CancerNetwork Members: Login | Register
Become a fan on  Facebook  Add us on  Google Plus Follow us on  Twitter Join us on LinkedIn Sign up for our Newsletters Subscribe to our RSS Feed

 

CancerNetwork SearchMedica Medline Drugs

Powered by SearchMedica

 
PUBLICATIONS
NEWS
PODCASTS
TOPICS
BLOGS
NURSES
PATIENTS
JOBS
CONFERENCES
CME
SUPPLEMENTS
 

Home » Genitourinary Cancer » Prostate Cancer

ONCOLOGY. Vol. 25 No. 6
Pages: 1  2  3  
Previous Next
REVIEW ARTICLE 

Evolving Therapeutic Paradigms for Advanced Prostate Cancer

By Joshua M. Ruch, MD1,Maha H. Hussain, MD, FACP1,2 | May 16, 2011
1 Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
2Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Agents Targeting the Androgen Pathway

Androgen signaling is a critical and validated therapeutic target in both hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and CRPC. While the utility of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is well-established in androgen-sensitive disease, targeting the androgen pathway remains important in CRPC, based on evidence that these cells continue to rely on androgen synthesis and receptor signaling.[30-34]

TABLE 3
Selected Ongoing or Recently Accrued Phase III Trials in CRPC[91]

GnRH antagonists in hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

ADT has long been the standard of care for patients with androgen-sensitive prostate cancer.[35] Bilateral orchiectomy is considered the gold standard of ADT but is not as widely used as medical therapy for a variety of reasons, including patient preference and the ability to implement intermittent ADT with medical therapy. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists are the most widely used form of ADT. However, a downside of these agents is the initial testosterone surge that can precipitate clinical disease flare and may necessitate the concomitant use of an antiandrogen.

(MORE: Evolving Therapeutic Paradigms for Advanced Prostate Cancer: What's Needed to Make Optimal Use of the New Treatments)

Degarelix (Firmagon) is a GnRH antagonist that has been shown to produce rapid and sustained testosterone suppression without causing an initial testosterone surge.[36] Degarelix was approved by the FDA in 2008 based on a phase III trial of 601 patients who required initial ADT. The results showed that over 95% of the patients treated with degarelix achieved a castration level of testosterone within three days, compared with none of the patients treated with leuprolide (Lupron). An updated analysis revealed a statistically significant decrease in the incidence of PSA recurrence (a secondary endpoint) at one year using degarelix compared with leuprolide [37]. Overall, adverse reactions with degarelix were representative of those commonly seen with ADT: 40% of treated patients experienced injection site reactions, which were overall mild.[36]

Degarelix provides another option for treating patients. It is useful in patients who have an indication for ADT but who are at high risk for prostate cancer–related flare symptoms, such as bone pain, urethral obstruction, or spinal cord compression. The currently available formulation requires an injection every 28 days, which is less convenient for patients than the available formulations of GnRH agonists that can be given less frequently (eg, every three, four, or six months).

Androgen signaling inhibition in CRPC

Despite initial success with ADT, progression to CRPC is inevitable for most patients. However, there is clear evidence that CRPC remains androgen driven through multiple different mechanisms.[30-34] These include increased expression of the androgen receptor (AR), increased activity of the AR through various gene mutations, and up-regulation of steroidogenic enzymes (such as CYP17) that lead to increased androgen production.[32]

CYP17 Inhibitors. Abiraterone is a novel inhibitor of the adrenal enzyme CYP17 (17α-hydroxylase/17,20-lyase), which is involved in the production of androgenic steroids. Results from several recently published phase I and II studies have shown abiraterone’s antitumor effects as reflected by measurable disease responses and prolonged time to PSA progression.[38-41] A recently reported phase III study randomly assigned 1195 patients with CRPC who had failed docetaxel(Drug information on docetaxel)-based therapy to treatment with prednisone(Drug information on prednisone) plus either abiraterone or placebo.[42] The results showed that abiraterone was associated with improvements in overall survival (14.8 months vs 10.9 months; HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.54-0.77]; P < .0001) and time to tumor progression (10.2 months vs 6.6 months; HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.46-0.73]; P < .0001). Radiographic progression-free survival and PSA response were also significantly improved with abiraterone (5.6 months vs 3.6 months, and 38% vs 10%, respectively). Abiraterone was well tolerated, with the most frequent adverse events being hypertension, hyperkalemia, and fluid retention.[42] Another phase III study is evaluating abiraterone in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients with CRPC who have not received cytotoxic or biologic therapy.[43] Because this agent inhibits the production of both adrenal androgens and corticosteroids, concomitant exogenous steroid administration (eg, prednisone) is required.

Abiraterone was recently approved by the FDA for patients with metastatic CRPC post docetaxel therapy.

Orteronel (TAK-700) is another inhibitor of CYP17 that has been shown to cause powerful and selective suppression of androgen production in animals.[44] Available data suggest no dose-response relationship, and because lower dose levels have no impact on adrenal corticosteroid production, orteronel presents a potential clinical advantage over abiraterone in that exogenous corticosteroids may not be needed; oreteronel may thus be better suited for long-term use. Orteronel is currently undergoing investigation in a variety of settings: a phase II trial is evaluating orteronel in patients with non-metastatic CRPC, and two phase III trials are evaluating its use in patients with metastatic CRPC who are chemotherapy-naïve and who develop progressive disease after docetaxel.[45-47]

Antiandrogens. MDV3100 is an oral androgen antagonist with a higher affinity for the androgen receptor than bicalutamide(Drug information on bicalutamide) (Casodex).[48] It is also a pure antagonist, whereas bicalutamide is a partial agonist. In a recently published phase I/II study of 140 patients with progressive, metastatic CRPC treated with MDV3100, 78 out of 140 (56%) experienced at least a 50% decrease in serum PSA concentration, and 13 out of 59 (22%) experienced a response in measurable soft-tissue disease. Overall, this agent was well tolerated, with fatigue being the most common toxicity. However, the most common adverse event leading to drug discontinuation was seizure, which occurred in 3 out of 53 patients who received doses of MDV3100 above the maximum tolerated dose. An ongoing phase III trial of patients with CRPC who have not been treated with chemotherapy is randomly assigning patients to treatment with MDV3100 or placebo.[49] Another phase III trial is investigating MDV3100 compared to placebo in patients with CRPC who develop progressive disease after receiving docetaxel.[50] These trials will establish the efficacy and safety of this agent.

Although the focus of research involving this class of agents and the CYP17 inhibitors has been on castration-resistant disease, clearly they may play an even more important role in the setting of hormone-sensitive disease. Trials are therefore critically needed to determine their efficacy in this latter setting.

Pages: 1  2  3  
Previous Next
 

Join the Conversation

Want to join the conversation? If you're a healthcare professional, we'd like to hear your comments. Just sign in or register today to become part of our growing, online community.

  • Oldest First
  • Newest First

by Steven Porsche | December 30, 2011 10:33 AM EST

Dr Hussain should also note that the FDA is well aware of this class of therapies' delayed effect on progression:

"Testing cancer vaccines using the conventional model may not allow time for development of an anti-tumor immune response needed for activity/effectiveness because of the potentially short time interval from administration of study agent to subsequent disease progression in patients with metastatic cancer....

In oncologic practice, patients are usually taken off current treatment when they have disease progression/recurrence. Because cancer vaccines need time to elicit an immune response that could manifest as biological activity (i.e., a tumor specific immune response), a delayed effect can be expected in the subjects who have received the vaccines. Shortly after the initial cancer vaccine administration, subjects may experience disease progression prior to the onset of biological activities or effects from the vaccine (delayed effects)."

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/Vaccines/ucm182443.htm

by robert rostock | December 30, 2011 10:29 AM EST

I don't understand the reasoning for including an active agent as a control against future trials of an agent that already is known to improve survival. . What does lack of effect on progression have to do with requiring provenge be tested against an active agent as a control? That doesn't solve the problem of figuring out who benefits. We still won't know who benefited from provenge even if it is tested against an active agent. Survival is still the gold standard. Provenge affects that. Also, taxotere patients with visceral mets were a minority, so what? Provenge isn't approved for visceral mets. With other approved agents now on board, its logical that any new treatment will have to be tested against proven therapies before they are approved for anything but end of the line treatment.
To carry the author's logic to its conclusion., survival is the gold standard. So any new treatment should be tested with provenge as a control not visa versa. Provenge has already met the gold standard of approval by affecting survival..
I addition we never know if a treatment will lbenefit a patient before we try it. It is only in retrospect that we know an agent like taxotere benefited a patient. All patients still receive the treatment just like they would with provenge. The issue for provenge becomes one of when to add another treatment or sequencing since there is no surrogate marker for survival. Sequencing trials need to be performed not trials comparing provenge with active controls. We already know provenge affects survival.

by Steven Porsche | December 30, 2011 10:09 AM EST

Dr Hussain writes the following critigue of Provenge: "As in the other two studies, no antitumor effect was seen, as reflected by the lack of difference in time to disease progression, symptom improvement, decrease in PSA level, or other measure of disease response.

