-
Lancet (London, England) Jul 2023Co-inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) and androgen receptor activity might result in antitumour efficacy irrespective of alterations in DNA damage repair... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Co-inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) and androgen receptor activity might result in antitumour efficacy irrespective of alterations in DNA damage repair genes involved in homologous recombination repair (HRR). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of talazoparib (a PARP inhibitor) plus enzalutamide (an androgen receptor blocker) versus enzalutamide alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
METHODS
TALAPRO-2 is a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial of talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide as first-line therapy in men (age ≥18 years [≥20 years in Japan]) with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic mCRPC receiving ongoing androgen deprivation therapy. Patients were enrolled from 223 hospitals, cancer centres, and medical centres in 26 countries in North America, Europe, Israel, South America, South Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients were prospectively assessed for HRR gene alterations in tumour tissue and randomly assigned (1:1) to talazoparib 0·5 mg or placebo, plus enzalutamide 160 mg, administered orally once daily. Randomisation was stratified by HRR gene alteration status (deficient vs non-deficient or unknown) and previous treatment with life-prolonging therapy (docetaxel or abiraterone, or both: yes vs no) in the castration-sensitive setting. The sponsor, patients, and investigators were masked to talazoparib or placebo, while enzalutamide was open-label. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) by blinded independent central review, evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03395197) and is ongoing.
FINDINGS
Between Jan 7, 2019, and Sept 17, 2020, 805 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (402 to the talazoparib group and 403 to the placebo group). Median follow-up for rPFS was 24·9 months (IQR 21·9-30·2) for the talazoparib group and 24·6 months (14·4-30·2) for the placebo group. At the planned primary analysis, median rPFS was not reached (95% CI 27·5 months-not reached) for talazoparib plus enzalutamide and 21·9 months (16·6-25·1) for placebo plus enzalutamide (hazard ratio 0·63; 95% CI 0·51-0·78; p<0·0001). In the talazoparib group, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia, neutropenia, and fatigue; the most common grade 3-4 event was anaemia (185 [46%] of 398 patients), which improved after dose reduction, and only 33 (8%) of 398 patients discontinued talazoparib due to anaemia. Treatment-related deaths occurred in no patients in the talazoparib group and two patients (<1%) in the placebo group.
INTERPRETATION
Talazoparib plus enzalutamide resulted in clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in rPFS versus standard of care enzalutamide as first-line treatment for patients with mCRPC. Final overall survival data and additional long-term safety follow-up will further clarify the clinical benefit of the treatment combination in patients with and without tumour HRR gene alterations.
FUNDING
Pfizer.
Topics: Male; Humans; Adolescent; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Receptors, Androgen; Androgen Antagonists; Anemia; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Double-Blind Method
PubMed: 37285865
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01055-3 -
Journal of the National Comprehensive... Oct 2023The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding the workup of patients with prostate cancer, risk stratification and...
The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide a framework on which to base decisions regarding the workup of patients with prostate cancer, risk stratification and management of localized disease, post-treatment monitoring, and treatment of recurrence and advanced disease. The Guidelines sections included in this article focus on the management of metastatic castration-sensitive disease, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and metastatic CRPC (mCRPC). Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with treatment intensification is strongly recommended for patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. For patients with nonmetastatic CRPC, ADT is continued with or without the addition of certain secondary hormone therapies depending on prostate-specific antigen doubling time. In the mCRPC setting, ADT is continued with the sequential addition of certain secondary hormone therapies, chemotherapies, immunotherapies, radiopharmaceuticals, and/or targeted therapies. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel emphasizes a shared decision-making approach in all disease settings based on patient preferences, prior treatment exposures, the presence or absence of visceral disease, symptoms, and potential side effects.
Topics: Humans; Male; Androgen Antagonists; Hormones; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant
PubMed: 37856213
DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2023.0050 -
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Jul 2023For patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, metastatic burden affects outcome. We examined efficacy and safety from the ARASENS trial for subgroups... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Darolutamide Plus Androgen-Deprivation Therapy and Docetaxel in Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer by Disease Volume and Risk Subgroups in the Phase III ARASENS Trial.
PURPOSE
For patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, metastatic burden affects outcome. We examined efficacy and safety from the ARASENS trial for subgroups by disease volume and risk.
METHODS
Patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were randomly assigned to darolutamide or placebo plus androgen-deprivation therapy and docetaxel. High-volume disease was defined as visceral metastases and/or ≥ 4 bone metastases with ≥ 1 beyond the vertebral column/pelvis. High-risk disease was defined as ≥ 2 risk factors: Gleason score ≥ 8, ≥ 3 bone lesions, and presence of measurable visceral metastases.
