Oncology News / Literature Review / July-December 2019

E. Karatrasoglou, A. Tzovaras
{"title":"Oncology News / Literature Review / July-December 2019","authors":"E. Karatrasoglou, A. Tzovaras","doi":"10.2015/HC.V15I1.887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"1.                 Overall survival (OS) results of a phase III randomized trial of standard-of-care therapy with or without enzalutamide for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC): ENZAMET (ANZUP 1304), an ANZUP-led international cooperative group trial. \nTestosterone suppression (TS) is the backbone of treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Overall survival is improved by the addition of early docetaxel (DOC) or abiraterone to TS. The randomised phase 3 ENZAMET trial assessed the effects of enzalutamide (ENZA), a potent androgen receptor (AR) inhibitor, versus a nonsteroidal anti-androgen (NSAA: bicalutamide, nilutamide, or flutamide) in addition to SOC in mHSPC. \nMen (1125) with mHSPC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive TS plus either ENZA (160 mg daily, by mouth, until clinical disease progression or prohibitive toxicity) or NSAA (conventional NSAA, by mouth until clinical disease progression or prohibitive toxicity). All participants were to receive standard background therapy with a LHRHA or surgical castration, as per standard of care. The choice of the LHRHA or surgical castration was at the discretion of the treating clinician. Randomization was stratified by: volume of disease (high vs low, according to CHAARTED); planned early DOC; planned anti-resorptive therapy, comorbidity score (ACE-27), and study site. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Subgroup analyses to assess possible modulation of the treatment effect were specified a priori and included planned early docetaxel (yes vs no) and volume of disease (high vs low). \nAfter a median follow-up of 33 months. Overall survival was prolonged by ENZA. At 3 years, 36% NSAA vs 64% ENZA were still on their assigned study treatment. Serious adverse events (regardless of attribution) within 30 days of study treatment occurred in 42% ENZA vs 34% NSAA, commensurate with the different durations of study treatment. \nENZA significantly improved OS when added to SOC in mHSPC while the benefits appeared lower in those planned to receive early DOC.","PeriodicalId":91266,"journal":{"name":"Hospital chronicles = Nosokomeiaka chronika","volume":"15 1","pages":"33-35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital chronicles = Nosokomeiaka chronika","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2015/HC.V15I1.887","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

1.                 Overall survival (OS) results of a phase III randomized trial of standard-of-care therapy with or without enzalutamide for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC): ENZAMET (ANZUP 1304), an ANZUP-led international cooperative group trial. Testosterone suppression (TS) is the backbone of treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Overall survival is improved by the addition of early docetaxel (DOC) or abiraterone to TS. The randomised phase 3 ENZAMET trial assessed the effects of enzalutamide (ENZA), a potent androgen receptor (AR) inhibitor, versus a nonsteroidal anti-androgen (NSAA: bicalutamide, nilutamide, or flutamide) in addition to SOC in mHSPC. Men (1125) with mHSPC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive TS plus either ENZA (160 mg daily, by mouth, until clinical disease progression or prohibitive toxicity) or NSAA (conventional NSAA, by mouth until clinical disease progression or prohibitive toxicity). All participants were to receive standard background therapy with a LHRHA or surgical castration, as per standard of care. The choice of the LHRHA or surgical castration was at the discretion of the treating clinician. Randomization was stratified by: volume of disease (high vs low, according to CHAARTED); planned early DOC; planned anti-resorptive therapy, comorbidity score (ACE-27), and study site. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Subgroup analyses to assess possible modulation of the treatment effect were specified a priori and included planned early docetaxel (yes vs no) and volume of disease (high vs low). After a median follow-up of 33 months. Overall survival was prolonged by ENZA. At 3 years, 36% NSAA vs 64% ENZA were still on their assigned study treatment. Serious adverse events (regardless of attribution) within 30 days of study treatment occurred in 42% ENZA vs 34% NSAA, commensurate with the different durations of study treatment. ENZA significantly improved OS when added to SOC in mHSPC while the benefits appeared lower in those planned to receive early DOC.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肿瘤学新闻/文献综述/ 2019年7月- 12月
1.使用或不使用恩扎鲁胺治疗转移性激素敏感性前列腺癌症(mHSPC)的标准护理治疗的III期随机试验的总生存率(OS)结果:ENZAMET(ANZUP 1304),ANZUP领导的国际合作小组试验。睾酮抑制(TS)是治疗转移性激素敏感性前列腺癌症(mHSPC)的支柱。在TS中加入早期多西他赛(DOC)或阿比特龙可提高总生存率。随机3期ENZAMET试验评估了强效雄激素受体(AR)抑制剂恩扎鲁胺(ENZA)与除SOC外的非甾体抗雄激素(NSAA:比卡鲁胺、尼鲁胺或氟他胺)对mHSPC的影响。将患有mHSPC的男性(1125人)按1:1随机分配,接受TS加ENZA(每天160 mg,口服,直到临床疾病进展或抑制性毒性)或NSAA(常规NSAA,口服,直至临床疾病发展或抑制性中毒)。根据护理标准,所有参与者都要接受LHRHA或手术阉割的标准背景治疗。LHRHA或手术阉割的选择由治疗临床医生自行决定。随机分组依据:疾病数量(根据CHAARTED,高与低);计划早期DOC;计划的抗吸收治疗、共病评分(ACE-27)和研究地点。主要终点是总生存率。评估治疗效果可能调节的亚组分析是事先指定的,包括计划的早期多西他赛(是与否)和疾病量(高与低)。中位随访33个月后。ENZA延长了总生存期。3年时,36%的NSAA和64%的ENZA仍在接受指定的研究治疗。在研究治疗的30天内,42%的ENZA和34%的NSAA发生了严重不良事件(无论归因),这与研究治疗的不同持续时间相当。当添加到mHSPC的SOC中时,ENZA显著改善了OS,而那些计划接受早期DOC的患者的益处似乎更低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of Infliximab after Failure of Subcutaneous Anti-TNF Agents in Patients with Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis Hypocholesterolemia: a blessing or a problem? Physiotherapy in a Burn Patient Admitted in Intensive Care Unit Red Blood Cell Unit Utilization in the ICU: Evidence and Confidence Oncology News / Literature Review / July-December 2019
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1