1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57
Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: AUA Guideline Amendment Michael S. Cookson, William T. Lowrance, Mohammad Hassan Murad and Adam S. Kibel* From the American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc., Linthicum, Maryland
Purpose: The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate relevant newlypublished literature to better provide a rational basis for the management of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: The original systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature yielded 303 articles published from 1996 through 2013. This review formed a majority of the guideline statements. Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions were used for guideline statements lacking sufficient evidencebased data. In April 2014, the CRPC guideline underwent amendment based on a second comprehensive literature search, which retrieved additional studies published between February 2013 and February 2014. Thirty-seven studies from this search provided data relevant to the specific treatment modalities for CRPC. Results: Guideline statements based on six index patients developed to represent the most common scenarios encountered in clinical practice were amended appropriately. The additional literature provided the basis for an update of current supporting text as well as the incorporation of new guideline statements. Specifically, the addition of Radium-223 was placed in the guidelines related to the treatment of CRPC. Conclusions: Given the rapidly evolving nature of this field, this guideline should be used in conjunction with recent systematic literature reviews and an understanding of the individual patient’s treatment goals. Patients’ preferences and personal goals should be considered when choosing management strategies. The newly incorporated evidence-based statements supplement the original guideline published in 2013, which provided guidance for the treatment of men with CRPC. This guideline will be continually updated as new literature emerges in the field.
Abbreviations and Acronyms AR ¼ androgen receptor CRPC ¼ castration-resistant prostate cancer ECOG ¼ Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group mCRPC ¼ metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer OS ¼ overall survival PFS ¼ progression-free survival PSA ¼ prostate specific antigen QoL ¼ quality of life RCT ¼ randomized controlled trial The complete guideline is available at www.AUAnet.org/education/guidelines/castrationresistant-prostate-cancer.cfm. This document is being printed as submitted independent of editorial or peer review by the Editors of The Journal of UrologyÒ. * Financial and/or other relationship with Dendreon and Sanofi Aventis.
Key Words: prostatic neoplasms, radium, radiopharmaceuticals
INTRODUCTION Purpose. As a result of the significant increase in multiple FDA approved therapeutic agents for use in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, clinicians are challenged with a multitude of treatment options and potential sequencing agents that, consequently, make clinical decision-making more complex. These Guidelines were developed to
provide a rational basis for treatment of patients with CRPC, based on currently available published data. The CRPC guideline was amended in 2014 to incorporate newly published literature specifically related to the use of radium-223 for the treatment of men with mCRPC. To assist in decision-making, six index patients were developed representing the most common scenarios that are
0022-5347/15/1932-0001/0 THE JOURNAL OF UROLOGY® © 2015 by AMERICAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, INC.
Dochead: Adult Urology
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.104 Vol. 193, 1-9, February 2015 Printed in U.S.A.
www.jurology.com
PGL 5.2.0 DTD JURO11945_proof 4 November 2014 10:20 am EO: JU-14-1854
j
1
58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114
2
115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171
AUA GUIDELINE AMENDMENT
172 the statements relating to all Index Patients can be found in the figure. ½F1 173 174 Since this is a rapidly evolving field, this guide175 line should be used in conjunction with recent sys176 tematic literature reviews and an understanding of 177 the individual patient’s treatment goals. In all 178 cases, the patient’s preferences and personal goals 1. Asymptomatic non-metastatic CRPC 179 should be considered when choosing therapy. 2. Asymptomatic or minimally-symptomatic mCRPC 180 Although we are discussing castration-resistant without prior docetaxel chemotherapy 181 disease, we support the standard of care to main3. Symptomatic mCRPC, good performance status, 182 tain castrate testosterone levels even in the face of no prior docetaxel chemotherapy 183 castration-resistant disease. 4. Symptomatic mCRPC, poor performance status, 184 Methodology no prior docetaxel chemotherapy 185 Consistent with the AUA published guideline 5. Symptomatic mCRPC, good performance status, 186 methodology framework,1 the initial guideline prior docetaxel chemotherapy 187 development began with a comprehensive system6. Symptomatic mCRPC, poor performance status, 188 atic review. The AUA commissioned an independent prior docetaxel chemotherapy 189 group to conduct a systematic review and meta190 The newly incorporated literature specifically analysis of the published literature on various 191 relates to Index Patients 3, 4 and 5. A summary of therapies for CRPC. The evidence report was 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 Summary flowchart 228 encountered in clinical practice. These index patients were created based on the presence or absence of metastatic disease, the degree of symptoms, the patients’ performance status (defined by the ECOG scale) and the prior treatment with docetaxel-based chemotherapy.
