-
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 Consistent with previous findings, ADT alone no longer represents a valid treatment option for mHSPC.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 -
The Lancet. Oncology Sep 2023Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are electric fields that disrupt processes critical for cancer cell survival, leading to immunogenic cell death and enhanced antitumour... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Tumor Treating Fields therapy with standard systemic therapy versus standard systemic therapy alone in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer following progression on or after platinum-based therapy (LUNAR): a randomised, open-label, pivotal phase 3 study.
BACKGROUND
Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are electric fields that disrupt processes critical for cancer cell survival, leading to immunogenic cell death and enhanced antitumour immune response. In preclinical models of non-small-cell lung cancer, TTFields amplified the effects of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors. We report primary results from a pivotal study of TTFields therapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.
METHODS
This randomised, open-label, pivotal phase 3 study recruited patients at 130 sites in 19 countries. Participants were aged 22 years or older with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer progressing on or after platinum-based therapy, with squamous or non-squamous histology and ECOG performance status of 2 or less. Previous platinum-based therapy was required, but no restriction was placed on the number or type of previous lines of systemic therapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to TTFields therapy and standard systemic therapy (investigator's choice of immune checkpoint inhibitor [nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab] or docetaxel) or standard therapy alone. Randomisation was performed centrally using variable blocked randomisation and an interactive voice-web response system, and was stratified by tumour histology, treatment, and region. Systemic therapies were dosed according to local practice guidelines. TTFields therapy (150 kHz) was delivered continuously to the thoracic region with the recommendation to achieve an average of at least 18 h/day device usage. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The safety population included all patients who received any study therapy and were analysed according to the actual treatment received. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02973789.
FINDINGS
Between Feb 13, 2017, and Nov 19, 2021, 276 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive TTFields therapy with standard therapy (n=137) or standard therapy alone (n=139). The median age was 64 years (IQR 59-70), 178 (64%) were male and 98 (36%) were female, 156 (57%) had non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, and 87 (32%) had received a previous immune checkpoint inhibitor. Median follow-up was 10·6 months (IQR 6·1-33·7) for patients receiving TTFields therapy with standard therapy, and 9·5 months (0·1-32·1) for patients receiving standard therapy. Overall survival was significantly longer with TTFields therapy and standard therapy than with standard therapy alone (median 13·2 months [95% CI 10·3-15·5] vs 9·9 months [8·1-11·5]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·56-0·98]; p=0·035). In the safety population (n=267), serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 70 (53%) of 133 patients receiving TTFields therapy plus standard therapy and 51 (38%) of 134 patients receiving standard therapy alone. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were leukopenia (37 [14%] of 267), pneumonia (28 [10%]), and anaemia (21 [8%]). TTFields therapy-related adverse events were reported in 95 (71%) of 133 patients; these were mostly (81 [85%]) grade 1-2 skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders. There were three deaths related to standard therapy (two due to infections and one due to pulmonary haemorrhage) and no deaths related to TTFields therapy.
INTERPRETATION
TTFields therapy added to standard therapy significantly improved overall survival compared with standard therapy alone in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer after progression on platinum-based therapy without exacerbating systemic toxicities. These data suggest that TTFields therapy is efficacious in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and should be considered as a treatment option to manage the disease in this setting.
FUNDING
Novocure.
Topics: Humans; Female; Male; Middle Aged; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Lung Neoplasms; Nivolumab; Docetaxel
PubMed: 37657460
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00344-3 -
Annals of Surgery Jul 2023We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of neoadjuvant docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) therapy over cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (CF) in patients with...
Real-world Evaluation of the Efficacy of Neoadjuvant DCF Over CF in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Propensity Score-matched Analysis From 85 Authorized Institutes for Esophageal Cancer in Japan.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of neoadjuvant docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) therapy over cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (CF) in patients with surgically resectable advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), using real-world data from 85 esophageal centers.
BACKGROUND
JCOG1109 trial, which assessed the superiority of DCF over CF, and the superiority of chemoradiotherapy with CF over CF alone demonstrated the significant survival advantage of neoadjuvant DCF in overall survival (OS) over CF for ESCC.
METHODS
The ESCC patients who received neoadjuvant CF or DCF at 85 Japanese esophageal centers certified by the Japan Esophageal Society were retrospectively reviewed. After propensity score (PS) matching, the OS and recurrence-free survival were compared between CF and DCF.
RESULTS
We initially enrolled 4781 patients. After data cleaning and PS matching using pretreatment variables, 1074 patients for each group were selected for subsequent analysis. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative pneumonia and anastomotic leakage. In the survival analysis, OS was significantly longer in DCF group than CF group (hazard ratio, 0.868; 95% confidence interval, 0.770-0.978; P =0.02), as well as recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.850; 95% confidence interval, 0.761-0.949; P =0.004). The survival advantage of DCF was not observed in patients with 76 years old or older.
CONCLUSIONS
Neoadjuvant DCF therapy showed a remarkable survival advantage in surgically resectable ESCC patients, especially in patients who were 75 years old or younger. The current real-world evidence will encourage recommendations for DCF as a standard regimen in neoadjuvant chemotherapy-based treatment strategy for ESCC.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma; Esophageal Neoplasms; Cisplatin; Docetaxel; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Fluorouracil; Propensity Score; Japan; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Taxoids; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
PubMed: 35837977
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005533 -
Nature Communications Mar 2024The randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III PEONY trial (NCT02586025) demonstrated significantly improved total pathologic complete response... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
The randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III PEONY trial (NCT02586025) demonstrated significantly improved total pathologic complete response (primary endpoint) with dual HER2 blockade in HER2-positive early/locally advanced breast cancer, as previously reported. Here, we present the final, long-term efficacy (secondary endpoints: event-free survival, disease-free survival, overall survival) and safety analysis (62.9 months' median follow-up). Patients (female; n = 329; randomized 2:1) received neoadjuvant pertuzumab/placebo with trastuzumab and docetaxel, followed by adjuvant 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide, then pertuzumab/placebo with trastuzumab until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity, for up to 1 year. Five-year event-free survival estimates are 84.8% with pertuzumab and 73.7% with placebo (hazard ratio 0.53; 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.89); 5-year disease-free survival rates are 86.0% and 75.0%, respectively (hazard ratio 0.52; 95% confidence interval 0.30-0.88). Safety data are consistent with the known pertuzumab safety profile and generally comparable between arms, except for diarrhea. Limitations include the lack of ado-trastuzumab emtansine as an option for patients with residual disease and the descriptive nature of the secondary, long-term efficacy endpoints. PEONY confirms the positive benefit:risk ratio of neoadjuvant/adjuvant pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel treatment in this patient population.
Topics: Female; Humans; Adjuvants, Immunologic; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Docetaxel; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Receptor, ErbB-2; Trastuzumab
PubMed: 38461323
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-45591-7 -
Tissue Barriers Jan 2024Defects of tight junction (TJ) are involved in many diseases related to epithelial cell functions, including kidney stone disease (KSD), which is a common disease... (Review)
Review
Defects of tight junction (TJ) are involved in many diseases related to epithelial cell functions, including kidney stone disease (KSD), which is a common disease affecting humans for over a thousand years. This review provides brief overviews of KSD and TJ, and summarizes the knowledge on crystal-induced defects of TJ in renal tubular epithelial cells (RTECs) in KSD. Calcium oxalate (CaOx) crystals, particularly COM, disrupt TJ via p38 MAPK and ROS/Akt/p38 MAPK signaling pathways, filamentous actin (F-actin) reorganization and α-tubulin relocalization. Stabilizing p38 MAPK signaling, reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, F-actin and α-tubulin by using SB239063, N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC), phalloidin and docetaxel, respectively, successfully prevent the COM-induced TJ disruption and malfunction. Additionally, genetic disorders of renal TJ, including mutations and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of CLDN2, CLDN10b, CLDN14, CLDN16 and CLDN19, also affect KSD. Finally, the role of TJ as a potential target for KSD therapeutics and prevention is also discussed.
Topics: Humans; Tight Junctions; Reactive Oxygen Species; Actins; Tubulin; Kidney Calculi; Calcium Oxalate; p38 Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinases
PubMed: 37162265
DOI: 10.1080/21688370.2023.2210051 -
The Lancet. Oncology Jan 2024The TheraP study reported improved prostate-specific antigen responses with lutetium-177 [Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel in men with metastatic castration-resistant... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Overall survival with [Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (TheraP): secondary outcomes of a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.
BACKGROUND
The TheraP study reported improved prostate-specific antigen responses with lutetium-177 [Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus cabazitaxel in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel. In this Article, we report the secondary outcome of overall survival with mature follow-up, and an updated imaging biomarker analysis. We also report the outcomes of participants excluded due to ineligibility on gallium-68 [Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-[F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (2-[F]FDG) PET-CT.
METHODS
TheraP was an open-label, randomised phase 2 trial at 11 centres in Australia. Eligible participants had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel, and PET imaging with [Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-[F]FDG that showed prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive disease and no sites of metastatic disease with discordant 2-[F]FDG-positive and PSMA-negative findings. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment with [Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (every 6 weeks for a maximum of six cycles; starting at 8·5 GBq, decreasing by 0.5 GBq to 6·0 GBq for the sixth cycle) versus cabazitaxel (20 mg/m every 3 weeks, maximum of ten cycles). Overall survival was analysed by intention-to-treat and summarised as restricted mean survival time (RMST) to account for non-proportional hazards, with a 36-month restriction time corresponding to median follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03392428, and is complete.
FINDINGS
291 men were registered from Feb 6, 2018, to Sept 3, 2019; after study imaging, 200 were eligible and randomly assigned to treatment with [Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (n=99) or cabazitaxel (n=101). After completing study treatment, 20 (20%) participants assigned to cabazitaxel and 32 (32%) assigned to [Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 were subsequently treated with the alternative regimen. After a median follow-up of 35·7 months (IQR 31·1 to 39·2), 77 (78%) participants had died in the [Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 group and 70 (69%) participants had died in the cabazitaxel group. Overall survival was similar among those assigned to [Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus those assigned to cabazitaxel (RMST 19·1 months [95% CI 16·9 to 21·4] vs 19·6 months [17·4 to 21·8]; difference -0·5 months [95% CI -3·7 to 2·7]; p=0·77). No additional safety signals were identified with the longer follow-up in this analysis. 80 (27%) of 291 men who were registered after initial eligibility screening were excluded after [Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and 2-[F]FDG PET. In the 61 of these men with follow-up available, RMST was 11·0 months (95% CI 9·0 to 13·1).
INTERPRETATION
These results support the use of [Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 as an alternative to cabazitaxel for PSMA-positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel. We did not find evidence that overall survival differed between the randomised groups. Median overall survival was shorter for men who were excluded because of low PSMA expression or 2-[F]FDG-discordant disease.
FUNDING
Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Endocyte (a Novartis company), Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization, Movember, It's a Bloke Thing, CAN4CANCER, and The Distinguished Gentleman's Ride.
Topics: Male; Humans; Gallium Radioisotopes; Treatment Outcome; Docetaxel; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography; Fluorodeoxyglucose F18; Australia; Prostate-Specific Antigen
PubMed: 38043558
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00529-6 -
Cancers Nov 2023Current common treatments for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) typically belong to one of three major categories: next-generation anti-androgen therapies...
Current common treatments for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) typically belong to one of three major categories: next-generation anti-androgen therapies (NGAT) including enzalutamide, abiraterone acetate, apalutamide, and darolutamide; taxane therapy represented by docetaxel; and PARP inhibitors (PARPi) like olaparib. Although these treatments have shown efficacy and have improved outcomes for many patients, some do not survive due to the emergence of therapeutic resistance. The clinical landscape is further complicated by limited knowledge about how the sequence of treatments impacts the development of therapeutic cross-resistance in CRPC. We have developed multiple CRPC models of acquired therapeutic resistance cell sublines from C4-2B cells. These include C4-2B MDVR, C4-2B AbiR, C4-2B ApaR, C4-2B DaroR, TaxR, and 2B-olapR, which are resistant to enzalutamide, abiraterone, apalutamide, darolutamide, docetaxel, and olaparib, respectively. These models are instrumental for analyzing gene expression and assessing responses to various treatments. Our findings reveal distinct cross-resistance characteristics among NGAT-resistant cell sublines. Specifically, resistance to enzalutamide induces resistance to abiraterone and vice versa, while maintaining sensitivity to taxanes and olaparib. Conversely, cells with acquired resistance to docetaxel exhibit cross-resistance to both cabazitaxel and olaparib but retain sensitivity to NGATs like enzalutamide and abiraterone. OlapR cells, significantly resistant to olaparib compared to parental cells, are still responsive to NGATs and docetaxel. Moreover, OlapR models display cross-resistance to other clinically relevant PARP inhibitors, including rucaparib, niraparib, and talazoparib. RNA-sequencing analyses have revealed a complex network of altered gene expressions that influence signaling pathways, energy metabolism, and apoptotic signaling, pivotal to cancer's evolution and progression. The data indicate that resistance mechanisms are distinct among different drug classes. Notably, NGAT-resistant sublines exhibited a significant downregulation of androgen-regulated genes, contrasting to the stable expression noted in olaparib and docetaxel-resistant sublines. These results may have clinical implications by showing that treatments of one class can be sequenced with those from another class, but caution should be taken when sequencing drugs of the same class.
PubMed: 37958444
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15215273 -
Targeted Oncology Sep 2023Darolutamide (NUBEQA) is an oral androgen receptor inhibitor (ARi) that is approved for the treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) in... (Review)
Review
Darolutamide (NUBEQA) is an oral androgen receptor inhibitor (ARi) that is approved for the treatment of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) in combination with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and docetaxel. In a pivotal trial, darolutamide plus ADT and docetaxel was superior to placebo plus ADT and docetaxel in prolonging the primary endpoint of overall survival, with improvements also reported in most secondary endpoints. Treatment with darolutamide plus ADT and docetaxel was associated with a manageable tolerability profile. Furthermore, the adverse events reported with darolutamide plus ADT and docetaxel were generally consistent with the safety profiles previously reported for ADT and docetaxel. Darolutamide expands the availability of treatment options in mHSPC and may be useful as a treatment for high-volume disease (typically defined as ≥ 4 bone metastases with spread outside of the pelvis and vertebral column).
Topics: Male; Humans; Prostatic Neoplasms; Docetaxel; Androgen Antagonists; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Hormones
PubMed: 37542594
DOI: 10.1007/s11523-023-00984-4 -
The Lancet. Oncology Jul 2023Adding docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, but uncertainty remains about... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Which patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer benefit from docetaxel: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials.
BACKGROUND
Adding docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, but uncertainty remains about who benefits most. We therefore aimed to obtain up-to-date estimates of the overall effects of docetaxel and to assess whether these effects varied according to prespecified characteristics of the patients or their tumours.
METHODS
The STOPCAP M1 collaboration conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. We searched MEDLINE (from database inception to March 31, 2022), Embase (from database inception to March 31, 2022), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from database inception to March 31, 2022), proceedings of relevant conferences (from Jan 1, 1990, to Dec 31, 2022), and ClinicalTrials.gov (from database inception to March 28, 2023) to identify eligible randomised trials that assessed docetaxel plus ADT compared with ADT alone in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Detailed and updated individual participant data were requested directly from study investigators or through relevant repositories. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival and failure-free survival. Overall pooled effects were estimated using an adjusted, intention-to-treat, two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis, with one-stage and random-effects sensitivity analyses. Missing covariate values were imputed. Differences in effect by participant characteristics were estimated using adjusted two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis of within-trial interactions on the basis of progression-free survival to maximise power. Identified effect modifiers were also assessed on the basis of overall survival. To explore multiple subgroup interactions and derive subgroup-specific absolute treatment effects we used one-stage flexible parametric modelling and regression standardisation. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019140591.
FINDINGS
We obtained individual participant data from 2261 patients (98% of those randomised) from three eligible trials (GETUG-AFU15, CHAARTED, and STAMPEDE trials), with a median follow-up of 72 months (IQR 55-85). Individual participant data were not obtained from two additional small trials. Based on all included trials and patients, there were clear benefits of docetaxel on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·70 to 0·88; p<0·0001), progression-free survival (0·70, 0·63 to 0·77; p<0·0001), and failure-free survival (0·64, 0·58 to 0·71; p<0·0001), representing 5-year absolute improvements of around 9-11%. The overall risk of bias was assessed to be low, and there was no strong evidence of differences in effect between trials for all three main outcomes. The relative effect of docetaxel on progression-free survival appeared to be greater with increasing clinical T stage (p=0·0019), higher volume of metastases (p=0·020), and, to a lesser extent, synchronous diagnosis of metastatic disease (p=0·077). Taking into account the other interactions, the effect of docetaxel was independently modified by volume and clinical T stage, but not timing. There was no strong evidence that docetaxel improved absolute effects at 5 years for patients with low-volume, metachronous disease (-1%, 95% CI -15 to 12, for progression-free survival; 0%, -10 to 12, for overall survival). The largest absolute improvement at 5 years was observed for those with high-volume, clinical T stage 4 disease (27%, 95% CI 17 to 37, for progression-free survival; 35%, 24 to 47, for overall survival).
INTERPRETATION
The addition of docetaxel to hormone therapy is best suited to patients with poorer prognosis for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer based on a high volume of disease and potentially the bulkiness of the primary tumour. There is no evidence of meaningful benefit for patients with metachronous, low-volume disease who should therefore be managed differently. These results will better characterise patients most and, importantly, least likely to gain benefit from docetaxel, potentially changing international practice, guiding clinical decision making, better informing treatment policy, and improving patient outcomes.
FUNDING
UK Medical Research Council and Prostate Cancer UK.
Topics: Male; Humans; Docetaxel; Prostatic Neoplasms; Androgen Antagonists; Disease-Free Survival; Hormones; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37414011
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00230-9