Ivan Krakowski

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

BACKGROUND Early chemotherapy might improve the overall outcomes of patients with metastatic non-castrate (ie, hormone-sensitive) prostate cancer. We investigated the effects of the addition of docetaxel to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for patients with metastatic non-castrate prostate cancer. METHODS In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study, we enrolled patients in 29 centres in France and one in Belgium. Eligible patients were older than 18 years and had histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate and radiologically proven metastatic disease; a Karnofsky score of at least 70%; a life expectancy of at least 3 months; and adequate hepatic, haematological, and renal function. They were randomly assigned to receive to ADT (orchiectomy or luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists, alone or combined with non-steroidal antiandrogens) alone or in combination with docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) intravenously on the first day of each 21-day cycle; up to nine cycles). Patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio, with dynamic minimisation to minimise imbalances in previous systemic treatment with ADT, chemotherapy for local disease or isolated rising concentration of serum prostate-specific antigen, and Glass risk groups. Patients, physicians, and data analysts were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00104715. FINDINGS Between Oct 18, 2004, and Dec 31, 2008, 192 patients were randomly allocated to receive ADT plus docetaxel and 193 to receive ADT alone. Median follow-up was 50 months (IQR 39-63). Median overall survival was 58·9 months (95% CI 50·8-69·1) in the group given ADT plus docetaxel and 54·2 months (42·2-not reached) in that given ADT alone (hazard ratio 1·01, 95% CI 0·75-1·36). 72 serious adverse events were reported in the group given ADT plus docetaxel, of which the most frequent were neutropenia (40 [21%]), febrile neutropenia (six [3%]), abnormal liver function tests (three [2%]), and neutropenia with infection (two [1%]). Four treatment-related deaths occurred in the ADT plus docetaxel group (two of which were neutropenia-related), after which the data monitoring committee recommended treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. After this recommendation, no further treatment-related deaths occurred. No serious adverse events were reported in the ADT alone group. INTERPRETATION Docetaxel should not be used as part of first-line treatment for patients with non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer. FUNDING French Health Ministry and Institut National du Cancer (PHRC), Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, and Amgen.

Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) Plus Docetaxel Versus ADT Alone in Metastatic Non castrate Prostate Cancer: Impact of Metastatic Burden and Long-term Survival Analysis of the Randomized Phase 3 GETUG-AFU15 Trial

BACKGROUND The role of chemotherapy in metastatic non castrate prostate cancer (mNCPC) is debated. Survival benefits of docetaxel (D) added to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) were shown in the CHAARTED trial in patients with metastatic high-volume disease (HVD). OBJECTIVE To assess the impact of metastatic burden and to update overall survival (OS) data of the GETUG-AFU15 study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized phase 3 trial of ADT plus D versus ADT alone in 385 mNCPC patients; median follow-up of 7 yr. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Primary end point was OS. Secondary end points were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). Retrospective analysis was by tumor volume. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS After a median follow-up of 83.9 mo, median OS in the overall population was 62.1 mo (95% confidence interval [CI], 49.5-73.7) and 48.6 mo (95% CI, 40.9-60.6) for ADT plus D and ADT arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.88 [95% CI, 0.68-1.14]; p=0.3). Median OS in ADT plus D and ADT arms, respectively, was for HVD patients: 39.8 mo (95% CI, 28.0-53.4) versus 35.1 mo (95% CI, 29.9-43.6) (HR: 0.78 [95% CI, 0.56-1.09]; p=0.14), for low-volume disease (LVD) patients; median was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 69.5-NR) and 83.4 mo (95% CI, 61.8-NR) (HR: 1.02 [95% CI, 0.67-1.55]; p=0.9). For upfront metastatic patients, OS was 52.6 mo (95% CI, 43.3-66.8) and 41.5 mo (95% CI, 36.3-54.5), respectively (HR: 0.93 [95% CI, 0.69-1.25]; p=0.6). The bPFS (HR: 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.94]; p=0.014) and rPFS (HR: 0.75 [95% CI, 0.58-0.97]; p=0.030) were significantly longer in the ADT plus D arm. Limitations included the retrospective analysis of metastatic extent and the lack of statistical power to detect a significant difference in subgroups. CONCLUSIONS The post hoc analyses of the GETUG-AFU15 study demonstrated a nonsignificant 20% reduction in the risk of death in the HVD subgroup. Patients with LVD had no survival improvement with early D. PATIENT SUMMARY In this study, docetaxel added to castration did not improve survival in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, partly due to methodological issues. However, early chemotherapy should be discussed with all patients, given the data of three randomized trials including GETUG-AFU15.

Androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel and estramustine versus androgen deprivation therapy alone for high-risk localised prostate cancer (GETUG 12): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Early risk-stratified chemotherapy is a standard treatment for breast, colorectal, and lung cancers, but not for high-risk localised prostate cancer. Combined docetaxel and estramustine improves survival in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. We assessed the effects of combined docetaxel and estramustine on relapse in patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer. METHODS We did this randomised phase 3 trial at 26 hospitals in France. We enrolled patients with treatment-naive prostate cancer and at least one risk factor (ie, stage T3-T4 disease, Gleason score of ≥8, prostate-specific antigen concentration >20 ng/mL, or pathological node-positive). All patients underwent a staging pelvic lymph node dissection. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either androgen deprivation therapy (ADT; goserelin 10·8 mg every 3 months for 3 years) plus four cycles of docetaxel on day 2 at a dose of 70 mg/m(2) and estramustine 10 mg/kg per day on days 1-5, every 3 weeks, or ADT only. The randomisation was done centrally by computer, stratified by risk factor. Local treatment was administered at 3 months. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Follow-up for other endpoints is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00055731. FINDINGS We randomly assigned 207 patients to the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group and 206 to the ADT only group. Median follow-up was 8·8 years (IQR 8·1-9·7). 88 (43%) of 207 patients in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group had an event (relapse or death) versus 111 (54%) of 206 in the ADT only group. 8-year relapse-free survival was 62% (95% CI 55-69) in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group versus 50% (44-57) in the ADT only group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·54-0·94, p=0·017). Of patients who were treated with radiotherapy and had data available, 31 (21%) of 151 in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group versus 26 (18%) of 143 in the ADT only group reported a grade 2 or higher long-term side-effect (p=0·61). We recorded no excess second cancers (26 [13%] of 207 vs 22 [11%] of 206; p=0·57), and there were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION Docetaxel-based chemotherapy improves relapse-free survival in patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to assess whether this benefit translates into improved metastasis-free survival and overall survival. FUNDING Ligue Contre le Cancer, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Institut National du Cancer.

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

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

A phase III trial of docetaxel–estramustine in high-risk localised prostate cancer: A planned analysis of response, toxicity and quality of life in the GETUG 12 trial

AIM To assess docetaxel-estramustine in patients with localised high-risk prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS After staging pelvic lymph node dissection, patients with high-risk prostate cancer randomly received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) (3 years)+DE (4 cycles of docetaxel 70 mg/m(2)/3 weeks+estramustine 10mg/kg/dd1-5) or ADT alone. Local therapy was administered at 3 months. RESULTS Four hundred and thirteen patients were accrued: T3-T4 (67%), Gleason score ~8 (42%), PSA >20 ng/mL (59%), pN+ (29%). In the chemotherapy arm, 94% of patients received the planned four cycles of docetaxel. Local treatment consisted of radiotherapy in 358 patients (87%) (median dose 74 Gy in both arms). ADT was given for 36 months in both arms. A PSA response (PSA ~0.2 ng/mL after 3 months of treatment) was obtained in 34% and 15% in the ADT+DE arm and in the ADT arm, respectively (p<0.0001). Febrile neutropenia occurred in only 2%. Moderate to severe hot flashes occurred less often in the ADT+DE arm (2% versus 22%; p<0.001). There was no toxicity-related death, no secondary leukaemia, and no excess second cancers. Chemotherapy had a negative impact on quality of life (global health status, p = 0.01; fatigue, p = 0.003; role functioning, p = 0.003; social functioning, p = 0.006) at 3 months but this effect disappeared at 1 year. CONCLUSION Docetaxel-estramustine can be combined safely with standard therapy in high-risk prostate cancer, with a promising PSA response rate and no negative impact on quality of life after 1 year. Long-term follow-up is required to assess the impact on relapse and survival.

