Search

Purpose: Prostate cancer (PCa) becomes resistant to androgen ablation through adaptive upregulation of the androgen receptor in response to the low-testosterone microenvironment. Bipolar androgen therapy (BAT), defined as rapid cycling between high and low serum testosterone, disrupts this adaptive regulation in castration-resistant PCa (CRPC)., Methods: The TRANSFORMER (Testosterone Revival Abolishes Negative Symptoms, Fosters Objective Response and Modulates Enzalutamide Resistance) study is a randomized study comparing monthly BAT (n = 94) with enzalutamide (n = 101). The primary end point was clinical or radiographic progression-free survival (PFS); crossover was permitted at progression. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and objective response rates, PFS from randomization through crossover (PFS2), safety, and quality of life (QoL)., Results: The PFS was 5.7 months for both arms (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.55; P = .42). For BAT, 50% decline in PSA (PSA50) was 28.2% of patients versus 25.3% for enzalutamide. At crossover, PSA50 response occurred in 77.8% of patients crossing to enzalutamide and 23.4% to BAT. The PSA-PFS for enzalutamide increased from 3.8 months after abiraterone to 10.9 months after BAT. The PFS2 for BAT→enzalutamide was 28.2 versus 19.6 months for enzalutamide→BAT (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.88; P = .02). OS was 32.9 months for BAT versus 29.0 months for enzalutamide (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.39; P = .80). OS was 37.1 months for patients crossing from BAT to enzalutamide versus 30.2 months for the opposite sequence (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.28; P = .225). BAT adverse events were primarily grade 1-2. Patient-reported QoL consistently favored BAT., Conclusion: This randomized trial establishes meaningful clinical activity and safety of BAT and supports additional study to determine its optimal clinical integration. BAT can sensitize CRPC to subsequent antiandrogen therapy. Further study is required to confirm whether sequential therapy with BAT and enzalutamide can improve survival in men with CRPC., Competing Interests: Samuel R. DenmeadeStock and Other Ownership Interests: Sophiris BioConsulting or Advisory Role: Sophiris BioTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Sophiris Bio Neeraj AgarwalConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Medivation/Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Lilly, Bayer, Foundation One Inc, Pharmacyclics, Foundation Medicine, Astellas Pharma, Exelixis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Novartis, Eisai, Seattle Genetics, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, AVEO, Calithera Biosciences, MEI PharmaResearch Funding: Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, Novartis, Pfizer, BN ImmunoTherapeutics, Exelixis, TRACON Pharma, Rexahn Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Active Biotech, Bavarian Nordic, Calithera Biosciences, Celldex, Eisai, Genentech, Immunomedics, Janssen, Merck, Newlink Genetics, Prometheus, Sanofi David C. SmithResearch Funding: Agensys, Incyte, Lilly, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Medarex, Genentech, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, ESSA, Roche, MedImmune Michael T. SchweizerConsulting or Advisory Role: ResverlogixResearch Funding: Janssen, AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Zenith Epigenetics, Madison Vaccines, Inc., Immunomedics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Tmunity Therapeutics, Inc. Mark N. SteinConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Exelixis, Exelixis, XencorResearch Funding: Oncoceutics, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Janssen Oncology, Medivation/Astellas, Advaxis, Suzhou Kintor Pharmaceuticals, Harpoon, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genocea Biosciences, Lilly, Nektar, Seattle Genetics, Xencor, Tmunity Therapeutics, Inc., Exelixis Vasileios AssikisConsulting or Advisory Role: BayerSpeakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca Przemyslaw W. TwardowskiHonoraria: Astellas Medivation, Bayer, Janssen, Genentech/Roche, Sanofi/AventisConsulting or Advisory Role: Sanofi/Aventis, JanssenSpeakers' Bureau: Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Janssen, Genentech, Sanofi Thomas W. FlaigLeadership: Aurora OncologyStock and Other Ownership Interests: Aurora OncologyConsulting or Advisory Role: Seattle Genetics, Janssen OncologyResearch Funding: Novartis, Bavarian Nordic, Dendreon, GTx, Janssen Oncology, Medivation, Sanofi, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Exelixis, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Sotio, Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Astrazeneca/MedImmune, Lilly, Astellas Pharma, Agensys, Seattle Genetics, La Roche-Posay, MerckPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: The University of Colorado has filed 2 patents related in which I am an inventor. These are related to early-stage bladder cancer treatment and detection. Neither is commercialized or licensed at this time. Russell Z. SzmulewitzHonoraria: Astellas PharmaConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Exelixis, Merck, Amgen, Janssen Oncology, Sanofi, Astellas Pharma, PfizerResearch Funding: AbbVie, Astellas Pharma, Incyte, Macrogenics, Janssen OncologyPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patent licensed by The University of Chicago of which I am a co-inventor to Corcept Therapeutics for combination AR/GR inhibition in prostate cancerTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Corcept Therapeutics Jeffrey M. HolzbeierleinConsulting or Advisory Role: BasileaResearch Funding: MDxHealth(OPTIONAL) Uncompensated Relationships: Astellas Medivation Ralph J. HaukeStock and Other Ownership Interests: AethlonResearch Funding: US Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Amgen, Novartis, Exelixis Guru SonpavdeHonoraria: UpToDateConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech, Merck, Eisai, AstraZenecam, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, EMD Serono, Astellas Pharma, Bicycle Therapeutics, Pfizer, Seattle GeneticsSpeakers' Bureau: Physicans' Education Resource, Onclive, Research to Practice, MedscapeResearch Funding: Janssen, Sanofi, AstraZenecaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol-Myers SquibbOther Relationship: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas Pharma, Bavarian Nordic, Debiopharm GroupQED Therapeutics, Elsevier Jorge A. GarciaHonoraria: UpToDate, MerckJanssen, Amgen, Bayer, MJH AssociatesConsulting or Advisory Role: Sanofi, Bayer, Eisai, Clovis Oncology, Targeted OncologySpeakers' Bureau: Bayer, Sanofi, MerckSanofi/AventisResearch Funding: Pfizer, Orion Pharma GmbH, Janssen Oncology, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, MerckTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bayer, Sanofi, Eisai, Medivation/Astellas, Merck, Clovis Oncology, Janssen Arif HussainConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Exelixis, Janssen OncologyResearch Funding: Sotio, Merck, Bayer, Clovis Oncology, Pfizer, Constellation Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Roche/Genentech, Infinity Pharmaceuticals Oliver SartorStock and Other Ownership Interests: Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, Cardinal Health, United Health Group, PSMA Therapeutics, Clarity Pharmaceuticals, Noria Therapeutics, Clovis OncologyConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Dendreon, Constellation Pharmaceuticals, Advanced Accelerator Applications, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bavarian Nordic, EMD Serono, Astellas Pharma, Progenics, Blue Earth Diagnostics, Myovant Sciences, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Clarity Pharmaceuticals, Fusion Pharmaceuticals, Isotopen Technologien, Janssen, Noxopharm, Clovis Oncology, Noria Therapeutics, Point Biopharma, TeneoBio, Telix Pharmaceuticals, TheragnosticsResearch Funding: Sanofi, Endocyte, Merck, InVitae, Constellation Pharmaceuticals, Advanced Accelerator Applications, AstraZeneca, Dendreon, Sotio, Janssen, ProgenicsExpert Testimony: SanofiTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Progenics Shifeng MaoConsulting or Advisory Role: Sanofi, Cardinal HealthSpeakers' Bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb Michael A. CarducciConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Foundation Medicine, ExelixisResearch Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, Arcus Biosciences Mark C. MarkowskiHonoraria: Clovis Oncology, Exelixis Mario A. EisenbergerLeadership: VeruStock and Other Ownership Interests: VeruHonoraria: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Seattle Genetics Emmanuel S. AntonarakisHonoraria: Sanofi, Dendreon, Medivation, Janssen Biotech, ESSA, Astellas Pharma, Merck, AstraZeneca, Clovis OncologyConsulting or Advisory Role: Sanofi, Dendreon, Janssen Biotech, ESSA, Merck, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Lilly, BayerResearch Funding: Janssen Biotech, Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi, Dendreon, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Exelixis, Millennium, Genentech, Novartis, Astellas Pharma, Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Merck, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Constellation PharmaceuticalsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Sanofi, Dendreon, MedivationNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Recently, we have shown that metastasis-free survival is a strong surrogate for overall survival (OS) in men with intermediate- and high-risk localized prostate cancer and can accelerate the evaluation of new (neo)adjuvant therapies. Event-free survival (EFS), an earlier prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based composite end point, may further expedite trial completion., Methods: EFS was defined as the time from random assignment to the date of first evidence of disease recurrence, including biochemical failure, local or regional recurrence, distant metastasis, or death from any cause, or was censored at the date of last PSA assessment. Individual patient data from trials within the Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate-ICECaP-database with evaluable PSA and disease follow-up data were analyzed. We evaluated the surrogacy of EFS for OS using a 2-stage meta-analytic validation model by determining the correlation of EFS with OS (patient level) and the correlation of treatment effects (hazard ratios [HRs]) on both EFS and OS (trial level). A clinically relevant surrogacy was defined a priori as an R 2 ≥ 0.7., Results: Data for 10,350 patients were analyzed from 15 radiation therapy-based trials enrolled from 1987 to 2011 with a median follow-up of 10 years. At the patient level, the correlation of EFS with OS was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.44) as measured by Kendall's tau from a copula model. At the trial level, the R 2 was 0.35 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.60) from the weighted linear regression of log(HR)-OS on log(HR)-EFS., Conclusion: EFS is a weak surrogate for OS and is not suitable for use as an intermediate clinical end point to substitute for OS to accelerate phase III (neo)adjuvant trials of prostate cancer therapies for primary radiation therapy-based trials.