Dochead: Adult Urology
PGL 5.2.0 DTD JURO11945_proof 4 November 2014 10:20 am EO: JU-14-1854
AUA GUIDELINE AMENDMENT
229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285
limited to English-language, peer reviewed literature published between January 1996 and February 2013. Controlled vocabulary supplemented with keywords was used to search for the relevant concepts of prostate cancer and castration resistance. An expert panel identified additional references to supplement the electronic search, which were required to meet the same criteria as the previously used studies. The search strategy focused on commonly used as well as experimental therapies including systemic chemotherapy (estramustine, mitoxantrone, docetaxel, cabazitaxel), immunotherapy (sipuleucel-T) and vaccine therapy, agents targeting the androgen signaling pathway (abiraterone, ketoconazole, corticosteroids, antiandrogens), radiotherapy and radiopharmaceuticals (strontium-89 [MetastronÒ], Samarium- 153 [QuadrametÒ]), antiandrogen withdrawal, bone targeted therapies (zoledronic acid, denosumab), enzalutamide [androgen receptor inhibitor], palliative care and experimental therapy, (TAK700 [CYP-17 inhibitor], cabozantanib [cMET/ VEGFR inhibitor], radium-223 [AlpharadinÒ]). The methodology team independently rated the methodological quality of the studies and provided an overall judgment of the body of evidence based on confidence in the available estimates of effect. This initial review included 303 eligible studies that addressed the pre-identified questions of interest. A large body of evidence evaluated established chemotherapy agents such as docetaxel [19 Randomized controlled trials (RCTs)], estramustine (5 RCTs) and mitoxantrone (5 RCTs). Randomized evidence was also available for various immunotherapies (8 RCTs), therapies targeting the androgen signaling pathway (12 RCTs), radiotherapy and radiopharmaceuticals (4 RCTs) and bone targeting therapies (6 RCTs). The quality of these trials was acceptable overall and ranged from moderate to low risk of bias. All remaining studies were otherwise non-randomized (observational) and considered to be at high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence (confidence in the estimates) was limited in many studies by indirectness. Indirectness occurs when studies use surrogate endpoints that depend on laboratory or radiographic measurements (PSA-free survival, PSA decline or PFS based on imaging).2 These outcomes usually are surrogates for other important outcomes more essential for decision making, such as mortality, pain and quality of life (QoL). Imprecision (wide confidence intervals due to small number of events) was also common in most CRPC trials and can lower the confidence in the provided estimates. In April 2014 the CRPC guideline was updated through the AUA amendment process in which newly published literature is reviewed and integrated into Dochead: Adult Urology
3
previously published guidelines in an effort to maintain currency. The amendment allowed for the incorporation of additional literature released since the initial publication of this guideline in 2013. A comprehensive search of several databases from February 2013 to February 2014, English language, was conducted. The search strategy was designed and conducted by an experienced librarian with input from the study’s principle investigator. Controlled vocabulary supplemented with keywords was used to search for studies on therapy for CRPC. The search yielded 998 references, of which 662 were excluded after duplicate abstract and title review. We retrieved the full texts for the 336 included studies. Eventually, 37 studies provided relevant data on the specific treatment modalities for CRPC. The resulting amendment focuses on the incorporation of literature relevant to the use of radium223 in the treatment of men with mCRPC. The newly incorporated statements specifically relate to treatment of Index Patients 3, 4 and 5. Limitations of the Literature The initial systematic review and subsequent amendment process identified clear gaps in the available evidence base. None of the therapies identified in these reviews was curative or resulted in long-term remission. Therefore, primary research on new agents is clearly needed for this important and common condition. Future trials should also use and incorporate patient reported outcomes, such as QoL and pain control. For a complete discussion of the methodology and evidence grading, please refer to the unabridged guideline available at www.AUAnet.org/education/ guidelines/castration-resistant-prostate-cancer.cfm.
