have been observed among different Asian regions, and incidence, as well as mortality-to-incidence ratio, is associated with the human development index. Prostate cancer mortality decreased in Japan and Israel from 2007 to 2016, but mortality has increased in Thailand, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan over the same period. Genomic analyses have shown a low prevalence of ERG oncoprotein in the East Asian population, alongside a low rate of PTEN loss, high CHD1 enrichments and high FOXA1 alterations. Contributions from single-nucleotide polymorphisms to prostate cancer risk vary with ethnicity, but germline mutation rates of DNA damage repair genes in metastatic prostate cancer are comparable in Chinese and white patients from the USA and UK. Pharmacogenomic features of testosterone metabolism might contribute to disparities seen in the response to androgen deprivation between East Asian men and white American and European men. Overall, considerable diversity in epidemiology and genomics of prostate cancer across Asia defines disease characteristics in these populations, but studies in this area are under-represented in the literature. Taking into account this intracontinental and intercontinental heterogeneity, translational studies are required in order to develop ethnicity-specific treatment strategies.

Prevention of docetaxel-associated febrile neutropenia with primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in Chinese metastatic hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant prostate cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Asian prostate cancer (PC) patients are particularly susceptible to docetaxel-related febrile neutropenia (FN). We evaluated primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) for preventing FN in Chinese patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive PC (mHSPC) and castration-resistant PC (mCRPC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from two cohorts of 377 Chinese patients with mHSPC (100; 26.5%) and mCRPC (277; 73.5%) treated with docetaxel at six public oncology centres were analysed with multivariate regression. Primary GCSF prophylaxis was defined as administration within 5 days of starting docetaxel. The primary outcome was FN within 21 days of the first docetaxel cycle (1st FN).

RESULTS

Primary GCSF was given to 71 (18.8%) patients. FN occurred in 61 patients (16.2%) including 37 (9.8%) during the first cycle. Among patients who developed 1st cycle FN (n = 37) or not (n = 340), 2 and 69 received primary GCSF (5.4 vs. 20.3%, P = .03). Primary GCSF was associated with an overall reduced risk of 1st cycle FN (odds ratio [OR] = 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05-0.96, P = .04), and similar trends were observed in the mHSPC (OR = 0.36, P = .35) and mCRPC (OR = 0.16, P = .08) subgroups. Poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (>1) was associated with an increased risk of 1st FN (OR = 3.90; 95% CI: 1.66-9.13, P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

To alleviate the risk of docetaxel-related FN, primary GCSF prophylaxis is suggested for Asian mCRPC and mHSPC patients, particularly those with poor performance status.

Treatment and resistance mechanisms in castration-resistant prostate cancer: new implications for clinical decision making?

Introduction: The armamentarium of treatment options in metastatic and non-metastatic CRPC is rapidly evolving. However, the question of how individual treatment decisions should be balanced by available predictive clinical parameters, pharmacogenetic and drug interaction profiles, or compound-associated molecular biomarkers is a major challenge for clinical practice.Areas covered: We discuss treatment and resistance mechanisms in PC with regard to their association to drug efficacy and tolerability. Current efforts of combination treatment and putative predictive biomarkers of available and upcoming compounds are highlighted with regard to their implication on clinical decision-making.Expert opinion: Several treatment approaches are delineated, where identification of resistance mechanisms in CRPC may guide treatment selection. To date, most of these candidate biomarkers will however be found only in a small subset of patients. While current approaches of combination treatment in CRPC are proving synergistic effects on cancer biology, higher complexity with regard to biomarker analysis and interaction profiles of the respective compounds may be expected. Among other aspects of personalized treatment, consideration of drug-drug interaction and pharmacogenetics is an underrepresented issue. However, the non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer situation may be an example for treatment selection based on drug interaction profiles in the future.

Comparative Survival of Asian and White Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Men Treated With Docetaxel

There are few data regarding disparities in overall survival (OS) between Asian and white men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We compared OS of Asian and white mCRPC men treated in phase III clinical trials with docetaxel and prednisone (DP) or a DP-containing regimen. Individual participant data from 8820 men with mCRPC randomly assigned on nine phase III trials to receive DP or a DP-containing regimen were combined. Men enrolled in these trials had a diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma. The median overall survival was 18.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 17.4 to 22.1 months) and 21.2 months (95% CI = 20.8 to 21.7 months) for Asian and white men, respectively. The pooled hazard ratio for death for Asian men compared with white men, adjusted for baseline prognostic factors, was 0.95 (95% CI = 0.84 to 1.09), indicating that Asian men were not at increased risk of death. This large analysis showed that Asian men did not have shorter OS duration than white men treated with docetaxel.