RESULTS
Of 1,305 patients, 1,005 (77%) had high-volume disease and 912 (70%) had high-risk disease. Darolutamide increased overall survival (OS) versus placebo in patients with high-volume (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.82), high-risk (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.86), and low-risk disease (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.90), and in the smaller low-volume subgroup, the results were also suggestive of survival benefit (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.13). Darolutamide improved clinically relevant secondary end points of time to castration-resistant prostate cancer and subsequent systemic antineoplastic therapy versus placebo in all disease volume and risk subgroups. Adverse events (AEs) were similar between treatment groups across subgroups. Grade 3 or 4 AEs occurred in 64.9% of darolutamide patients versus 64.2% of placebo patients in the high-volume subgroup and 70.1% versus 61.1% in the low-volume subgroup. Among the most common AEs, many were known toxicities related to docetaxel.
CONCLUSION
In patients with high-volume and high-risk/low-risk metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, treatment intensification with darolutamide, androgen-deprivation therapy, and docetaxel increased OS with a similar AE profile in the subgroups, consistent with the overall population.[Media: see text].
Topics: Male; Humans; Docetaxel; Prostatic Neoplasms; Androgen Antagonists; Androgens; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 36795843
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.23.00041 -
The New England Journal of Medicine Oct 2023Patients with prostate cancer who have high-risk biochemical recurrence have an increased risk of progression. The efficacy and safety of enzalutamide plus... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Patients with prostate cancer who have high-risk biochemical recurrence have an increased risk of progression. The efficacy and safety of enzalutamide plus androgen-deprivation therapy and enzalutamide monotherapy, as compared with androgen-deprivation therapy alone, are unknown.
METHODS
In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients with prostate cancer who had high-risk biochemical recurrence with a prostate-specific antigen doubling time of 9 months or less. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive enzalutamide (160 mg) daily plus leuprolide every 12 weeks (combination group), placebo plus leuprolide (leuprolide-alone group), or enzalutamide monotherapy (monotherapy group). The primary end point was metastasis-free survival, as assessed by blinded independent central review, in the combination group as compared with the leuprolide-alone group. A key secondary end point was metastasis-free survival in the monotherapy group as compared with the leuprolide-alone group. Other secondary end points were patient-reported outcomes and safety.
RESULTS
A total of 1068 patients underwent randomization: 355 were assigned to the combination group, 358 to the leuprolide-alone group, and 355 to the monotherapy group. The patients were followed for a median of 60.7 months. At 5 years, metastasis-free survival was 87.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83.0 to 90.6) in the combination group, 71.4% (95% CI, 65.7 to 76.3) in the leuprolide-alone group, and 80.0% (95% CI, 75.0 to 84.1) in the monotherapy group. With respect to metastasis-free survival, enzalutamide plus leuprolide was superior to leuprolide alone (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.61; P<0.001); enzalutamide monotherapy was also superior to leuprolide alone (hazard ratio for metastasis or death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.87; P = 0.005). No new safety signals were observed, with no substantial between-group differences in quality-of-life measures.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with prostate cancer with high-risk biochemical recurrence, enzalutamide plus leuprolide was superior to leuprolide alone with respect to metastasis-free survival; enzalutamide monotherapy was also superior to leuprolide alone. The safety profile of enzalutamide was consistent with that shown in previous clinical studies, with no apparent detrimental effect on quality of life. (Funded by Pfizer and Astellas Pharma; EMBARK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02319837.).
Topics: Humans; Male; Androgen Antagonists; Leuprolide; Nitriles; Prostatic Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Antineoplastic Agents; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Drug Therapy, Combination
PubMed: 37851874
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2303974 -
Trends in Cancer Oct 2023The field of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) has seen unprecedented therapeutic advances in the past decade. In the past 2 years, recent approvals include the triplet... (Review)
Review
The field of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) has seen unprecedented therapeutic advances in the past decade. In the past 2 years, recent approvals include the triplet therapy regimens of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), docetaxel, and an androgen receptor (AR) pathway inhibitor (ARPI) in the castration-sensitive setting and lutetium-177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Lu-PSMA-617) and the combination of poly(ADP) ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPis) and ARPIs in the castration-resistant setting. With many agents currently undergoing investigation in registration trials, the therapeutic armamentarium will expand rapidly, making treatment selection and sequencing challenging. Herein, we review the landmark clinical trials ongoing or reported in the past 2 years, discuss the optimal approach to treatment selection, and provide insight into future directions.
Topics: Male; Humans; Androgen Antagonists; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Docetaxel
PubMed: 37442702
DOI: 10.1016/j.trecan.2023.06.009 -
The Journal of Urology Jul 2023Volume 209, Supplement 4, Page e1190: The abstract text is as given below. This erratum also includes the additional disclosure, conflict of interest, and... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
LBA02-09 EMBARK: A Phase 3 Randomized Study of Enzalutamide or Placebo Plus Leuprolide Acetate and Enzalutamide Monotherapy in High-risk Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer.
UNLABELLED
Volume 209, Supplement 4, Page e1190: The abstract text is as given below. This erratum also includes the additional disclosure, conflict of interest, and acknowledgments that were not included in the original publication. The online and PDF versions of the article have been updated.
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE
Within 10 years following definitive therapy for prostate cancer, ∼20-50% of patients (pts) experience biochemical recurrence (BCR) characterized by rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. Pts with high-risk BCR have an increased risk of mortality and improved therapies are needed. The objective of EMBARK was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide (enza) + androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and enza monotherapy (mono) in pts with high-risk BCR.
METHODS
EMBARK is a randomized, phase 3 study of pts with BCR considered high-risk: PSA doubling time ≤9 months and PSA ≥2 ng/mL above nadir post-radiotherapy (RT) or ≥1 ng/mL after radical prostatectomy (RP) ± postoperative RT. Pts were randomized (1:1:1) to enza 160 mg/day + leuprolide acetate (LA) (double-blind), placebo (pbo) + LA (double-blind), or enza mono (open-label). LA 22.5 mg was administered every 12 weeks. If the PSA at week 36 was <0.2 ng/mL, therapy was stopped at week 37 and restarted when PSA was ≥2 ng/mL for pts with primary RP, and ≥5 ng/mL for pts without RP. The primary endpoint, determined by blinded, independent central review (BICR), was metastasis-free survival (MFS) with enza + LA vs pbo + LA. Key secondary endpoints were MFS of enza mono vs pbo + LA, time to PSA progression, time to antineoplastic therapy, and overall survival (OS) of enza + LA or enza mono vs pbo + LA.
RESULTS
1068 pts were randomized into the study (enza + LA, n=355; pbo + LA, n=358; enza mono, n=355). After median follow-up of 60.7 months, per BICR, MFS for enza + LA (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.30-0.61; p<0.0001) and enza mono (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.46-0.87; p=0.0049) were statistically superior to pbo + LA. Statistically significant improvements were also observed in risk of PSA progression (enza + LA: HR 0.07; 95% CI, 0.03-0.14; enza mono: HR 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23-0.49; both p<0.0001) and time to first use of new antineoplastic therapy (enza + LA: HR 0.36; 95% CI, 0.26-0.49; enza mono: HR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.71; both p<0.0001). Interim OS data trended in favor enza + LA (HR 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.91; p=0.0153, did not cross interim efficacy boundary) and enza mono (HR 0.78; 95% CI, 0.52-1.17; p=0.2304). Fatigue and hot flash were the most common adverse events; no new safety signals were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
In pts with high-risk BCR, enza + ADT and enza mono demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in MFS vs pbo + ADT. The safety profile of enza was consistent with results from previous clinical studies.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
NCT02319837.