BACKGROUND Definition For the purpose of the guideline, CRPC was defined as a rising PSA level and/or radiographic evidence of prostate cancer progression despite medical or surgical castration. Incidence and Epidemiology Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed solid organ malignancy in the United States and remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths among American men. Approximately 240,000 new diagnoses of prostate cancer and over 28,000 deaths were estimated in the U.S. in 2012.3 Prostate cancer deaths are typically the result of mCRPC, and historically the median survival for men with mCRPC has been less than two years. The recent availability of novel treatments for mCRPC has given a resurgence of hope for these men as studies
PGL 5.2.0 DTD JURO11945_proof 4 November 2014 10:20 am EO: JU-14-1854
286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342
4
343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399
AUA GUIDELINE AMENDMENT
now demonstrate improved survival with a variety of new agents. However, the unfortunate reality is that mCRPC remains an incurable disease, and it is against this backdrop that we look to the future with cautious optimism and new hope for scientific discovery. The exact mechanism of transition from castration-sensitive prostate cancer to castrationresistant disease is still not fully understood, but with recent scientific breakthroughs in basic research, there is now a greater understanding. We now know that despite castrate levels of androgens, the androgen receptor remains active and continues to drive prostate cancer progression.4,5 This understanding has led to the development of novel agents aimed at further decreasing androgen production or blocking AR function. However, there are also many other biologic pathways that function independent of androgen signaling resulting in CRPC. The treatment of men with mCRPC has dramatically changed over the past decade. Prior to 2004, once patients failed primary androgen deprivation, treatments were administered solely for palliation. Landmark articles by Tannock et al6 and Petrylak et al7 demonstrated that docetaxel improved survival for these patients. Since the approval of docetaxel, five additional agents that show a survival benefit have been FDA-approved on the basis of randomized clinical trials. These have included enzalutamide and abiraterone, two agents designed specifically to affect the androgen axis;8,9 sipuleucel-T, which stimulates the immune system;10 cabazitaxel, a chemotherapeutic agent;11 and radium-223, a radionuclide therapy.12 These agents have been tested in multiple “disease states” of CRPC to determine if or when patients might benefit from each treatment. Other treatments for men with mCRPC have been shown to improve outcomes, but remain to be FDA approved.13
GUIDELINE AMENDMENTS Index Patient 1: Asymptomatic Non-metastatic CRPC The initial clinical presentation of CRPC occurs in a patient with a rising PSA despite castration. This is typically defined as a patient with a rising PSA and no radiologic evidence of metastatic prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 2 defines PSA only failure as a rising PSA that is greater than 2 ng/mL higher than the nadir; the rise has to be at least 25% over nadir and the rise has to be confirmed by a second PSA at least three weeks later. In addition, the patient is required to have castrate levels of testosterone (less than 50 ng/mL) and no radiographic evidence of metastatic Dochead: Adult Urology
disease.14 To date, there are no randomized trials showing an OS benefit in this patient population from a particular form of treatment. The 2014 amendment literature search did not uncover additional information relevant to this index patient; as such, Guideline Statements 1 to 3 related to Index Patient 1 remain unchanged. Index Patient 2: Asymptomatic or Minimally Symptomatic, mCRPC without Prior Docetaxel Chemotherapy This patient represents a common clinical presentation, and is characterized as having a rising PSA in the setting of castrate levels of testosterone, documented metastatic disease on radiographic imaging and no prior treatment with docetaxel chemotherapy. The key distinction between this patient and Index Patients 3 and 4 is symptom status. Specifically, this patient is defined as having no symptoms or mild symptoms attributable to