Purpose: Germline testing (GT) is a central feature of prostate cancer (PCA) treatment, management, and hereditary cancer assessment. Critical needs include optimized multigene testing strategies that incorporate evolving genetic data, consistency in GT indications and management, and alternate genetic evaluation models that address the rising demand for genetic services., Methods: A multidisciplinary consensus conference that included experts, stakeholders, and national organization leaders was convened in response to current practice challenges and to develop a genetic implementation framework. Evidence review informed questions using the modified Delphi model. The final framework included criteria with strong (> 75%) agreement (Recommend) or moderate (50% to 74%) agreement (Consider)., Results: Large germline panels and somatic testing were recommended for metastatic PCA. Reflex testing-initial testing of priority genes followed by expanded testing-was suggested for multiple scenarios. Metastatic disease or family history suggestive of hereditary PCA was recommended for GT. Additional family history and pathologic criteria garnered moderate consensus. Priority genes to test for metastatic disease treatment included BRCA2, BRCA1, and mismatch repair genes, with broader testing, such as ATM , for clinical trial eligibility. BRCA2 was recommended for active surveillance discussions. Screening starting at age 40 years or 10 years before the youngest PCA diagnosis in a family was recommended for BRCA2 carriers, with consideration in HOXB13, BRCA1, ATM , and mismatch repair carriers. Collaborative (point-of-care) evaluation models between health care and genetic providers was endorsed to address the genetic counseling shortage. The genetic evaluation framework included optimal pretest informed consent, post-test discussion, cascade testing, and technology-based approaches., Conclusion: This multidisciplinary, consensus-driven PCA genetic implementation framework provides novel guidance to clinicians and patients tailored to the precision era. Multiple research, education, and policy needs remain of importance.

Purpose: Radiotherapy (RT) plus long-term androgen suppression (AS) are a standard treatment option for patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer. We hypothesized that docetaxel chemotherapy (CT) could improve overall survival (OS) and clinical outcomes among patients with high-risk prostate cancer., Patients and Methods: The multicenter randomized NRG Oncology RTOG 0521 study enrolled patients with high-risk nonmetastatic disease between 2005 and 2009. Patients were randomly assigned to receive standard long-term AS plus RT with or without adjuvant CT., Results: A total of 612 patients were enrolled; 563 were evaluable. Median prostate-specific antigen was 15.1 ng/mL; 53% had a Gleason score 9 to 10 cancer; 27% had cT3 to cT4 disease. Median follow-up was 5.7 years. Treatment was well tolerated in both arms. Four-year OS rate was 89% (95% CI, 84% to 92%) for AS + RT and 93% (95% CI, 90% to 96%) for AS + RT + CT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 90% CI, 0.49 to 0.97; one-sided P = .034). There were 59 deaths in the AS + RT arm and 43 in the AS + RT + CT arm, with fewer deaths resulting from prostate cancer in the AS + RT + CT arm versus AS + RT (23 v 16 deaths, respectively). Six-year rate of distant metastasis was 14% for AS + RT and 9.1% for AS + RT + CT, (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.99; two-sided P = .044). Six-year disease-free survival rate was 55% for AS + RT and 65% for AS + RT + CT (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.99; two-sided P = .043)., Conclusion: For patients with high-risk nonmetastatic prostate cancer, CT with docetaxel improved OS from 89% to 93% at 4 years, with improved disease-free survival and reduction in the rate of distant metastasis. The trial suggests that docetaxel CT may be an option to be discussed with selected men with high-risk prostate cancer.

