[Therapy sequences and duration in mCRPC: a retrospective review of the Lübeck mCRPC cohort].

Abstract

Background: Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in men in Europe. Several classes of agents can be considered for the treatment of metastatic prostate carcinoma, and their use is supported by extensive guidelines. In the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), it is currently unclear which sequence of systemic therapies is most effective. Currently approved system therapies in the castration-resistant setting generally include hormone-manipulating agents, taxane-based chemotherapies, radioactive agents, or inhibitiors of DNA repair mechanisms. This study aims to summarize real world data of mCRPC therapy.

Methods: Retrospectively, 90 mCRPC patients undergoing treatment at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck Campus between February 2006 and March 2020 were identified. The patient data were analyzed for their treatment sequence and disease progression. Due to the inclusion period, the mCRPC therapy sequences studied were limited to: Abiraterone, Cabazitaxel, Docetaxel, Enzalutamide, Lutetium-177-PSMA and Radium-223. The analysis includes the therapy sequences and their duration, clinical information of the respective cohort, overall and cancer-specific survival (OS/CSS) as well as time to second-line therapy in relation to the respective first-line therapy.

Results: Approximately two-thirds of patients underwent a true therapy sequence (at least two of the drugs listed above), with this proportion halving by the third line.The majority of patients received the sequence (first/second line) abiraterone/docetaxel (n=13), followed by docetaxel/abiraterone (n=12) and abiraterone/enzalutamid (n=10) and docetaxel/docetaxel (n=8).Within the different docetaxel sequences, first-line (mean 4.7 months ± SD 3.1; median 4.0) and rechallenge (mean 5.3 months ± SD 5.9; median 3.0) therapy durations were the longest. The subjective side effect rate of docetaxel was lower in the second line, so that a better tolerability can be assumed here.The abiraterone/docetaxel sequence was used mainly in patients with metachronous metastases. Among the different sequences of abiraterone, first-line (mean 10.8 months ± SD 10.2; median 9.0) and second-line (mean 10.6 months ± SD 9.0; median 7.0) therapy durations were the longest.The sequence abiraterone/enzalutamide was prescribed mainly to older patients with synchronous metastases. Among the different enzalutamide sequences first-line (mean 9.6 months ± SD 7.1; median 7.0) and rechallenge (mean 11.0 ± SD 0.0; median 11.0) therapy durations were the longest.In contrast, the sequence docetaxel/docetaxel was used mainly in younger patients with a high initial PSA.The evaluation shows a trend that both abiraterone and enzalutamide can account for a survival advantage in the first line.

Conclusion: Ultimately, an optimal treatment sequence cannot be confidently derived from these data.However, it was found that only a small proportion of patients underwent fourth- or even fifth-line treatment at all. Thus, the focus on first- and second-line in this study seems reasonable. It could be shown in a trend that docetaxel as first-line therapy seems to be disadvantegous regarding OS as well as CSS when compared to abiraterone or enzalutamide. However, due to the small number of patients in this study, a clear significance cannot be derived. Moreover, the subjectively better tolerability of docetaxel in the second-line setting could provide an impetus for treatment planning in multimorbid elderly patients in the future. The sequence abiraterone/docetaxel may offer a beneficial option for initial mCRPC therapy.