The most common adverse reaction seen with sipuleucel-T was an infusion reaction, occurring within 24 hours in 71.2% of patients (3.5% had grade 3 reactions) and manifested by chills, fever, fatigue, nausea, tachycardia, and hypertension.[19-21] Other common side effects included headache, back pain, and joint pain. Overall, grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 23.6% and 4% of patients, respectively, with the most common being back pain and chills.[7] In one trial, cerebrovascular events occurred in 7.5% of patients treated with sipuleucel-T (11 of 147) vs 2.6% of patients in the control group (2 of 76).[21]

A common concern regarding sipuleucel-T has been the lack of any demonstrable antitumor effect in any of the randomized trials as compared with results in the control groups-and therefore, the inability to assess response at the individual patient level.[22,23] It remains to be proven whether conventional response measures are appropriate with this class of agents or not. If not, then until adequate efficacy assessment measures are established, we strongly recommend that future phase III testing of such agents include an active control arm proven to be of benefit so as to allow confidence in the trial results with regard to comparable or superior outcome. This is especially important considering the per-patient cost of treatment with sipuleucel-T and the fact that it does not obviate the need for chemotherapy.[23] Proponents of this agent argue that the cost is comparable to that of other biologic agents approved by the FDA and that the price may be offset by the more favorable side-effect profile of sipuleucel-T (compared to chemotherapy).[24] However, since this agent was tested in a different patient population than that included in the docetaxel trials (which allowed accrual of patients with pain and visceral disease), and since none of the trials compared sipuleucel-T to an active control with established clinical benefit, the fact remains that thousands of patients will receive a full course of therapy without the certainty of knowing who may be benefiting."

Dr. Hussain makes some clear factual errors in her critique of Provenge.

Dr. Hussain cites above:

" In one trial, cerebrovascular events occurred in 7.5% of patients treated with sipuleucel-T (11 of 147) vs 2.6% of patients in the control group (2 of 76).[21]"

What citation 21 actually says:

"Cerebrovascular events were reported for 8 of 338 patients (2.4%) in the sipuleucel-T group and 3 of 168 patients (1.8%) in the placebo group (P=1.00 by Fisher's exact test). The incidence rate was 1.33 cerebrovascular events per 100 person-years (95% CI, 0.58 to 2.62) in the sipuleucel-T group and 1.11 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 0.23 to 3.24) in the placebo group. The median interval between the most recent infusion and the event was 210 days in the sipuleucel-T group and 196 days in the placebo group."

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1001294#t=articleTop

What Dr. Hussain cites above:

"The most common adverse reaction seen with sipuleucel-T was an infusion reaction, occurring within 24 hours in 71.2% of patients (3.5% had grade 3 reactions) and manifested by chills, fever, fatigue, nausea, tachycardia, and hypertension.[19-21] Other common side effects included headache, back pain, and joint pain. Overall, grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 23.6% and 4% of patients, respectively, with the most common being back pain and chills.[7]"

What Dr. Hussain left out on citation 7:

"Serious adverse events (SAEs) include any life-threatening or fatal event, inpatient hospitalization, or persistent or significant disability. Overall, 24.0% of subjects in the sipuleucel-T group and 25.1% of subjects in the placebo group developed an SAE."

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/CellularGeneTherapyProducts/ApprovedProducts/UCM213114.pdf

Then Dr. Huissain cites Dr. Longo's in error cost analysis which was corrected below by Dr. Nabhan:

"In his editorial on the efficacy of sipuleucel-T in castration-resistant prostate cancer, Longo argues that the cost of this immunotherapy is high per life saved, and he questions the overall survival advantage without a measurable antitumor effect.1 First, Longo suggests that $1,800 per month is sufficient to care for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer; this estimate was based on retrospective registry data, which included patients who did not receive docetaxel.2 According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the cost per cycle of docetaxel is $2,413 (based on 1.8% of body-surface area and a docetaxel dose of 75 mg per square meter).3 The cost for a median of 10 cycles4 is $24,000 per patient. This cost is independent of treatment-related supportive measures, blood transfusions, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations, which can easily double the cost of a complete course of chemotherapy, based on very conservative payment rates in the United Kingdom.5 Second, overall survival was superior with sipuleucel-T, despite a crossover trial design. The lack of effect on time to progression may be explained by frequent monitoring that can detect disease progression before the onset of antitumor activity. The fact that other immunotherapy studies showed an overall survival advantage without affecting time to progression6 supports this hypothesis and suggests a class effect."

Chadi Nabhan, M.D.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1001294#t=letters

Nor does Dr. Hussain address the cost of Zytiga at $5k/mo. which could get very costly if used pre-chemo, ie, possibly over 20 plus months, nor the health effects of long term steroid usage, nor all the patient monitoring required for Zytiga, ie, electrolytes, liver function, etc.