Purpose Guidelines are limited for genetic testing for prostate cancer (PCA). The goal of this conference was to develop an expert consensus-driven working framework for comprehensive genetic evaluation of inherited PCA in the multigene testing era addressing genetic counseling, testing, and genetically informed management. Methods An expert consensus conference was convened including key stakeholders to address genetic counseling and testing, PCA screening, and management informed by evidence review. Results Consensus was strong that patients should engage in shared decision making for genetic testing. There was strong consensus to test HOXB13 for suspected hereditary PCA, BRCA1/2 for suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, and DNA mismatch repair genes for suspected Lynch syndrome. There was strong consensus to factor BRCA2 mutations into PCA screening discussions. BRCA2 achieved moderate consensus for factoring into early-stage management discussion, with stronger consensus in high-risk/advanced and metastatic setting. Agreement was moderate to test all men with metastatic castration-resistant PCA, regardless of family history, with stronger agreement to test BRCA1/2 and moderate agreement to test ATM to inform prognosis and targeted therapy. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive, multidisciplinary consensus statement to address a genetic evaluation framework for inherited PCA in the multigene testing era. Future research should focus on developing a working definition of familial PCA for clinical genetic testing, expanding understanding of genetic contribution to aggressive PCA, exploring clinical use of genetic testing for PCA management, genetic testing of African American males, and addressing the value framework of genetic evaluation and testing men at risk for PCA-a clinically heterogeneous disease.

Purpose In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), overall survival (OS) is significantly improved with cabazitaxel versus mitoxantrone after prior docetaxel treatment. FIRSTANA ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01308567) assessed whether cabazitaxel 20 mg/m 2 (C20) or 25 mg/m 2 (C25) is superior to docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 (D75) in terms of OS in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Patients and Methods Patients with mCRPC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive C20, C25, or D75 intravenously every 3 weeks plus daily prednisone. The primary end point was OS. Secondary end points included safety; progression-free survival (PFS); tumor, prostate-specific antigen, and pain response; pharmacokinetics; and health-related quality of life. Results Between May 2011 and April 2013, 1,168 patients were randomly assigned. Baseline characteristics were similar across cohorts. Median OS was 24.5 months with C20, 25.2 months with C25, and 24.3 months with D75. Hazard ratio for C20 versus D75 was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.20; P = .997), and hazard ratio for C25 versus D75 was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.16; P = .757). Median PFS was 4.4 months with C20, 5.1 months with C25, and 5.3 months with D75, with no significant differences between treatment arms. Radiographic tumor responses were numerically higher for C25 (41.6%) versus D75 (30.9%; nominal P = .037, without multiplicity test adjustment). Rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were 41.2%, 60.1%, and 46.0% for C20, C25, and D75, respectively. Febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, and hematuria were more frequent with C25; peripheral neuropathy, peripheral edema, alopecia, and nail disorders were more frequent with D75. Conclusion C20 and C25 did not demonstrate superiority for OS versus D75 in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Tumor response was numerically higher with C25 versus D75; pain PFS was numerically improved with D75 versus C25. Cabazitaxel and docetaxel demonstrated different toxicity profiles, with overall less toxicity with C20.

Purpose Adjuvant therapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localized prostate cancer decreases the number of deaths from this disease. Surrogates for overall survival (OS) could expedite the evaluation of new adjuvant therapies. Methods By June 2013, 102 completed or ongoing randomized trials were identified and individual patient data were collected from 28 trials with 28,905 patients. Disease-free survival (DFS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS) were determined for 21,140 patients from 24 trials and 12,712 patients from 19 trials, respectively. We evaluated the surrogacy of DFS and MFS for OS by using a two-stage meta-analytic validation model by determining the correlation of an intermediate clinical end point with OS and the correlation of treatment effects on both the intermediate clinical end point and OS. Results Trials enrolled patients from 1987 to 2011. After a median follow-up of 10 years, 45% of 21,140 men and 45% of 12,712 men experienced a DFS and MFS event, respectively. For DFS and MFS, 61% and 90% of the patients, respectively, were from radiation trials, and 63% and 66%, respectively, had high-risk disease. At the patient level, Kendall's τ correlation with OS was 0.85 and 0.91 for DFS and MFS, respectively. At the trial level, R 2 was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.90) and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.88) from weighted linear regression of 8-year OS rates versus 5-year DFS and MFS rates, respectively. Treatment effects-measured by log hazard ratios-for the surrogates and OS were well correlated ( R 2 , 0.73 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.82] for DFS and 0.92 [95% CI, 0.81 to 0.95] for MFS). Conclusion MFS is a strong surrogate for OS for localized prostate cancer that is associated with a significant risk of death from prostate cancer.

Purpose: Evolving treatments, disease phenotypes, and biology, together with a changing drug development environment, have created the need to revise castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) clinical trial recommendations to succeed those from prior Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Groups., Methods: An international expert committee of prostate cancer clinical investigators (the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 [PCWG3]) was reconvened and expanded and met in 2012-2015 to formulate updated criteria on the basis of emerging trial data and validation studies of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 2 recommendations., Results: PCWG3 recommends that baseline patient assessment include tumor histology, detailed records of prior systemic treatments and responses, and a detailed reporting of disease subtypes based on an anatomic pattern of metastatic spread. New recommendations for trial outcome measures include the time to event end point of symptomatic skeletal events, as well as time to first metastasis and time to progression for trials in the nonmetastatic CRPC state. PCWG3 introduces the concept of no longer clinically benefiting to underscore the distinction between first evidence of progression and the clinical need to terminate or change treatment, and the importance of documenting progression in existing lesions as distinct from the development of new lesions. Serial biologic profiling using tumor samples from biopsies, blood-based diagnostics, and/or imaging is also recommended to gain insight into mechanisms of resistance and to identify predictive biomarkers of sensitivity for use in prospective trials., Conclusion: PCWG3 moves drug development closer to unmet needs in clinical practice by focusing on disease manifestations most likely to affect prognosis adversely for therapeutics tested in both nonmetastatic and metastatic CRPC populations. Consultation with regulatory authorities is recommended if a trial is intended to seek support for drug approval., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics, and more specifically a ≥ 30% decline in PSA within 3 months after initiation of first-line chemotherapy with docetaxel, are associated with improvement in overall survival (OS) in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The objective of this analysis was to evaluate post-treatment PSA kinetics as surrogates for OS in patients receiving second-line chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: Data from a phase III trial of patients with mCRPC randomly assigned to cabazitaxel plus prednisone (C + P) or mitoxantrone plus prednisone were used. PSA decline (≥ 30% and ≥ 50%), velocity, and rise within the first 3 months of treatment were evaluated as surrogates for OS. The Prentice criteria, proportion of treatment explained (PTE), and meta-analytic approaches were used as measures of surrogacy., Results: The observed hazard ratio (HR) for death for patients treated with C + P was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.55 to 0.79; P < .001). Furthermore, a ≥ 30% decline in PSA was a statistically significant predictor of OS (HR for death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.64; P < .001). Adjusting for treatment effect, the HR for a ≥ 30% PSA decline was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.62; P < .001), but treatment remained statistically significant, thus failing the third Prentice criterion. The PTE for a ≥ 30% decline in PSA was 0.34 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.56), indicating a lack of surrogacy for OS. The values of R(2) were < 1, suggesting that PSA decline was not surrogate for OS., Conclusion: Surrogacy for any PSA-based end point could not be demonstrated in this analysis. Thus, the benefits of cabazitaxel in mediating a survival benefit are not fully captured by early PSA changes.

Purpose: This multinational, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trial assessed the efficacy and tolerability of the oral platinum analog satraplatin in patients with metastatic castrate-refractory prostate cancer (CRPC) experiencing progression after one prior chemotherapy regimen., Patients and Methods: Nine hundred fifty patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive oral satraplatin (n = 635) 80 mg/m(2) on days 1 to 5 of a 35-day cycle and prednisone 5 mg twice daily or placebo (n = 315) and prednisone 5 mg twice daily. Primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). The secondary end point was time to pain progression (TPP)., Results: A 33% reduction (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.77; P < .001) was observed in the risk of progression or death with satraplatin versus placebo. This effect was maintained irrespective of prior docetaxel treatment. No difference in OS was seen between the satraplatin and placebo arms (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.15; P = .80). Compared with placebo, satraplatin significantly reduced TPP (HR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.79; P < .001). Satraplatin was generally well tolerated, although myelosuppression and GI disorders occurred more frequently with satraplatin., Conclusion: Oral satraplatin delayed progression of disease and pain in patients with metastatic CRPC experiencing progression after initial chemotherapy but did not provide a significant OS benefit. Satraplatin was generally well tolerated. These results suggest activity for satraplatin in patients with CRPC who experience progression after initial chemotherapy.