his prostate cancer. However, one must then consider whether the patient requires regular opioid pain medications for symptoms thought to be attributable to documented metastases to achieve this level of pain control. In general, if patients require regular narcotic medications for pain relief, they are not included in this category. The 2014 amendment literature search did not uncover additional information relevant to this index patient; as such, Guideline Statements 4 and 5 related to Index Patient 2 remain unchanged. Index Patient 3: Symptomatic, mCRPC with Good Performance Status and no Prior Docetaxel Chemotherapy These patients have a rising PSA in the setting of castrate levels of testosterone, documented symptomatic metastatic disease on radiographic imaging and no prior history of docetaxel chemotherapy. The definition of symptomatic disease warrants additional explanation to contrast with Index Patient 2. First, the patient must have symptoms that are clearly attributable to the metastatic disease burden, not any other medical condition. Second, if having pain, the patient should require regular opiate pain medications for symptoms attributable to documented metastases in order to achieve an acceptable level of pain control. If patients require regular narcotic medications for pain relief, then they are symptomatic from their prostate cancer and should be included in this category. Additional information published since the 2013 release of this guideline related to the use of radium-223 in the treatment of CRPC warranted the addition of Guideline Statement 9. All other statements relevant to Index Patient 3 (Guideline Statements 6 to 8, 10) remain unchanged.
PGL 5.2.0 DTD JURO11945_proof 4 November 2014 10:20 am EO: JU-14-1854
400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456
AUA GUIDELINE AMENDMENT
457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513
Guideline Statement 9 Clinicians should offer radium-223 to patients with symptomatic, mCRPC with good performance status and no prior docetaxel chemotherapy with symptomatic bone metastases and without known visceral disease. (Standard; Evidence Strength: Grade B) Radium-223 is an a-emitting radiopharmaceutical capable of inducing double strand DNA breaks in cancer cells while minimizing exposure to surrounding marrow. The use of radium-223 for the treatment on bone metastases relies on the chemical similarity to calcium and the ability of the a-radiation and the short-lived decay products of radium-223 to kill cancer cells. The short range of a-radiation reduces the damage to surrounding healthy tissue creating a more localized effect compared to other radionuclide therapies, such as strontium-89. This is an appropriate treatment for patients with symptomatic bone pain and nonvisceral metastases. A phase III trial with radium-223 in symptomatic men with progressive mCRPC with or without prior docetaxel exposure and no evidence of visceral metastasis reported improvement in median survival (14.9 months vs 11.3 months, HR 0.695, 95% CI 0.581e0.832, p¼0.00007) in favor of radium-223 over placebo. Time to first skeleton related event improved from 9.8 month with placebo to 15.6 months with radium-223 (HR 0.658, 95% CI 0.522e0.830, p¼0.00037). Significant improvements in QoL measurements were reported in the patients treated with radium-223. Of the 921 patients of this trial, those receiving treatment were given six intravenous injections with a dose of 50 kBq per kilogram of body weight every four weeks.12 Rates of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were low at 2.2% and 6.3%, respectively.15 Index Patient 4: Symptomatic, mCRPC with Poor Performance Status and no Prior Docetaxel Chemotherapy Clinical trials have generally excluded patients with a poor performance status (ECOG 3-4) from participation. Thus, most data regarding management of patients is extrapolated from randomized trials of eligible patients who had a better performance status. Even a phase III clinical trial that was presumptively designed for a population considered “unfit” for docetaxel (ALSYMPCA to evaluate radium-223) still only allowed a performance status of ECOG 0-1. However, treatments with acceptable safety profiles do exist and should be considered, even in poor performance status patients. This is especially true in those patients in whom the poor performance status is directly related to the cancer Dochead: Adult Urology
