Search

Biosimilars are biologic products that are highly similar, but not identical, to a licensed reference (or "originator") biologic product. These agents have the potential to provide efficiencies and improve access to treatment for patients. Biosimilars are currently available for use in clinical practice, including oncology indications, and several more are in clinical development. Due to several key differences in their fundamental properties, production and manufacturing of biosimilars is more complex compared with that of small-molecule generic drugs. Accordingly, the generic drug approval process is not suitable or transferable to biosimilars, the approval of which involves extensive and thorough comparison with the originator biologic. Advanced practice providers play an important role in evaluating treatment options available to patients, prescribing, patient education, and product monitoring. In order to perform these tasks effectively, advanced practice providers should understand the concepts related to biosimilars in clinical practice, particularly regarding extrapolation to other indications, product labeling, interchangeability between products, and routine pharmacovigilance, among other clinical considerations. However, many health-care providers have limited awareness and minimal experience regarding biosimilars. Thus, the purpose of this review is to provide an overview of biosimilars and discuss the clinical considerations for oncology advanced practice providers concerning these therapies.

OBJECTIVES To assess the performance of the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) prognostic tool for freedom-from-metastases (FFM) and cause-specific survival (CSS) in patients with localized prostate cancer treated with definitive external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and to determine whether the performance of CAPRA is influenced by androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use or the presence of Gleason pattern 5 (GP-5). MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 612 patients from a prospective database of 718 patients treated with dose-escalated EBRT from 1998 to 2008 who met CAPRA scoring criteria were included in the study. Performance of CAPRA and association of CAPRA score, GP-5 and short-term or long-term ADT use (STAD or LTAD, respectively) with FFM and CSS were evaluated using Cox models. The impact of ADT use on accuracy of the CAPRA-based CaPSURE model for CSS was assessed. The discriminatory ability of the CAPRA model and modified models incorporating GP-5 and ADT use were compared using the C-index. RESULTS Increasing CAPRA score correlated with worse FFM and CSS, and was prognostic for FFM and CSS for the overall cohort. CAPRA showed poorer discrimination for FFM and CSS in patients treated with EBRT+LTAD than those who received EBRT alone or EBRT+STAD. The addition of GP-5 and ADT use to CAPRA score increased the predictive accuracy of the CAPRA model for both FFM (C-index 0.809 vs. 0.779, P

Purpose/Objective(s) We sought to assess the utility of docetaxel administered concurrently with salvage radiation therapy (SRT) following postprostatectomy biochemical failure (BF). Methods and materials Men with postprostatectomy BF were accrued on a single-arm phase 2 clinical trial. SRT doses ranged from 64.8 to 70.2 Gy and were delivered in 1.8-Gy fractions to the prostate bed alone as the clinical target volume with a +1-cm uniform planning target volume expansion. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 4 years compared with the Stephenson nomogram estimate. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to assess late toxicity, BF, and distant metastases. An unplanned matched-pair analysis was performed with 19 patients treated with SRT alone. Results Nineteen men were accrued and treated. Median follow-up was 4.8 years. Median pre-RT prostate-specific antigen level was 0.7 ng/mL (interquartile range, 0.4-1.3 ng/mL). All 8 cycles of docetaxel were completed in 17 (89%) patients. Acute grade 1-4 toxicities were observed in 79%, 50%, 58%, and 11%, respectively. A total of 68% of acute grade 1 toxicities were related to fatigue, urinary, or bowel symptoms. For grade 2 toxicities, 76% were related to neutropenia, fatigue, or urinary symptoms. Acute grade 3 and 4 toxicities were most commonly neutropenia (84% and 100%, respectively). All late toxicities were grade 1 to 2 with 89% related to bowel or urinary function. Predicted 4-year progression-free survival was 39% and observed was 42% (90% confidence interval [CI], 24-60). Matched-pair analysis demonstrated no significant improvement in BF ( P = .96, hazard ratio, 0.98; 90% CI, 0.4-2.3) or distant metastases ( P = .09; hazard ratio, 0.3; 90% CI, 0.07-1.2), and no difference between late bowel ( P = .60) or urinary toxicity ( P = .41). Conclusions Docetaxel can safely be administered concurrently with SRT without significantly impacting posttreatment toxicity. Neutropenia was the most significant acute toxicity. Given the small sample size, no clear clinical benefit was observed. Larger studies are needed to determine the efficacy of concurrent docetaxel in this setting.