Anna Patrikidou , Calogero Saieva , Richard Lee-Ying , Pier Vitale Nuzzo , Talal El Zarif , Heather McClure , Matthew Davidsohn , Marc Eid , Gian Paolo Spinelli , Fabio Catalano , Malvina Cremante , Giuseppe Fotia , Sabrina Rossetti , Loana Valenca , Charles Vauchier , Carlotta Ottanelli , Livia Andrade , Vincenzo Gennusa , Ricardo Pereira Mestre , Giuseppe Fornarini , Edoardo Francini
{"title":"多西他赛与雄激素受体信号转导抑制剂 (ARSI) 作为二线疗法,用于治疗≥ 75 岁的转移性阉割抗性前列腺癌 (mCRPC) 老年患者:SPARTACUSS-Meet-URO 26 真实世界研究》。","authors":"Anna Patrikidou , Calogero Saieva , Richard Lee-Ying , Pier Vitale Nuzzo , Talal El Zarif , Heather McClure , Matthew Davidsohn , Marc Eid , Gian Paolo Spinelli , Fabio Catalano , Malvina Cremante , Giuseppe Fotia , Sabrina Rossetti , Loana Valenca , Charles Vauchier , Carlotta Ottanelli , Livia Andrade , Vincenzo Gennusa , Ricardo Pereira Mestre , Giuseppe Fornarini , Edoardo Francini","doi":"10.1016/j.clgc.2024.102230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Androgen receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSIs) abiraterone acetate (AA) enzalutamide (Enza), are currently the standard first-line (L1) treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and docetaxel (D) is reserved as second-line (L2) after ARSI failure. Nonetheless, D use in men ≥ 75 years old is restricted owing to treatment toxicities and patient comorbidities, and a L2 alternative ARSI is frequently used. We aimed to evaluate real-life survival and toxicity outcomes of these elderly patients after failure of L1 ARSI treatment.</div></div><div><h3>Material and Methods</h3><div>We retrospectively evaluated efficacy and safety in a real-world international cohort of consecutive patients ≥ 75 years old when starting L1 ARSI for mCRPC according to the choice of L2 treatment (D versus alternative ARSI).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the 122 identified patients, 57 (46.7%) had received L2 ARSI and 65 (53.3%) L2 D. No difference was found in the L1 overall survival (OS) for the ARSI and D groups (32.8 vs. 30.0 months, respectively; Hazard ratio [HR] = 1.22; 95% CI, 0.77-1.95; <em>P</em> = .40) or in the L2 OS (18.5 vs. 17.8 months, respectively; HR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.69-1.74; <em>P</em> = .71). No difference was observed for rPFS from L2 (<em>P</em> = .12), although a trend was observed for a numerically improved rPFS on D.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Within the limitations of a retrospective design and small population, our study suggests that D or ARSI after failure of L1 alternative ARSI are clinically comparable L2 options for elderly patients with mCRPC.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Docetaxel Versus Androgen-Receptor Signaling Inhibitors (ARSI) as Second-Line Therapy After Failure of First-Line Alternative ARSI for the Elderly ≥ 75 Years Old With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC): A SPARTACUSS—Meet-URO 26 Real-World Study\",\"authors\":\"Anna Patrikidou , Calogero Saieva , Richard Lee-Ying , Pier Vitale Nuzzo , Talal El Zarif , Heather McClure , Matthew Davidsohn , Marc Eid , Gian Paolo Spinelli , Fabio Catalano , Malvina Cremante , Giuseppe Fotia , Sabrina Rossetti , Loana Valenca , Charles Vauchier , Carlotta Ottanelli , Livia Andrade , Vincenzo Gennusa , Ricardo Pereira Mestre , Giuseppe Fornarini , Edoardo Francini\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clgc.2024.102230\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Androgen receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSIs) abiraterone acetate (AA) enzalutamide (Enza), are currently the standard first-line (L1) treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and docetaxel (D) is reserved as second-line (L2) after ARSI failure. Nonetheless, D use in men ≥ 75 years old is restricted owing to treatment toxicities and patient comorbidities, and a L2 alternative ARSI is frequently used. We aimed to evaluate real-life survival and toxicity outcomes of these elderly patients after failure of L1 ARSI treatment.</div></div><div><h3>Material and Methods</h3><div>We retrospectively evaluated efficacy and safety in a real-world international cohort of consecutive patients ≥ 75 years old when starting L1 ARSI for mCRPC according to the choice of L2 treatment (D versus alternative ARSI).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the 122 identified patients, 57 (46.7%) had received L2 ARSI and 65 (53.3%) L2 D. No difference was found in the L1 overall survival (OS) for the ARSI and D groups (32.8 vs. 30.0 months, respectively; Hazard ratio [HR] = 1.22; 95% CI, 0.77-1.95; <em>P</em> = .40) or in the L2 OS (18.5 vs. 17.8 months, respectively; HR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.69-1.74; <em>P</em> = .71). No difference was observed for rPFS from L2 (<em>P</em> = .12), although a trend was observed for a numerically improved rPFS on D.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Within the limitations of a retrospective design and small population, our study suggests that D or ARSI after failure of L1 alternative ARSI are clinically comparable L2 options for elderly patients with mCRPC.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1558767324002003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1558767324002003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Docetaxel Versus Androgen-Receptor Signaling Inhibitors (ARSI) as Second-Line Therapy After Failure of First-Line Alternative ARSI for the Elderly ≥ 75 Years Old With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC): A SPARTACUSS—Meet-URO 26 Real-World Study
Background
Androgen receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSIs) abiraterone acetate (AA) enzalutamide (Enza), are currently the standard first-line (L1) treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and docetaxel (D) is reserved as second-line (L2) after ARSI failure. Nonetheless, D use in men ≥ 75 years old is restricted owing to treatment toxicities and patient comorbidities, and a L2 alternative ARSI is frequently used. We aimed to evaluate real-life survival and toxicity outcomes of these elderly patients after failure of L1 ARSI treatment.
Material and Methods
We retrospectively evaluated efficacy and safety in a real-world international cohort of consecutive patients ≥ 75 years old when starting L1 ARSI for mCRPC according to the choice of L2 treatment (D versus alternative ARSI).
Results
Of the 122 identified patients, 57 (46.7%) had received L2 ARSI and 65 (53.3%) L2 D. No difference was found in the L1 overall survival (OS) for the ARSI and D groups (32.8 vs. 30.0 months, respectively; Hazard ratio [HR] = 1.22; 95% CI, 0.77-1.95; P = .40) or in the L2 OS (18.5 vs. 17.8 months, respectively; HR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.69-1.74; P = .71). No difference was observed for rPFS from L2 (P = .12), although a trend was observed for a numerically improved rPFS on D.
Conclusion
Within the limitations of a retrospective design and small population, our study suggests that D or ARSI after failure of L1 alternative ARSI are clinically comparable L2 options for elderly patients with mCRPC.