Dataset Information

Therapeutic cancer vaccines in prostate cancer: the paradox of improved survival without changes in time to progression.

ABSTRACT: Therapeutic cancer vaccines represent a new class of agents in the treatment of cancer. Sipuleucel-T is an antigen-presenting cell-based vaccine that recently demonstrated a significant 4.8-month improvement in overall survival in advanced prostate cancer patients and was well tolerated. The findings of that study have been met with skepticism, primarily because the agent did not change initial disease progression and yet led to longer survival. Although the commonly accepted treatment paradigm suggests that treatments should initially decrease tumor volume, perhaps vaccines work differently. Vaccines may induce delayed responses not seen in the first few months of therapy or they may initiate a dynamic immune response that ultimately slows the tumor growth rate, resulting in longer survival. Subsequent therapies may also combine with the induced immune response, resulting in a combination that is more effective than conventional treatments alone. Also, other treatments may alter tumor-associated antigen expression, enhancing the immune response. Future trials are currently planned to investigate these hypotheses; however, the results of the sipuleucel-T vaccine in prostate cancer should not be dismissed. Results with another vaccine in prostate cancer are similar, perhaps suggesting a class effect. In a broader context, clinicians may need to reconsider how they measure success. Several agents have been approved that produce superior disease progression results, but do not affect overall survival. Given the toxicity and costs of cancer therapies, perhaps studies should put more weight on long-term survival endpoints than on short-term endpoints that may be less consequential.

SUBMITTER: Madan RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3228037 | biostudies-other | 2010

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Therapeutic cancer vaccines in prostate cancer: the paradox of improved survival without changes in time to progression.

Madan Ravi A RA Gulley James L JL Fojo Tito T Dahut William L WL

The oncologist 20100826 9

Therapeutic cancer vaccines represent a new class of agents in the treatment of cancer. Sipuleucel-T is an antigen-presenting cell-based vaccine that recently demonstrated a significant 4.8-month improvement in overall survival in advanced prostate cancer patients and was well tolerated. The findings of that study have been met with skepticism, primarily because the agent did not change initial disease progression and yet led to longer survival. Although the commonly accepted treatment paradigm ...[more]

PMID: 20798195

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFor metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa), radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiation therapy (RT) may improve overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Compared with RT, RP shows significant advantages in improving patient outcomes. External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) even slightly elevates CSM with no statistical difference in OS compared with no local treatment (NLT).ObjectiveTo evaluate OS and CSS after local treatment (LT) (including RP and RT) versus NLT in mPCa. Design, setting, and participants Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (2000-2018), 20098 patients with metastatic prostate cancer were selected in this study, of which 19433 patients had no local treatment, 377 patients with radical prostate treatment, and 288 patients with RT.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisMultivariable competing risks regression analysis after propensity score matching (PSM) was used to calculate CSM. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to identify the risk factors. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate OS.Results and limitationsA total of 20098 patients were included: NLT (n = 19433), RP (n=377) and RT (n=288). In a competing risk regression analysis after PSM (ratio 1:1), RP resulted in a significantly lower CSM (hazard ratio [HR] 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.45) than NLT, while RT showed a slightly lower CSM (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63-0.95). In a competing risk regression analysis after PSM (ratio 1:1), RP led to a lower CSM (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41-0.76) versus RT. As for all-cause mortality (ACM), RP (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.31-0.45) and RT (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.56-0.79). also showed a downward trend. In terms of OS, RP and RT significantly improved the survival probability compared with NLT, with the effect of RP being more pronounced. Obviously, older age, Gleason scores ≥8, AJCC T3-T4 stage, AJCC N1, AJCC M1b-M1c were all associated with higher CSM (P <0.05). The same results held true for ACM. The limitation of this article is that it is not possible to assess the effect of differences in systemic therapy on CSM in mPCa patients and clinical trials are needed to verify the results.ConclusionsFor patients with mPCa, both RP and RT are beneficial to patients, and the efficacy of RP is better than RT from the perspective of CSM and ACM. Older age, higher gleason scores and the more advanced AJCC TNM stage all put patients at higher risk of dying.Patient summaryA large population-based cancer database showed that in addition to first-line therapy (hormonal treatment), RP and radiotherapy can also benefit patients with mPCa.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In early diagnosis studies on symptomatic cancer, survival was the most recommended outcome. The magnitude and impact of the patient interval and primary care interval is well-known in oral cancer; however, the hospital interval and its influence on surviving this neoplasia are not well known. AIMS:To quantify the interval between the first contact with the specialist and the start of treatment for patients with oral cancer and to evaluate whether there was a link between this interval and disease survival. METHODS:We designed a hospital-based study that included 228 patients diagnosed with oral/oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma between 1998 and 2008 at A Coruña University Hospital (Spain) who were followed up until 2016. The data were extracted retrospectively from hospital medical charts. The study interval was defined in the context of the "pathways to treatment" model as the interval from the first specialist visit (start point) to the start of treatment (end point). We calculated the total interval (from first symptom to treatment) to evaluate the relative length of the hospital interval, and we considered the variables age, sex, location, comorbidity and tumour classification stage. Survival time was defined as the interval from the first treatment to death or censoring. RESULTS:The median hospital interval was 20 days, with an interquartile range of 15-29.1 days. The most relevant prognostic variable was the tumour stage (III-IV: Exp. ß = 2.8, p = 0.001). The hospital interval was part of the multivariate model, and its association with mortality showed a V-shaped association, where patients with short hospital intervals (3-18 days) and those with long hospital intervals (26-55 days) had significantly higher mortality than those with medium hospital intervals (19-25 days). CONCLUSION:The hospital interval represents a relevant interval for the patient's path towards treatment, has prognostic implications and is subject to a severity bias (waiting time paradox) that should be avoided.

Dataset Information

Therapeutic cancer vaccines in prostate cancer: the paradox of improved survival without changes in time to progression.

Publications

Therapeutic cancer vaccines in prostate cancer: the paradox of improved survival without changes in time to progression.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets