A prospective, open label, randomized phase II trial of weekly docetaxel versus weekly vinorelbine as first line chemotherapy in patients with androgen independent prostate cancer

PURPOSE: In previous phase I to III studies docetaxel and vinorelbine have shown promising activity in androgen independent prostate cancer. In the present trial we assessed the efficacy and tolerability of single agent low dose docetaxel vs vinorelbine in patients with advanced androgen independent prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 40 chemotherapy naive patients with histologically proven androgen independent prostate cancer, adequate androgen ablation, and clinical and/or biochemical progression were randomly assigned to receive either 25 mg/m(2) docetaxel (arm A) or 25 mg/m(2) vinorelbine (arm B) weekly. Treatment was continued until clinical and/or biochemical progression. In cases of progression patients switched to the alternative treatment arm. The primary end point was time to disease progression. Secondary end points included prostate specific antigen response rates in sequential treatment, analgesic response and toxicity. RESULTS: The current analysis showed a doubled risk of progression in treatment arm B. The median time to first disease progression was 14.5 months for arm A vs 4.4 months for arm B. The proportion of patients with a greater than 50% prostate specific antigen decrease on first line therapy was significantly higher in arm A (62.5%) compared to arm B (11.1%) (p = 0.0033). After progression to docetaxel second line vinorelbine yielded a greater than 50% prostate specific antigen response rate of 28.6% vs 62.5% for second line docetaxel. Clinically significant toxicity occurred more often in arm B with neutropenia grade 4 seen in 22% and grade 3 in 28% of patients (p = 0.0005) during the first treatment phase. CONCLUSIONS: While weekly application of both cytotoxic agents was well tolerated, this study demonstrates the superiority of docetaxel vs vinorelbine as monotherapy in the treatment of androgen independent prostate cancer.     

Phase III study of mitoxantrone plus low dose prednisone versus low dose prednisone alone in patients with asymptomatic hormone refractory prostate cancer

PURPOSE: We compared median time to treatment failure of men with asymptomatic, hormone refractory, progressive prostate cancer treated with mitoxantrone plus prednisone versus prednisone alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multicenter phase III trial 120 men with asymptomatic, progressive, hormone refractory prostate cancer were randomly assigned to treatment with mitoxantrone and prednisone or prednisone alone. Patients received 12 mg./m. mitoxantrone intravenously once every 3 weeks for 6 cycles and 5 mg. prednisone twice daily with or without mitoxantrone. Time to treatment failure was assessed as an aggregate end point comprised of time to disease progression, time to toxicity or death, or time to initiation of alternate therapy. RESULTS: Median followup was 21.8 months. Median time to treatment failure and median time to progression were the same: time to treatment failure and time to progression in the mitoxantrone and prednisone group was 8.1 months compared to 4.1 months in the prednisone alone group (p = 0.017 versus p = 0.018). More patients (27 or 48%) treated with mitoxantrone and prednisone achieved a 50% or greater reduction in prostate specific antigen levels than those who received only prednisone (15 or 24%, p = 0.007). There was no significant difference in median survival between the 2 groups, which was 23 and 19 months, respectively. Death was mainly attributable to disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with hormone refractory prostate cancer who are asymptomatic but had progressive disease had a significantly higher response rate when treated with mitoxantrone and prednisone as demonstrated by the 50% or greater decrease in prostate specific antigen compared to treatment with prednisone alone. Time to treatment failure was significantly prolonged in the chemotherapy treated group but survival rates were not different.     

A phase I/II dose-escalation study of exisulind and docetaxel in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy, in a dose-escalation study, of exisulind (an oral sulphone metabolite of sulindac thought to induce apoptosis in malignant cells by inhibiting cGMP-phosphodiesterase) combined with docetaxel in men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC), as pre-clinical studies suggested activity against prostate cancer and synergy with cytotoxic agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients with HRPC were treated with oral exisulind twice daily for 21-day cycles and intravenous docetaxel given for 1 h on the first day of each cycle. Three dose levels were assessed, combining exisulind 150 and 250 mg twice daily with docetaxel at 60 or 75 mg/m2. Toxicity was then evaluated using standard criteria. RESULTS: The recommended phase II dose was determined to be exisulind 250 mg and docetaxel 60 mg/m2, with escalation to 75 mg/m2 after cycle 1, as tolerated. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities among all patients were neutropenia (56%), infection (24%) and hyperglycaemia (18%). Twelve of 32 evaluable patients (38%, 95% confidence interval, CI, 23-55%) had a decline in PSA by at least half. Only four of 17 evaluable patients (95% CI, 1-47%) treated at the phase II dose level had such a decline in PSA. The median (95% CI) overall survival of all patients was 16 (12.9-19.7) months and median progression-free survival 4.7 (2.7-5.2) months. CONCLUSION: The combination of exisulind and docetaxel was tolerable in patients with HRPC. The PSA response rates do not suggest an improvement over historical data with single-agent docetaxel in this population.     

High dose pulse calcitriol, docetaxel and estramustine for androgen independent prostate cancer: a phase I/II study

PURPOSE: We determined the safety and preliminary efficacy of the combination of high dose pulse calcitriol (1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol) with a standard regimen of docetaxel plus estramustine in patients with metastatic androgen independent prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were treated with 60 microg calcitriol orally on day 1, 280 mg estramustine orally 3 times daily on days 1 to 5 and 60 mg/m docetaxel on day 2 (70 mg/m after cycle 1) every 21 days for up to 12 cycles. Patients also received 325 mg aspirin and 1 or 2 mg warfarin orally daily. Regimen safety was assessed in the first 6 patients and a dose de-escalation scheme for calcitriol was planned if dose limiting toxicities were noted during treatment cycle 1 in greater than a third of patients. RESULTS: A total of 24 patients, including 11 who were chemotherapy na?ve and 13 who had previously been treated with docetaxel, were evaluable for toxicity and 22 for prostate specific antigen decrease data. The regimen was generally well tolerated. Treatment related grades 3 or greater toxicity seen in more than 1 patient included hypophosphatemia in 16.7% and neutropenia in 12.5%. Four patients had thromboembolic complications. Asymptomatic hypercalcemia was seen in 4 patients, including grades 2 and 1 in 1 and 3, respectively. Six of 11 evaluable, chemotherapy na?ve patients (55%) met prostate specific antigen response criteria. One of 11 patients (9%) treated with prior docetaxel met these criteria. CONCLUSIONS: High dose calcitriol may be safely added to docetaxel and estramustine administered on a 21-day schedule.     

A phase II study of high-dose calcitriol combined with mitoxantrone and prednisone for androgen-independent prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the preliminary efficacy, safety, and impact on quality of life (QoL) of high‐dose calcitriol (DN‐101) combined with mitoxantrone and glucocorticoids in androgen‐independent prostate cancer (AIPC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Nineteen patients with metastatic AIPC and no previous chemotherapy received DN‐101 180 µg orally on day 1 and mitoxantrone 12 mg/m² intravenously on day 2 every 21 days with continuous daily prednisone 10 mg orally for a maximum of 12 cycles. A confirmed decline in prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) levels by half was the primary endpoint. QoL was evaluated using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ‐C30 questionnaire, and pain and analgesic use were evaluated.

RESULTS

Five of 19 patients (26%; 95% confidence interval, CI, 9–51) achieved a ≥50% decline in PSA level. The median (95% CI) time to PSA progression was 16 (6–26) weeks. The overall median (95% CI) survival was 16 (6–26) months; 47 (21–73)% of patients achieved an analgesic response. Toxicity was similar to that expected with mitoxantrone and prednisone alone. The QoL analysis suggested a decrease in physical functioning and increase in fatigue, insomnia, and diarrhoea.

CONCLUSIONS

DN‐101 given every 3 weeks does not add significant activity to mitoxantrone and prednisone in AIPC, as measured by the PSA decline. The high rate of analgesic response is encouraging. The addition of DN‐101 does not appear to increase the toxicity of mitoxantrone.     

Adjuvant weekly docetaxel for patients with high risk prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional pilot study

PURPOSE: Patients with adverse pathological features are at high risk for recurrence following radical prostatectomy. To improve outcomes in this population we performed a phase II study of adjuvant docetaxel in these high risk patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with nonmetastatic radical prostatectomy at greater than 50% risk for recurrence by 3 years were eligible. Pathological findings were centrally reviewed and risk assessment was based on a validated multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. Treatment consisted of 6 cycles of 35 mg/m(2) docetaxel weekly given 4 to 12 weeks following surgery. Progression was defined as a prostate specific antigen of 0.4 ng/ml or greater, radiological/pathological evidence of recurrent disease or death from any cause. To screen for the potential benefit of adjuvant weekly docetaxel we used nomogram predicted progression-free survival as a historical control. RESULTS: A total of 77 patients were registered between April 2002 and January 2004. Two patients had grade IV hyperglycemia and 20 had grade III toxicity. At a median followup of 29.2 months (range 1.6 to 39.2) 46 of 76 evaluable cases (60.5%) progressed. Observed median progression-free survival was 15.7 months (95% CI 12.8-25.1). Predicted median progression-free survival in a matched population was 10 months. Seven patients died, including 4 of prostate cancer, 1 with intra-abdominal bleeding during treatment and 2 of pneumonia and sudden cardiac death, respectively, following treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant docetaxel for prostate cancer is feasible with significant reversible but acceptable toxicity. The actual median progression-free survival of 15.7 months was longer than the nomogram predicted rate for this patient population. Adjuvant docetaxel treatment should be further evaluated in phase III trials in patients with high risk prostate cancer.     