This article reviewed

Advanced Prostate Cancer: New Agents, New Questions

Evolving Therapeutic Paradigms for Advanced Prostate Cancer: What's Needed to Make Optimal Use of the New Treatments






 
RELATED CONTENT

Palliative Radiotherapy in Elderly Patients With Bone Metastases Improves Quality of Life
May 20, 2013
New AUA Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Screening
May 17, 2013
Lower Back Pain in an Elderly Man With a History of Localized Prostate Cancer
May 17, 2013
Radium-223 Gets Early FDA Nod for Bone Mets in Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer
May 16, 2013
Rising PSA Level in a 46-Year-Old Man
ONCOLOGY,  May 15, 2013
 
TOPIC INDEX

Cancer Types

 
  • Breast
  • Breast (HER2+)
  • Breast (Triple-Negative)
  • CML
  • Colorectal
  • Gastrointestinal
  • GIST
  • Genitourinary
  • Gynecologic
  • Head & Neck
  • Hematology
  • Kidney (Renal Cell)
  • Leukemia
  • Lung
  • Lymphoma
  • Melanoma
  • Multiple Myeloma
  • Ovarian
  • Prostate
  • Sarcoma

Supportive Care

More Topics

  • Bone Metastases
  • End-of-Life Care
  • Palliative Care
  • Ethics in Oncology
  • Practice Management
  • Practice & Policy


All Topics 


 
   SEARCH MEDICA RX
   Browse drugs by name:
A B C D E F G H I J
K L M N O P Q R S T
U V W X Y Z All      
   Search for drugs:
Search

 

 
FROM PHYSICIANS PRACTICE
Five Steps to Improving Patient Access
Judy Capko,  May 21, 2013
Patient access is getting increased attention through reform initiatives. Here are five steps you can take to make sure patients get appropriate access to care in your office.
Growing HIPAA Threat – Ignore Windows XP at Your Own Peril
Marion K. Jenkins,  May 21, 2013
Chances are good that you have some major ticking software time bombs lurking in your medical practice's computer environment, namely Windows XP and Server 2003.
Finding Physician Work-Life Balance in the Small Moments
Jennifer Frank, MD,  May 21, 2013
At my practice and at home, things are always busy. There's laundry or homework, or a patient with needs.
Three Areas to Reduce Costs at Your Medical Practice
Greg Mertz,  May 19, 2013
By taking a hard look at reducing costs for staffing, overhead, and technology at your medical practice, you may see increased physician compensation.
Dos and Don’ts for Starting a Physician Blog
Michael Woo-Ming, MD,  May 18, 2013
Starting a physician blog can provide your medical practice with marketing benefits, but it's important to do it right.
 

 

 
MOST POPULAR
  • Most Popular
  • Most Emailed
  • Most Recent
  • Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Targeted Therapies
  • Colorectal Lesions
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Slide Show: Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck
  • The ABCDEs of Moles and Melanomas
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Targeted Therapies
  • Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: An Update on Treatment
  • Colorectal Lesions
  • ONS: Understanding Spirituality and How It Can Be Used to Help Patients
  • Breast Cancer Screening, Risk, and Options for High-Risk Women
  • Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Therapy Innovations
  • A 52-Year-Old Man Presents With an Erythematous Lesion
  • Bone Metastases
  • Palliative Radiotherapy in Elderly Patients With Bone Metastases Improves Quality of Life
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
 
COMMENTS
  • Most Commented
  • Most Recent
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Financial Toxicity, Part II: How Can We Help With the Burden of Treatment-Related Costs?
  • Preventing Exposure to Hazardous Drugs
  • Conflicts of Interest in Medicine: What About Ties to Payers?
  • Planning Treatment for Women With Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer
  • Preventing Exposure to Hazardous Drugs
  • Cancer Metabolism as a Therapeutic Target
  • Study: Cholesterol Drugs Reduced Risk of Prostate Cancer Death
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • ONS: Safe Handling of Chemotherapy
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter


 
SearchMedica Search Result

Find peer-reviewed literature and websites for practicing medical professionals

CME on Prostate Cancer
Evidence on Prostate Cancer
Guidelines on Prostate Cancer
Patient Education on Prostate Cancer
Clinical Trials on Prostate Cancer
Practical Articles on Prostate Cancer
Research and Reviews on Prostate Cancer
All "Prostate Cancer" results

CancerNetwork | ConsultantLive | Diagnostic Imaging | Musculoskeletal Network | OBGYN.net | PediatricsConsultantLive |
Physicians Practice | Psychiatric Times | SearchMedica | Medical Resources

© 1996 - 2013 UBM Medica LLC, a UBM company
Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Advertising Information - Editorial Policy Statement - UBM Medica Network Privacy Policy