5
itself and thus whose status might improve with treatment. Additional information published since the 2013 release of this guideline related to the use of radium-223 in the treatment of CRPC warranted the addition of Guideline Statement 14. All other statements relevant to Index Patient 4 (Guideline Statements 11 to 13, 15) remain unchanged. Guideline Statement 14 Clinicians may offer radium-223 to patients with symptomatic mCRPC with poor performance status and no prior docetaxel chemotherapy with symptomatic bone metastases and without known visceral disease in select cases, specifically when the performance status is directly related to symptoms related to bone metastases. (Expert Opinion) Radium-223 may be offered for patients with symptomatic bone pain and non-visceral metastases. Radium-223 has showed survival benefit in patients with good performance status. If it is believed that the poor performance status of Index Patient 4 is due to symptomatic bone pain, radium223 may also be beneficial to these patients. Samarium-153 and strontium-89 have not shown a survival benefit but may offer palliative benefit in patients symptomatic with bone pain. These are further discussed under Index Patient 6. Index Patient 5: Symptomatic, mCRPC with Good Performance Status and Prior Docetaxel Chemotherapy As patients with prostate cancer receive hormonal therapy earlier in the course of the disease (frequently for non-metastatic disease), they may actually develop castration-resistant disease (based on serologic progression) with non-metastatic or asymptomatic metastatic disease. Thus, additional agents, including docetaxel chemotherapy may be administered earlier in the course of metastatic disease. These trends have resulted in a population of mCRPC patients who have completed docetaxel and may continue to be asymptomatic or minimallysymptomatic with an excellent performance status. While such patients may be healthy enough to receive a number of subsequent therapies, a focus of therapy should also be to maintain their excellent performance status without significant toxicity from additional therapy. It is in this context that providers should choose from a number of additional therapies to offer to this patient population. Additional information published since the 2013 release of this guideline related to the use of radium-223 in the treatment of CRPC warranted the addition of Guideline Statement 19. All other statements relevant to Index Patient 5 (Guideline Statements 16 to 18) remain unchanged.
PGL 5.2.0 DTD JURO11945_proof 4 November 2014 10:20 am EO: JU-14-1854
514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570
6
571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627
AUA GUIDELINE AMENDMENT
Guideline Statement 19 Clinicians should offer radium-223 to patients with good performance status who received prior docetaxel chemotherapy with symptomatic bone metastases and without known visceral disease. (Standard; (Evidence Strength: Grade B) During the course of cancer treatment, bone marrow can become infiltrated by the cancer. Chemotherapeutic agents, such as docetaxel, can suppress bone marrow function while being used to extend survival and improve QoL. Radium-223 was shown to be an effective therapy in the previously discussed Parker et al. study12 in which 57% of patients had previously received chemotherapy. As with other treatments, such as electron beam radiation therapy, side effects can include anemia and thrombocytopenia. Those patients who have previously received chemotherapy are at greater risk for such side effects compared to chemotherapy na€ıve patients. Index Patient 6: Symptomatic, mCRPC with Poor Performance Status and Prior Docetaxel Chemotherapy The American Society of Clinical Oncology has posted recommendations regarding treatment for patients with advanced solid tumors; particularly in the last months of life. The society advocates for an increasing emphasis on a patient’s QoL and concentrates on symptom management. Treatment given in the last months of life may delay access to end of life care, increase costs and add unnecessary symptom management. Patients with poor performance status (ECOG 3 or 4) should not be offered further treatment (https://connection. asco.org/Magazine/Article/ID/3190/Choosing-WiselyConstructing-a-Top-Five-List-in-Oncology.aspx). