High burden prostate cancer patients benefit form androgen deprivation and Taxotere combination.
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.
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.
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 castrationresistant 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.
In patients with high-volume and high-risk/low-risk metastatic hormonesensitive 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.
Less radiation is non-inferior, this is for low and intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer patients. Would like input from our radiation oncologists as to whether or not this adoptable?
Protons vs IMRT for localized prostate cancer showed no difference in outcome or quality of life. There will be longer f/u and other endpoints studied but the take-home message is that protons are not significantly better than photons.
Will we be replaced by AI? It seems that for radiologists, an AI system was better than the human counterpart in this study looking at prostate cancer diagnostic imaging. I doubt many of us would accept a solely computer-generated report, but this study highlights how AI may help as a supportive tool in the primary diagnostic setting. Of course, prospective validation will be needed.
10-year metastasis-free survival was 71.9% in the short-course ADT group (6 months) and 78% in the long-course ADT group (24 months). So, it seems the longer the duration, the better the outcome. 93% had a Gleason score of 7 or higher.
We know that combination PARP and antiandrogen is better than antiandrogen alone. I have wondered if we need antiancrogen on those patients. This shows that, YES, we do. The combination also was better than PARP inhibitor monotherapy in those patients carrying HRRm.
FCS Hematology Oncology Review creates a platform for our physician network to observe the most recent articles and studies available in the oncology and hematology world. By sharing these articles we are building our wealth of knowledge of new observations and treatments as they come available.