SOURCE OF FUNDING
Pfizer Inc. and Astellas Pharma Inc.Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Statement:Neal D. Shore reports grant support and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas Pharma Inc., AstraZeneca, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Dendreon Pharmaceuticals LLC, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, GenesisCare, Janssen Oncology, Merck, Myovant Sciences, Pfizer Inc., Sanofi-Genzyme, and Tolmar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Murilo de Almeida Luz reports receiving speaker honoraria from Astellas Pharma Inc., Bayer, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer Inc.; being an advisory board member for Astellas Pharma Inc., Bayer, and Janssen; sponsored research from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, and Roche; receiving travel expenses from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, and Pfizer Inc. Ugo De Giorgi reports serving as a consultant for Janssen, Astellas Pharma Inc., Sanofi, Bayer, Pfizer Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Ipsen, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Martin Gleave reports stock or ownership interest in OncoGenex Technologies Inc., Sustained Therapeutics Inc., and Sikta Biopharma; is a consultant to Astellas Pharma Inc., AstraZeneca, Bayer, Genova Diagnostics (GDx), Janssen, Pfizer Inc., Roche, Sanofi, and TerSera Therapeutics LLC; and holds patents for OGX-011, OGX-427, ST-CP, and ST-POP. Geoffrey T. Gotto reports receiving honoraria from Amgen, Astellas Pharma Inc., Bayer, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, and Merck; being a consultant or advisory board member for Amgen, Astellas Pharma Inc., Bayer, Janssen, and Merck; providing expert testimony for Janssen; and receiving support for travel, accommodation, and expenses from Janssen. Gabriel P. Haas reports being an employee of and shareholder in Astellas Pharma Inc. Miguel Ramirez-Backhaus reports serving as a consultant or advisory board member for Astellas Pharma Inc., Bayer, Janssen, and Karl Storz; receiving speaker honoraria from Astellas Pharma Inc., Bayer, Janssen, and GP Pharm. Antti Rannikko reports being a board member for the Ida Montin Foundation, and Orion Research Foundation; being an advisory board member for Bayer, Janssen, and Orion Pharma; being a stockholder and clinical advisor for Aqsens Health; being a clinical investigator for Astellas Pharma Inc., Bayer, Janssen, Orion Pharma, and RhoVac AB; and receiving competitive state research funding from HUS Helsinki University Hospital, Finnish Cancer Organizations, and the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation. Jamal Tazari, Yiyun Tang, and Fabian Zohren are employees of and shareholders in Pfizer Inc. Swetha Sridharan reports no conflicts of interest. Jennifer Sugg is an employee of Astellas Pharma Inc., and a shareholder in AstraZeneca. Ronald F. Tutrone, Jr. reports being an advisory board member for Bayer; and receiving speaker honoraria from Astellas Pharma Inc., Exosome Diagnostics, Inc., Myovant Sciences, and Pfizer Inc. Balaji Venugopal reports receiving honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai Co., Ltd, EUSA Pharma, Ipsen, Janssen, and Merck; being a consultant or advisory board member for Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme Oncology, and Pfizer Inc./EMD Serono; and receiving support for travel, accommodation, and expenses from EUSA Pharma, and Ipsen. Arnauld Villers reports receiving research grants from Astellas Pharma Inc., Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, and Janssen. Henry H. Woo reports being an advisory board member for Astellas Pharma Inc., Bayer, Boston Scientific Corporation, and Mundipharma International Ltd; and reports receiving speaker honoraria from AbbVie, Astellas Pharma Inc., Boston Scientific Corporation, and Janssen. Stephen J. Freedland reports being a consultant for Astellas Pharma Inc., AstraZeneca, Bayer, Dendreon Pharmaceuticals LLC, Janssen, Merck, Myovant Sciences, Pfizer Inc., and Sanofi.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank all the patients, their families, and the investigators and investigational site members involved in this study.Editorial Acknowledgement:Medical writing and editorial support was provided by Julie B. Stimmel, PhD, Sinead Stewart, and Rosie Henderson, of Onyx (a Prime Global Agency), funded by Pfizer, Inc. and Astellas Pharma Inc., the co-developers of enzalutamide.Submission Category:prostate cancer.Sub-category:Advanced (including drug therapy).
Topics: Male; Humans; Leuprolide; Androgen Antagonists; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Antineoplastic Agents; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 37119051
DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003518 -
Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official... Jul 2023Journal of Clinical Oncology, For generations, oncologists and urologists have used androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to manage metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate... (Review)
Review
Journal of Clinical Oncology, For generations, oncologists and urologists have used androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to manage metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Until recently, ADT monotherapy was standard. Within the past decade, a series of trials have clearly demonstrated improved outcomes with a more aggressive up-front approach. Doublet intensification therapy, involving either ADT plus docetaxel or ADT plus any of several second-generation oral androgen-receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs), provide considerable survival advantages compared with ADT alone. In 2022, two trials, PEACE-1 and ARASENS, demonstrated the potential of triplet therapy, adding an ARPI to an ADT-docetaxel doublet. In the Original Report that accompanies this article, the authors provide a post hoc analysis of ARASENS (ADT plus docetaxel, with or without darolutamide), identifying the subpopulations of patients with mHSPC who might benefit most from a triplet regimen. They segment the ARASENS cohort by disease volume and disease risk profile, finding that triplet therapy is associated with improved outcomes regardless of category (although with limited power in the low-volume cohort). Meanwhile, trials are ongoing examining the role of radiotherapy (RT) in mHSPC, a modality previously reserved for localized disease or isolated, symptomatic metastases. Here, we present a mHSPC case and discuss our approach to mHSPC considering recent studies. We recommend triplet therapy for patients who are suitable candidates for chemotherapy, especially for patients with high-volume disease. We also favor aggressive use of RT, when feasible, for patients with low-volume mHSPC.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostatic Neoplasms; Docetaxel; Androgen Antagonists; Androgens; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 37267579
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.23.00723 -
Cancer Cell Jul 2023Lineage plasticity causes therapeutic resistance; however, it remains unclear how the fate conversion and phenotype switching of cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) are...