Prostate specific antigen response to mitoxantrone and prednisone in patients with refractory prostate cancer: prognostic factors and generalizability of a multicenter trial to clinical practice

PURPOSE: We determine prostate specific antigen (PSA) response and durability, and prognostic factors associated with response and survival in patients with symptomatic hormone refractory prostate cancer treated with mitoxantrone and prednisone at a single institution. We then compare the results with those of a randomized phase III clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of all 133 patients treated with mitoxantrone and prednisone at Princess Margaret Hospital since 1994 was performed. PSA response and duration, and overall survival were determined as well as the influence of baseline factors on these outcome parameters. Results were compared to those for patients randomized to receive mitoxantrone and prednisone in the Canadian clinical trial which demonstrated palliative benefit of this regimen. RESULTS: Patients treated after trial closure had shorter survival (p = 0.003) but represented a poorer prognosis cohort. PSA response of the trial and post-trial cases was 34% and 28%, respectively (p = 0.36), and median duration of response was 118 and 175 days or greater, respectively. Factors predictive of PSA response in the non-trial cohort were longer time from diagnosis of prostate cancer (p = 0. 027) and higher baseline PSA (p = 0.013). Factors predictive of increased survival in both groups were younger age (p <0.04), better baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (p <0. 02), and higher hemoglobin (p 相似文献   

Response to docetaxel/carboplatin-based chemotherapy as first- and second-line therapy in patients with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of docetaxel/carboplatin (DC)‐based chemotherapy as first‐ and second‐line chemotherapy for patients with hormone‐refractory prostate cancer (HRPC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively identified all patients with HRPC treated with DC‐based chemotherapy at the Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute. Regimens either included estramustine (EDC) or not (DC). We identified patients who received EDC as first‐line chemotherapy and patients who received DC as second‐line or subsequent chemotherapy. Patients treated with EDC received 20–70 mg/m² docetaxel every 1–4 weeks, estramustine 140 mg three times daily and carboplatin (area under the curve, AUC), (4–6) every 3–4 weeks. Patients treated with DC received docetaxel 50–70 mg/m² and carboplatin AUC (4–6) every 3–4 weeks.

RESULTS

In all, the study included 54 patients; 24 received EDC and 30 DC (median age 62.8 and 66.9 years, respectively); their prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) level at the start of chemotherapy was 112.7 and 213.3 ng/mL, respectively. There were declines of ≥50% in PSA level in 88% and 20% in the two groups, respectively. The median overall survival was 17.7 and 14.9 months in the EDC and DC groups, respectively. The most common reversible grade 4 toxicity with either regimen was neutropenia (4% and 7% in EDC and DC, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

DC‐based chemotherapy is well tolerated and active in HRPC. Adding carboplatin to docetaxel provides an additional activity in 20% of patients as a second‐line or subsequent chemotherapy.     

Phase II trial of tesmilifene plus mitoxantrone and prednisone for hormone refractory prostate cancer: high subjective and objective response in patients with symptomatic metastases

PURPOSE: Symptomatic, hormone refractory prostate cancer (HRCAP) is a major cause of morbidity with a median survival of less than 12 months and a 2-year survival of only up to 10% in most series. Mitoxantrone has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for HRCAP. Preliminary data suggest that DPPE (N,N-diethyl-2-[4-(phenylmethyl) phenoxy]-ethanamine) or tesmilifene modulates cytotoxics to enhance the anticancer effect. In this phase II trial we assessed whether there is sufficient evidence of enhanced efficacy of DPPE and mitoxantrone to lead to a phase III clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 29 patients with a median age of 73 years, of whom 10% were older than 80 years, with progressive HRCAP received 5.3 mg/kg DPPE intravenously every 3 weeks, 12 mg/m mitoxantrone intravenously every weeks and 5 mg prednisone orally twice daily. All patients had pain at presentation, while 97% had bone metastases, 10% had liver metastases and 17% had lung metastases. Median prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 210 ng/ml (IQR 77 to 430). RESULTS: Of the patients 75% had some pain improvement, 66% had decreased analgesia, 59% had a PSA decrease of 50% or greater and 45% had a PSA decrease of 75% or greater. Actual (not actuarial) 2-year survival was 21%. CONCLUSIONS: Despite major limitations of historical comparison the PSA decrease and decreased symptoms with DPPE-mitoxantrone-prednisone compare favorably to those of mitoxantrone-prednisone and docetaxel-estramustine in the literature. The 2-year survival rate of 21% mandates further assessment. This will be tested in a phase III Southwest Oncology Group trial.     