Purpose: Accelerated approval (AA) was initiated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to shorten development times of drugs for serious medical illnesses. Sponsors must confirm efficacy in postapproval trials. Confronted with several drugs that received AA on the basis of phase II trials and for which confirmatory trials were incomplete, FDA officials have encouraged sponsors to design AA applications on the basis of interim analyses of phase III trials., Methods: We reviewed data on orphan drug status, development time, safety, and status of confirmatory trials of AAs and regular FDA approvals of new molecular entities (NMEs) for oncology indications since 1995., Results: Median development times for AA NMEs (n = 19 drugs) and regular-approval oncology NMEs (n = 32 drugs) were 7.3 and 7.2 years, respectively. Phase III trials supported efficacy for 75% of regular-approval versus 26% of AA NMEs and for 73% of non-orphan versus 45% of orphan drug approvals. AA accounted for 78% of approvals for oncology NMEs between 2001 and 2003 but accounted for 32% in more recent years. Among AA NMEs, confirmatory trials were nine-fold less likely to be completed for orphan drug versus non-orphan drug indications. Postapproval, black box warnings were added to labels for four oncology NMEs (17%) that had received AA and for two oncology NMEs (9%) that had received regular approval., Conclusion: AA oncology NMEs are safe and effective, although development times are not accelerated. A return to endorsing phase II trial designs for AA for oncology NMEs, particularly for orphan drug indications, may facilitate timely FDA approval of novel cancer drugs.

Purpose: Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is the most common and effective systemic therapy for advanced prostate cancer. We hypothesized that germline genetic variation in the androgen axis would improve the efficacy of ADT., Patients and Methods: A cohort of 529 men with advanced prostate cancer treated with ADT was genotyped for 129 DNA polymorphisms distributed across 20 genes involved in androgen metabolism., Results: Three polymorphisms in separate genes (CYP19A1, HSD3B1, and HSD17B4) were significantly (P < .01) associated with time to progression (TTP) during ADT, remaining so in multivariate analyses and after correcting for the number of hypotheses tested. Individuals carrying more than one of the polymorphisms associated with improved TTP demonstrated a better response to therapy than individuals carrying zero or one (P < .0001)., Conclusion: This report is the first to examine the influence of inherited variation in the androgen metabolic pathway on the efficacy of ADT, establishing the importance of pharmacogenomics on individual's response to this therapy. At least two potential clinical benefits may be realized from this study. The first is prognostic -genotyping patients at these loci may yield important information that could improve efficacy prediction. The second is therapeutic -these results shed light on the pathways that govern response to ADT. Drugs could be developed (or may already exist) to inhibit or augment these targets to improve ADT efficacy.

In the course of recent health care fraud investigations against TAP Pharmaceuticals (Lake Forest, IL) and AstraZeneca International (London, United Kingdom), each pled guilty to one violation of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, settled claims related to alleged violations of the False Claims Act without admitting guilt, and paid fines, settlements for liabilities, and reimbursements of dollar 850 million and dollar 355 million, respectively. In a unique aspect of these cases, federal investigators brought criminal charges against 14 TAP employees and investigated the billing practices of several urologists. These investigations resulted in guilty pleas from both urologists and industry employees relative to the Prescription Drug Marketing Act or the False Claims Act and probationary sentences with payments of fines and restitution to the government for urologists who cooperated with federal investigations. One uncooperative urologist was found guilty of violating the Federal False Claims Act and sentenced to 6 months of home arrest, excluded from Medicare for 5 years, required to provide 600 hours of free medical care to indigent patients and patients covered by Medicare or Medicaid, and paid fines and restitution to the government. The cases against TAP and AstraZeneca have been followed by federal and state investigations of allegedly illegal marketing practices of other pharmaceutical firms and have resulted in negotiated settlements of dollar 3.8 billion and dollar 71.5 million, respectively. Believing that an Average Wholesale Price-based reimbursement system was an important driving factor for these marketing activities, Medicare has shifted to an Average Sales Price-based reimbursement system. This is expected to greatly impact the practice of outpatient oncology nationwide.

Purpose: To describe the clinical findings, occurrence rates, causality evidence, and dissemination media for serious cancer drug-associated adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported in the postmarketing setting., Methods: ADRs were termed serious if they resulted in death or severe organ failure. ADR information for oncology drugs from package insert (PI) revisions, so-called Dear Doctor letters, and journal articles was evaluated to identify serious ADRs reported from 2000 to 2002. Timing and content of information disseminated was assessed., Results: Twenty-five serious ADRs associated with 22 oncology drugs were identified after approval. Approximately half of these serious ADRs are associated with drugs approved before 1995. ADRs were described in articles in medical journals (17 ADRs), PI revisions (18 ADRs), and Dear Doctor letters (12 ADRs). PI revisions occurred less than 1 year after peer-reviewed publication for four ADRs. These revisions often differed for similar ADRs that occurred with drugs of the same class. Five of the seven ADRs lacking PI changes occurred with off-label use, for which PI change is not recommended by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy. No cancer drug was withdrawn from the market during the observation period., Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that serious ADRs may be discovered as long as 36 years after a drug receives FDA approval. This suggests a need for continued vigilance and efficient strategies for dissemination of information about ADRs associated with cancer drugs.

Purpose: To evaluate (1) whether there were racial differences in the androgen receptor gene CAG repeat length and in clinical or laboratory attributes of prostate cancer at the time of diagnosis; (2) whether there were differences in race, Gleason score, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and stage at diagnosis by androgen receptor gene CAG repeat length; and (3) whether sociodemographic, clinical, and laboratory based factors might be associated with advanced-stage prostate cancer. To our knowledge, our study is the first to report on CAG repeat lengths in a cohort of prostate cancer patients, which includes large numbers of African-American men., Methods: CAG repeat lengths on the androgen receptor gene were evaluated for 151 African-American and 168 white veterans with prostate cancer. The chi(2) test, t test, and logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the associations between CAG repeat lengths and race, stage, histologic grade, and PSA levels at diagnosis., Results: The mean age of the cohort at the time of diagnosis was 68.7 years. At presentation, 42.0% had stage D prostate cancer, 26.5% had Gleason scores of 8 to 10, and 53.0% had PSA levels >/= 10 ng/dL. Mean androgen receptor gene CAG repeat length for white veterans was 21.9 (SD, 3.5) versus 19.8 (SD, 3.2) for African-American veterans (P =.001). Men with shorter CAG repeats were more likely to have stage D prostate cancer (P =.09) but were not more likely to have a higher PSA concentration or Gleason score., Conclusion: In this cohort of men with prostate cancer, short CAG repeat length on the androgen receptor gene was associated with African-American race and possibly with higher stage but not with other clinical or pathologic findings.

Purpose: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a glycoprotein that is found almost exclusively in normal and neoplastic prostate cells. For patients with metastatic disease, changes in PSA will often antedate changes in bone scan. Furthermore, many but not all investigators have observed an association between a decline in PSA levels of 50% or greater and survival. Since the majority of phase II clinical trials for patients with androgen-independent prostate cancer (AIPC) have used PSA as a marker, we believed it was important for investigators to agree on definitions and values for a minimum set of parameters for eligibility and PSA declines and to develop a common approach to outcome analysis and reporting. We held a consensus conference with 26 leading investigators in the field of AIPC to define these parameters., Result: We defined four patient groups: (1) progressive measurable disease, (2) progressive bone metastasis, (3) stable metastases and a rising PSA, and (4) rising PSA and no other evidence of metastatic disease. The purpose of determining the number of patients whose PSA level drops in a phase II trial of AIPC is to guide the selection of agents for further testing and phase III trials. We propose that investigators report at a minimum a PSA decline of at least 50% and this must be confirmed by a second PSA value 4 or more weeks later. Patients may not demonstrate clinical or radiographic evidence of disease progression during this time period. Some investigators may want to report additional measures of PSA changes (ie, 75% decline, 90% decline). Response duration and the time to PSA progression may also be important clinical end point., Conclusion: Through this consensus conference, we believe we have developed practical guidelines for using PSA as a measurement of outcome. Furthermore, the use of common standards is important as we determine which agents should progress to randomized trials which will use survival as an end point.