Prognostic Factors for Survival in Noncastrate Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Validation of the Glass Model and Development of a Novel Simplified Prognostic Model

BACKGROUND The Glass model developed in 2003 uses prognostic factors for noncastrate metastatic prostate cancer (NCMPC) to define subgroups with good, intermediate, and poor prognosis. OBJECTIVE To validate NCMPC risk groups in a more recently diagnosed population and to develop a more sensitive prognostic model. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS NCMPC patients were randomized to receive continuous androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without docetaxel in the GETUG-15 phase 3 trial. Potential prognostic factors were recorded: age, performance status, Gleason score, hemoglobin (Hb), prostate-specific antigen, alkaline phosphatase (ALP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), metastatic localization, body mass index, and pain. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS These factors were used to develop a new prognostic model using a recursive partitioning method. Before analysis, the data were split into learning and validation sets. The outcome was overall survival (OS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS For the 385 patients included, those with good (49%), intermediate (29%), and poor (22%) prognosis had median OS of 69.0, 46.5 and 36.6 mo (p=0.001), and 5-yr survival estimates of 60.7%, 39.4%, and 32.1%, respectively (p=0.001). The most discriminatory variables in univariate analysis were ALP, pain intensity, Hb, LDH, and bone metastases. ALP was the strongest prognostic factor in discriminating patients with good or poor prognosis. In the learning set, median OS in patients with normal and abnormal ALP was 69.1 and 33.6 mo, and 5-yr survival estimates were 62.1% and 23.2%, respectively. The hazard ratio for ALP was 3.11 and 3.13 in the learning and validation sets, respectively. The discriminatory ability of ALP (concordance [C] index 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.71) was superior to that of the Glass risk model (C-index 0.59, 95% CI 0.52-0.66). The study limitations include the limited number of patients and low values for the C-index. CONCLUSION A new and simple prognostic model was developed for patients with NCMPC, underlying the role of normal or abnormal ALP. PATIENT SUMMARY We analyzed clinical and biological factors that could affect overall survival in noncastrate metastatic prostate cancer. We showed that normal or abnormal alkaline phosphatase at baseline might be useful in predicting survival.

Supportive care organisation in France: an in depth study by the French speaking association for supportive care in cancer (AFSOS).

BACKGROUND Supportive care in cancer (SCC) was further enhanced in the Second National Cancer Act decreed in December 2009. The aim of our study was to assess current SCC efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS The French speaking association for supportive care in cancer (AFSOS) conducted an observational study to evaluate practices, organisations and information given to patients. A specific 32 point questionnaire was sent to 1621 French physicians (MDs) caring for cancer patients. RESULTS Three different organisations were evaluated: the individual MDs, the transversal team and its particular structure specialised in global patient care specifically developed at comprehensive cancer centres - CCC. During their disease, 68% of patients received SCC, which was more available during the palliative period (90%) than at the diagnosis (44%). Our results found that 71% of cancer departments had a specific interdisciplinary cross-team to provide SCC, particularly in CCC (62%; p=0.01) while 37% had specific inpatient units. A specific organisation dedicated to home care was greater in CCC than in public or private centres (69%, 45%, 20% respectively; p=0.01). Adverse event information was performed more by an oncologist than other specialists (p=0.01). CONCLUSION Our results suggest that the specific SCC organisation could be a useful management tool to improve supportive care for cancer patients.

Anticancer Activity and Tolerance of Treatments Received Beyond Progression in Men Treated Upfront with Androgen Deprivation Therapy With or Without Docetaxel for Metastatic Castration-naïve Prostate Cancer in the GETUG-AFU 15 Phase 3 Trial

BACKGROUND Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus docetaxel is the standard of care in fit men with metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer (mCNPC) following results from GETUG-AFU 15, CHAARTED, and STAMPEDE. No data are available on the efficacy of treatments used for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in men treated upfront with ADT plus docetaxel for mCNPC. OBJECTIVE To investigate the efficacy and tolerance of subsequent treatments in patients treated upfront with chemo-hormonal therapy for mCNPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective data from the GETUG-AFU 15 phase 3 trial were collected for treatments received for mCRPC. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS For the first three lines of salvage treatment for mCRPC we investigated the biochemical progression-free survival, maximum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline, overall survival, and tolerance. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Overall, 245 patients received at least one treatment for mCRPC. For docetaxel used in first-line, a PSA decline ≥50% was observed in 25/66 (38%) and in 4/20 patients (20%) who had received upfront ADT alone and ADT plus docetaxel (p=0.14). The median biochemical progression-free survival was 6.0 mo (95% confidence interval: 3.6-7.7) and 4.1 mo (95% confidence interval: 1.3-4.9), respectively. For docetaxel used in first- or second-line, a PSA decline ≥50% was observed in 36/80 (45%) and in 4/29 patients (14%) who had received upfront ADT alone and ADT plus docetaxel (p=0.07). PSA declines ≥50% were observed with bicalutamide in 12/28 (43%) and 4/23 patients (17%) who had received upfront ADT alone and ADT plus docetaxel. Among men treated upfront with ADT plus docetaxel who received abiraterone or enzalutamide for mCRPC, 10/19 patients (53%) achieved a PSA decline ≥50%. Few grade 3-4 events occurred. Study limitations include the observational design and retrospective characteristics of this analysis, without standardized therapeutic salvage protocols, and the limited number of patients in some of the treatment subgroups. CONCLUSIONS Docetaxel rechallenge following progression to mCRPC after upfront ADT plus docetaxel for mCNPC was active only in a limited number of patients. Available data on abiraterone and enzalutamide support maintained efficacy in this setting. The lack of standardized therapeutic protocols for men developing mCRPC limits the comparability between patients. PATIENT SUMMARY Rechallenging docetaxel at castration-resistance was active only in a limited number of patients treated upfront with chemo-hormonal therapy for metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer. Anticancer activity was suggested with abiraterone or enzalutamide in this setting.

Supportive Care Organization in France: a national in-depth survey among patients and oncologists

PurposeMedical doctors’ (MDs), but not patients’, perception of supportive care in cancer (SCC) in France has been previously assessed in a national survey. This study evaluated MDs and patients’ perceptions of the SCC organization and implementation in France.MethodsThe French SCC Association conducted two observational studies: study 1 (S1), containing a 30-point questionnaire sent to 2263 MDs, and study 2 (S2), containing a 40-point questionnaire sent to 2000 patients.ResultsOverall, 711 MDs completed S1 and 1562 patients completed S2. In S1, 81% of MDs reported relying on a SCC organization and 76% attended SCC multidisciplinary discussions. MDs considered palliative (98%), psychological (98%), and social care (98%) as the top 3 SCC areas of importance for patients. In contrast, patients’ priorities were psychology (61%), nutrition (55%) and organization of intake consultations (55%). The concept of SCC was familiar to 34% of patients; according to MDs, this concept was introduced mainly by MDs (78%) and admission nurses (41%). Outpatients identified as professional resources for SCC information general practitioners (84%), nurses (58%), and pharmacists (52%). Patients reported supportive treatment being prescribed in 63% of cases, with 64% receiving information on the negative side-effects. Among MDs, 87% reported proposing palliative and 41% adjuvant SCC treatment. Furthermore, 72% of MDs recommended SCC treatment at the metastatic stage, and 36% immediately following diagnosis.DiscussionOncologists play a vital role in enhancing SCC efficacy. This can be increased by implementing a multidisciplinary integrated approach or by assuring the availability of patient information.

A propos de la mise en place des soins de support en cancérologie : pistes de réflexions et propositions

A group of 19 healthcare professionals involved in supportive care propose some suggestions regarding the organization, implementation and evaluation of the supportive care in healthcare institutions and areas. The suggested organizationmust be applicable to any cancer patient whatever his/her age, stage of the disease, and place of disease management; in the future, it is expected to be equally applicable to any patient with serious chronic illness. This organization must allow optimizing the accompaniment and management of both the patients and their relatives by: 1) a precise and regular analysis of their needs; 2) the respect of the continuity of the healthcare; 3) the organization of a collaborative and cross-sectional practical management. This type of management does not constitute a new medical speciality but it consists in the coordination of various medical competences for the benefit of the patients and their families.RésuméUn groupe de 19 professionnels, impliqués dans les soins de support, ont voulu proposer des postes de réflexion pour l’organisation, la mise en place et l’évaluation des soins de support dans les établissements et les territoires de santé. L’organisation proposée doit pouvoir s’appliquer à tout malade atteint de cancer, quels que soient son âge et son lieu de prise en charge, quel que soit le stade de sa malade; elle doit à terme pouvoir concerner tout malade atteint de maladie chronique grave. Elle doit permettre une meilleure prise en charge globale des patients et de leurs proches par: 1) une analyse précise et régulière de leurs besoins; 2) le respect de la continuité des soins; 3) la mise en place de pratiques collaboratives et une transversalité dans les soins. Il ne s’agit pas d’une nouvelle spécialité mais d’une coordination de compétences au service du patient et de ses proches.