Dataset Information

Quality of Life in Men With Prostate Cancer Randomly Allocated to Receive Docetaxel or Abiraterone in the STAMPEDE Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Docetaxel and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone (AAP) both improve survival when commenced alongside standard of care (SOC) androgen deprivation therapy in locally advanced or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Thus, patient-reported quality of life (QOL) data may guide treatment choices.

Methods

A group of patients within the STAMPEDE trial were contemporaneously enrolled with the possibility of being randomly allocated to receive either docetaxel + SOC or AAP + SOC. A mixed-model assessed QOL in those who had completed at least one QLQ-C30 + PR25 questionnaire. The primary outcome measure was difference in global-QOL (QLQ-C30 Q29&30) between patients allocated to docetaxel + SOC or AAP + SOC over the 2 years after random assignment, with a predefined criterion for clinically meaningful difference of > 4.0 points. Secondary outcome measures included longitudinal comparison of functional domains, pain, and fatigue, plus global-QOL at defined timepoints.

Results

Five hundred fifteen patients (173 docetaxel + SOC and 342 AAP + SOC) were included. Baseline characteristics, proportion of missing data, and mean baseline global-QOL scores (docetaxel + SOC 77.8 and AAP + SOC 78.0) were similar. Over the 2 years following random assignment, the mean modeled global-QOL score was +3.9 points (95% CI, +0.5 to +7.2; P = .022) higher in patients allocated to AAP + SOC. Global-QOL was higher for patients allocated to AAP + SOC over the first year (+5.7 points, 95% CI, +3.0 to +8.5; P < .001), particularly at 12 (+7.0 points, 95% CI, +3.0 to +11.0; P = .001) and 24 weeks (+8.3 points, 95% CI, +4.0 to +12.6; P < .001).

Conclusion

Patient-reported QOL was superior for patients allocated to receive AAP + SOC, compared with docetaxel + SOC over a 2-year period, narrowly missing the predefined value for clinical significance. Patients receiving AAP + SOC reported clinically meaningful higher global-QOL scores throughout the first year following random assignment.

SUBMITTER: Rush HL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7612717 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Adding abiraterone acetate with prednisolone (AAP) or docetaxel with prednisolone (DocP) to standard-of-care (SOC) each improved survival in systemic therapy for advanced or metastatic prostate cancer: evaluation of drug efficacy: a multi-arm multi-stage platform randomised controlled protocol recruiting patients with high-risk locally advanced or metastatic PCa starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The protocol provides the only direct, randomised comparative data of SOC?+?AAP versus SOC?+?DocP. Method:Recruitment to SOC?+?DocP and SOC?+?AAP overlapped November 2011 to March 2013. SOC was long-term ADT or, for most non-metastatic cases, ADT for??2 years and RT to the primary tumour. Stratified randomisation allocated pts 2 : 1 : 2 to SOC; SOC?+?docetaxel 75?mg/m2 3-weekly×6?+?prednisolone 10?mg daily; or SOC?+?abiraterone acetate 1000?mg?+?prednisolone 5?mg daily. AAP duration depended on stage and intent to give radical RT. The primary outcome measure was death from any cause. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, adjusted for stratification factors. This was not a formally powered comparison. A hazard ratio (HR) <1 favours SOC?+?AAP, and HR?>?1 favours SOC?+?DocP. Results:A total of 566 consenting patients were contemporaneously randomised: 189 SOC?+?DocP and 377 SOC?+?AAP. The patients, balanced by allocated treatment were: 342 (60%) M1; 429 (76%) Gleason 8-10; 449 (79%) WHO performance status 0; median age 66?years and median PSA 56?ng/ml. With median follow-up 4?years, 149 deaths were reported. For overall survival, HR?=?1.16 (95% CI 0.82-1.65); failure-free survival HR?=?0.51 (95% CI 0.39-0.67); progression-free survival HR?=?0.65 (95% CI 0.48-0.88); metastasis-free survival HR?=?0.77 (95% CI 0.57-1.03); prostate cancer-specific survival HR?=?1.02 (0.70-1.49); and symptomatic skeletal events HR?=?0.83 (95% CI 0.55-1.25). In the safety population, the proportion reporting??1 grade 3, 4 or 5 adverse events ever was 36%, 13% and 1% SOC?+?DocP, and 40%, 7% and 1% SOC?+?AAP; prevalence 11% at 1 and 2 years on both arms. Relapse treatment patterns varied by arm. Conclusions:This direct, randomised comparative analysis of two new treatment standards for hormone-naïve prostate cancer showed no evidence of a difference in overall or prostate cancer-specific survival, nor in other important outcomes such as symptomatic skeletal events. Worst toxicity grade over entire time on trial was similar but comprised different toxicities in line with the known properties of the drugs. Trial registration:Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00268476.

Project description:BackgroundThe optimal sequencing of the multiple active agents now available for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is unclear. Prior reports have suggested diminished responses to sequential lines of androgen receptor (AR)-targeted therapies, but it is unknown whether subsequent taxane-based chemotherapy may be more effective than sequential AR-targeting treatment. We sought to evaluate the clinical activity of enzalutamide versus docetaxel in men with mCRPC who progressed on abiraterone.MethodsWe performed a single-institution retrospective analysis of consecutive mCRPC patients who had progressed on abiraterone therapy and subsequently received either enzalutamide (n=30) or docetaxel (n=31). We evaluated clinical outcomes including prostate-specific antigen decline of >30% (PSA30) or >50% (PSA50), PSA-progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), and clinical/radiographic PFS. We performed multivariable modeling to control for baseline and on-treatment differences between groups.ResultsCompared to subjects who received enzalutamide post-abiraterone, subjects who received docetaxel post-abiraterone had more bone metastases, more visceral metastases, higher baseline PSA, and had more frequent PSA tests while on-treatment. There were no significant differences in PSA30 (41% for enzalutamide vs. 53% for docetaxel) or PSA50 (34% vs. 40%) response rates between the two groups; there remained no difference after stratifying by presence/absence of prior response to abiraterone. Median PSA-PFS was 4.1 versus 4.1 months for the enzalutamide and docetaxel cohorts, respectively (HR 1.35, 95% CI, 0.53-3.66, P=0.502). Median PFS was 4.7 versus 4.4 months, respectively (HR 1.44, 95% CI, 0.77-2.71, P=0.257). PSA-PFS and PFS did not differ after stratifying by prior response to abiraterone. In multivariable analyses, there were no significant differences in PSA-PFS or PFS between the two groups.ConclusionsTreatment with either enzalutamide or docetaxel produced modest PSA responses and PFS intervals in this abiraterone-pretreated mCRPC population. In this retrospective study with small sample size, no significant differences in outcomes were observed between groups. Therefore, either enzalutamide or docetaxel may be a reasonable option in men who have progressed on abiraterone.

Project description:BackgroundResults from large randomised controlled trials have shown that adding docetaxel to the standard of care (SOC) for men initiating hormone therapy for prostate cancer (PC) prolongs survival for those with metastatic disease and prolongs failure-free survival for those without. To date there has been no formal assessment of whether funding docetaxel in this setting represents an appropriate use of UK National Health Service (NHS) resources.ObjectiveTo assess whether administering docetaxel to men with PC starting long-term hormone therapy is cost-effective in a UK setting.Design, setting, and participantsWe modelled health outcomes and costs in the UK NHS using data collected within the STAMPEDE trial, which enrolled men with high-risk, locally advanced metastatic or recurrent PC starting first-line hormone therapy.InterventionSOC was hormone therapy for ≥2 yr and radiotherapy in some patients. Docetaxel (75mg/m2) was administered alongside SOC for six three-weekly cycles.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisThe model generated lifetime predictions of costs, changes in survival duration, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).Results and limitationsThe model predicted that docetaxel would extend survival (discounted quality-adjusted survival) by 0.89 yr (0.51) for metastatic PC and 0.78 yr (0.39) for nonmetastatic PC, and would be cost-effective in metastatic PC (ICER £5514/QALY vs SOC) and nonmetastatic PC (higher QALYs, lower costs vs SOC). Docetaxel remained cost-effective in nonmetastatic PC when the assumption of no survival advantage was modelled.ConclusionsDocetaxel is cost-effective among patients with nonmetastatic and metastatic PC in a UK setting. Clinicians should consider whether the evidence is now sufficiently compelling to support docetaxel use in patients with nonmetastatic PC, as the opportunity to offer docetaxel at hormone therapy initiation will be missed for some patients by the time more mature survival data are available.Patient summaryStarting docetaxel chemotherapy alongside hormone therapy represents a good use of UK National Health Service resources for patients with prostate cancer that is high risk or has spread to other parts of the body.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (AAP) are used in combination with androgen-deprivation therapy to further suppress the androgen stimulation of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). First-line mCRPC treatment with enzalutamide and AAP yields similar overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival in phase III trials. Thus, treatment selection relies on patient choice, cost and side effects. The aim of this randomised trial is to investigate differences in fatigue, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and metabolic side effects in men with mCRPC treated with first-line enzalutamide versus AAP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:In this ongoing open-label randomised (1:1) clinical trial, enzalutamide is compared with AAP as first-line treatment for men with mCRPC. The primary endpoint is fatigue assessed with the questionnaire Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue version 4. Secondary endpoints are changes in body composition (ie, fat mass, visceral adipose tissue, subcutaneous adipose tissue and lean body mass assessed with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry), glucose metabolism assessed with a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test, serum lipids, blood pressure and HRQoL assessed with the questionnaire Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P). All study endpoints are assessed at baseline and 12-week postintervention. Blood and urine samples are collected at baseline and at time of progression on allocated treatment for future investigation of predictive and prognostic biomarkers in prostate cancer treatment. The planned sample size is 170 participants. All participants are recruited from Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Denmark. Estimated last patient's last visit is February 2020. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study received project approval from the National Committee on Health Research Ethics and Danish Data Protection Agency and Danish Medicines Agency (EudraCT no.: 2017-000027-99). The results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed international journals and will be presented at national and international conferences and symposiums. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Clinicaltrialsregister.eu (2017-000099-27).

Project description:BackgroundMost men who die of prostate cancer are older than 70 years. The ChemoHormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease in Prostate Cancer (CHAARTED) randomized men of all ages with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) to receive androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without docetaxel demonstrating an overall survival (OS) benefit for docetaxel.MethodsIn a post-hoc analysis of this trial, we assessed patient characteristics and OS in patients ≥70 years ("older men") versus <70 years ("younger men") with Cox proportional hazards models. In addition, we compared adverse events, therapy completion rate, and subsequent treatment patterns between these two groups using Chi-squared tests.Results177 (22.4%) patients were ≥70 years. Docetaxel + ADT resulted in improved OS in both older and younger men (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.45, 95%CI: 0.25-0.80 for older men; HR 0.71, 95%CI: 0.53-0.95 for younger men). This treatment benefit was seen for subgroups of older men with high volume disease (HR 0.43, 95%CI 0.23-0.79) and de novo metastatic disease (HR 0.36, 95%CI 0.19-0.69). A similar proportion of older and younger men completed six cycles of docetaxel (82.6% vs. 87.1%, p = 0.28). Rates of grade 3-5 adverse events were similar between older and younger men (36.8% vs. 26.8%, respectively, p = 0.069). The rate of any Grades 4-5 adverse events did not differ significantly between older and younger men (14.9% vs. 11.9%, respectively, p = 0.46). In the control arm, a smaller proportion of older men received subsequent cancer treatments (34.4% vs. 51.5%, p = 0.017) or subsequent docetaxel (25.6% vs. 37.6%, p = 0.035) compared to younger men.ConclusionsOlder men with mHSPC had similar OS benefit and clinical outcomes compared to younger men when receiving docetaxel + ADT. Oncologists should consider docetaxel chemotherapy as a favorable treatment option for older men with mHSPC who are fit for chemotherapy.