Purpose: Diagnosis of advanced prostate cancer is a major health problem, especially among low-income men. Opportunities vary for early detection of prostate cancer for low-income black and white men because of financial, cultural, and social factors. In this study, we evaluated the association of poor literacy skills with higher rates of presentation of advanced stages of prostate cancer among low-income black and white men who received care in equal-access medical systems., Patients and Methods: Literacy and stage at diagnosis of prostate cancer were evaluated in 212 low-income men who received medical care in Shreveport, LA, and Chicago, IL. The patients' literacy was assessed with the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM), an individually administered reading screening test designed specifically for use in the medical setting. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate predictors of metastatic disease at presentation as a function of patient age, race, literacy, and city., Results: Whereas black men were almost twice as likely to present with stage D prostate cancer (49.5% v 35.9%; P < .05), they were significantly more likely to have literacy levels less than sixth grade (52.3% v 8.7%; P < .001). However, after adjustment for differences in literacy, age, and city, race was not a significant predictor of advanced-stage prostate cancer., Conclusion: Low literacy may be an overlooked but significant barrier to the diagnosis of early-stage prostate cancer among low-income white and black men. The development of culturally sensitive, low-literacy educational materials may improve patient awareness of prostate cancer and improve the frequency of diagnosis of early-stage cancer.

Purpose: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of suramin, hydrocortisone, leuprolide, and flutamide in previously untreated metastatic prostate cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients with stage D2 and poor-prognosis stage D1 prostate cancer were given suramin on a pharmacokinetically derived dosing schedule to maintain suramin concentrations between 175 and 300 micrograms/mL. Additionally, all patients received flutamide 250 mg orally three times daily, initiated on day 1 and continued until disease progression; depot leuprolide 7.5 mg intramuscularly begun on day 5 and repeated every 4 weeks indefinitely; and replacement doses of hydrocortisone., Results: Fifty patients were entered onto the study: 48 with stage D2 and two with stage D1 disease. The median age was 59 years (range, 42 to 79) and 31 patients had a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) of 100%. Forty-five patients had bone metastases and 25 had measurable soft tissue disease. Forty-one (82%) had severe disease. The overall response rate in 49 assessable patients was three complete responses (CRs) and 30 partial responses (PRs) for an overall response rate of 67%. Eighteen patients have died. The median survival time has not been reached, with a median potential follow-up duration of 44 months. Grade 3 to 4 toxicity was seen in 38% of patients and was predominantly hematologic and reversible., Conclusion: The high response rate and prolonged survival in a poor-prognosis group of patients with metastatic prostate cancer warrant a phase III randomized comparison of this regimen versus hormonal therapy alone. Toxicity was moderate and reversible.

Thirty-one assessable patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the gastrointestinal tract were entered onto a pilot study designed to assess the impact of recombinant interferon alpha-2a (rIFN alpha-2a) on the toxicity and pharmacokinetics of fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV). Patients received an initial cycle of 5-FU (370 or 425 mg/m2/d) with LV (500 mg/m2/d) for 5 days. If tolerated, the patient received the same dose of 5-FU/LV for the second cycle on days 2 to 6, with rIFN alpha-2a at 5 x 10(6) or 10 x 10(6) U/m2/d on days 1 to 7, or with 3 x 10(6) U/m2/d on days 1 to 14. In 26 matched cycles, rIFN alpha-2a administration was associated with an increased incidence of dose-limiting mucositis and diarrhea and a significantly lower median platelet nadir; rIFN alpha-2a did not significantly affect the median WBC or granulocyte nadir. Dose-limiting toxicity occurred in all six patients entered at 425 mg/m2/d of 5-FU/LV within two cycles. The majority of patients treated with 370 mg/m2/d of 5-FU/LV and 10 x 10(6) U/m2/d rIFN alpha-2a experienced grade 3 to 4 mucositis and diarrhea, whereas patients receiving 3 x 10(6) and 5 x 10(6) U/m2/d rIFN alpha-2a had acceptable toxicity. Administration of rIFN alpha-2a was associated with a dose-dependent decrease in 5-FU clearance. The increase in the area under the 5-FU concentration-time curve (AUC) was 1.3-fold and 1.5-fold in patients receiving 5 x 10(6) and 10 x 10(6) U/m2/d rIFN alpha-2a, respectively. Thus, the increase in 5-FU toxicity with rIFN alpha-2a may be explained by alterations in 5-FU pharmacokinetics. In 22 patients without prior 5-FU therapy, three complete (13.6%) and seven partial (31.8%) responses were seen, for an overall response rate of 45.4% (95% confidence interval, 24.4% to 67.8%). Since the 5 x 10(6) U/m2/d dose of rIFN alpha-2a increased the 5-FU drug exposure and was associated with acceptable toxicity, we recommend its further evaluation as given on days 1 to 7 in combination with 5-FU 370 mg/m2/d, with high-dose LV given on days 2 to 6.