Lineage plasticity causes therapeutic resistance; however, it remains unclear how the fate conversion and phenotype switching of cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) are implicated in disease relapse. Here, we show that androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)-induced SPP1 myofibroblastic CAFs (myCAFs) are critical stromal constituents that drive the development of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Our results reveal that SPP1 myCAFs arise from the inflammatory CAFs in hormone-sensitive PCa; therefore, they represent two functional states of an otherwise ontogenically identical cell type. Antiandrogen treatment unleashes TGF-β signaling, resulting in SOX4-SWI/SNF-dependent CAF phenotype switching. SPP1 myCAFs in turn render PCa refractory to ADT via an SPP1-ERK paracrine mechanism. Importantly, these sub-myCAFs are associated with inferior therapeutic outcomes, providing the rationale for inhibiting polarization or paracrine mechanisms to circumvent castration resistance. Collectively, our results highlight that therapy-induced phenotypic switching of CAFs is coupled with disease progression and that targeting this stromal component may restrain CRPC.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Androgen Antagonists; Cellular Reprogramming; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Castration; Receptors, Androgen; Cell Line, Tumor; SOXC Transcription Factors
PubMed: 37352863
DOI: 10.1016/j.ccell.2023.05.016 -
European Urology Focus Sep 2023Two randomized controlled trials recently demonstrated an overall survival benefit with triplet therapy (androgen receptor axis-targeted agent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Two randomized controlled trials recently demonstrated an overall survival benefit with triplet therapy (androgen receptor axis-targeted agent [ARAT] + docetaxel + androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]) over doublet therapy (docetaxel + ADT) in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), broadening the treatment options. In our previous systematic review and network meta-analysis on the role of triplet versus doublet therapy, we focused on ARAT + ADT, as this is the actual standard of care in many countries for mHSPC. However, survival data by disease volume were only available for one triplet therapy regimen (PEACE-1). Survival data stratified by disease volume for a second triplet regimen (ARASENS) are now available, hence we updated our meta-analysis for low- and high-volume mHSPC. Consistent with previous findings, ADT alone no longer represents a valid treatment option for mHSPC. Similar considerations apply to doublet therapy with docetaxel + ADT. For low-volume mHSPC, in comparison to ADT, the benefit of combination therapies other than ARAT + ADT was not substantial. For high-volume mHSPC, darolutamide + docetaxel + ADT ranked first (P score 0.92), followed by abiraterone + docetaxel + ADT (P score 0.85) and then ARAT + ADT combination therapies. In high-volume mHSPC, only darolutamide + docetaxel + ADT demonstrated superior overall survival (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.59-0.97) versus (pooled) ARAT + ADT, confirming the importance of triplet therapy in (high-volume) mHSPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We performed an updated comparison of double and triple therapy options for metastatic prostate cancer that still responds to hormone treatment. For patients with low-volume cancer, there was no significant survival benefit from addition of a third drug. For patients with high-volume cancer, the best survival was obtained with darolutamide + docetaxel + androgen deprivation therapy.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostatic Neoplasms; Docetaxel; Androgen Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Androgens; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 37055323
DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2023.03.024 -
Cancer Cell Nov 2023When compared to other malignancies, the tumor microenvironment (TME) of primary and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is relatively devoid of immune...
When compared to other malignancies, the tumor microenvironment (TME) of primary and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is relatively devoid of immune infiltrates. While androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) induces a complex immune infiltrate in localized prostate cancer, the composition of the TME in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), and the effects of ADT and other treatments in this context are poorly understood. Here, we perform a comprehensive single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) profiling of metastatic sites from patients participating in a phase 2 clinical trial (NCT03951831) that evaluated standard-of-care chemo-hormonal therapy combined with anti-PD-1 immunotherapy. We perform a longitudinal, protein activity-based analysis of TME subpopulations, revealing immune subpopulations conserved across multiple metastatic sites. We also observe dynamic changes in these immune subpopulations in response to treatment and a correlation with clinical outcomes. Our study uncovers a therapy-resistant, transcriptionally distinct tumor subpopulation that expands in cell number in treatment-refractory patients.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostatic Neoplasms; Androgen Antagonists; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Androgens; Immunotherapy; Castration; Tumor Microenvironment
PubMed: 37922910
DOI: 10.1016/j.ccell.2023.10.006