Androgen deprivation therapy and the risk of iron-deficiency anaemia among patients with prostate cancer: a population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The administration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to patients with metastatic prostate cancer might be associated with some adverse effects such as anaemia; however, few studies have been performed in East Asian populations. This study aimed to investigate the association between ADT and iron-deficiency anaemia (IDA) among patients with prostate cancer in a population-based nationwide cohort.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

Taiwan.

PARTICIPANTS

Data for the cohort study were retrieved from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Propensity score matching was used to select 7262 patients with prostate cancer who received ADT as the study group and 3631 patients who did not receive ADT as the control group.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

This study individually tracked patients over a 3-year study period and identified those who were subsequently diagnosed with IDA following the index date.

RESULTS

The incidence rates of IDA in the study and control groups were 1.66 (95% CI CI 1.45 to 1.86) and 1.01 per 100 person-years (95% CI 0.78 to 1.25), respectively. Furthermore, proportional Cox regression revealed an HR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.24 to 2.12) for IDA in the study group after adjusting for patients' age, monthly income, geographic location, residential urbanisation level and incidence of hyperlipidaemia, diabetes, hypertension, coronary heart disease, inflammatory bowel disease, other cancers and gastrointestinal bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Compared with its non-use among patients with prostate cancer, ADT use was associated with a higher risk of IDA.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2019

BACKGROUND

Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To present the results from the APCCC 2019.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Similar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naïve prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Panellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material.

CONCLUSIONS

These voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making.

Management of advanced prostate cancer in Hong Kong: Insights from an APCCC-Derived survey

AIM

The 2017 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) convened an international multidisciplinary panel to vote on controversial issues in the management of advanced prostate cancer (APC). We aimed to compare their conclusions with the opinions of local specialists and explore the practicability of international recommendations in the healthcare setting in Hong Kong.

METHODS

Urologists and clinical oncologists practicing in Hong Kong were invited to complete a survey based on the original APCCC 2017 questionnaire and recently published trials in APC. A joint committee of expert key opinion leaders was convened to discuss and analyze the voting differences between local specialists and the APCCC 2017 panel.

RESULTS

The respondents constituted 21% (28/132) of registered urologists and 21% (31/146) of clinical oncologists in Hong Kong. Discrepancies in three key areas were identified as being the most timely for this analysis: (a) management of metastatic hormone-sensitive/naïve prostate cancer; (b) management of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; and (c) treatment monitoring and initiation of androgen-deprivation therapy. Fears of toxicity and intolerance among patients and physicians (especially urologists) may be driving the relative underuse of chemotherapy in multiple APC patient groups in Hong Kong. Local patients can face long wait times and limited access to contemporary imaging modalities compared with other developed countries.

CONCLUSION

Increased collaborative efforts by urologists and clinical oncologists could ensure that patients gain wider access to the latest diagnostic, treatment and monitoring modalities for APC in Hong Kong.

A Territory-wide, Multicenter, Age- and Prostate-specific Antigen-matched Study Comparing Chemohormonal Therapy and Hormonal Therapy Alone in Chinese Men With Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of real-world data regarding the treatment outcomes of chemohormonal therapy versus hormonal therapy alone in Chinese men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a territory-wide, multicenter, age- and prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-matched cohort study comparing chemohormonal therapy and hormonal therapy alone in Chinese men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Patient and disease characteristics were reviewed. The primary outcome was PSA progression-free survival. Secondary outcomes included clinical progression-free survival and castration resistance-free survival. Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

From January 2015 to July 2016, 32 Chinese men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were treated with chemohormonal therapy, and they were matched to 32 Chinese men who were treated with hormonal therapy alone. Patient and disease characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. The chemohormonal therapy group had a significantly better PSA progression-free survival (P = .001) and castration resistance-free survival (P = .002) than the hormonal therapy group. There was no significant difference in the clinical progression-free survival between the 2 groups. Upon multivariate Cox regression analyses, the use of chemohormonal therapy was significantly associated with a longer time to PSA progression (hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.73; P = .008) and a longer time to castration resistance (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.83; P = .015), but was not associated with clinical progression.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of chemohormonal therapy could prevent PSA progression and the development of castration resistance when compared with hormonal therapy alone in Chinese men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostatic cancer.