Allogeneic whole-cell vaccine: a phase I/II study in men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE: To establish the safety and toxicity of an allogeneic human tumour cell vaccine in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer, and to determine any biochemical, immunological or clinical response to vaccination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer were recruited and randomly allocated into four equal groups. Three cell lines (from a bank of four) were administered initially every 2 weeks and then monthly, in conjunction with the immunostimulant Mycobacterium vaccae (SRL-172), each group receiving a different combination of the four cell lines. The patients' serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were monitored regularly, and the immune response to the vaccine measured using nonspecific intracellular cytokines and specific humoral and cell-mediated assays. RESULTS: The vaccine was safe and well tolerated with no major side-effects. Whilst several patients had a decline in PSA from the entry level, there was no significant decrease that could be attributed solely to the vaccine. However, the immunological data were more encouraging, with several patients from each arm of the trial having an increase in cytokine production, increases in specific antibodies and evidence of T-cell proliferation in response to the vaccinations. CONCLUSION: The failure of the vaccine to produce a PSA response in the patients in the trial is not surprising considering the stage of the disease. The high PSA levels on entry indicate that the burden of disease was probably high and thus this was an extremely challenging group of patients in which to try and elicit a response through immunotherapy. However, the immunological evidence of a response to the vaccine was encouraging and suggests that further exploration of immunotherapy in less advanced disease may yield more encouraging clinical responses.     

A phase 3, multicenter, open label, randomized study of abarelix versus leuprolide plus daily antiandrogen in men with prostate cancer

PURPOSE: We compared the endocrinological and biochemical efficacy of abarelix depot, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, with that of a widely used combination of luteinizing hormone releasing hormone agonist and a nonsteroidal antiandrogen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 255 patients were randomized to receive open label 100 mg. abarelix depot or 7.5 mg. leuprolide acetate intramuscularly injection on days 1, 29, 57, 85, 113 and 141 for 24 weeks. Patients in the abarelix group received an additional injection on day 15 and those in the leuprolide acetate group received 50 mg. bicalutamide daily. Patients could continue treatment with study drug for an additional 28 weeks. The efficacy end points were the comparative rates of avoidance of testosterone surge (greater than 10% increase) within 7 days of the first injection and the rapidity of achieving reduction of serum testosterone to castrate levels (50 ng./dl. or less) on day 8. Patients were monitored for adverse events and laboratory abnormalities. RESULTS: Abarelix was more effective in avoidance of testosterone surge (p <0.001) and the rapidity of reduction of testosterone to castrate levels on day 8 (p <0.001) than combination therapy. No significant difference was seen between the groups in the initial rate of decline of serum prostate specific antigen or the ability to achieve and maintain castrate levels of testosterone. No unusual or unexpected adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Abarelix as monotherapy achieves medical castration significantly more rapidly than combination therapy and avoids the testosterone surge characteristic of agonist therapy. Both treatments were equally effective in reducing serum prostate specific antigen, and achieving and maintaining castrate levels of testosterone.     

Population based study of hormonal therapy and survival in men with metastatic prostate cancer

PURPOSE: Although the palliative benefits of hormonal therapy for metastatic prostate cancer are widely recognized, little information is available regarding the effect of hormonal therapy on cancer specific and overall survival, and the types of patients who might benefit the most or least from hormonal therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prostate cancer specific and overall survival according to hormonal therapy use was determined by the Kaplan-Meier method in 6,098 men 65 years or older diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer in 1991 to 1999 who were identified through the population based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, and Medicare linked database. Cox proportional hazards and propensity score methods were used to adjust for potential confounders, such as disease status and patient comorbidity. RESULTS: Propensity score adjusted median overall survival was 26 months in men who received hormonal therapy compared with 13 months in those who did not (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.17-0.70, p <0.0001). The benefit of hormonal therapy was observed across all comorbidity strata and races. Effects were most evident in patients with poorly differentiated cancer (cancer specific mortality in favor of treatment HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.53-0.69, p <0.001). Benefit was not found in patients with well differentiated cancer (cancer specific mortality in favor of no treatment HR 1.92, 95% CI 0.90-4.10, p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Hormonal therapy is associated with improved prostate cancer specific and overall survival in men with poorly differentiated cancer. Improved survival does not appear evident in men with well differentiated disease.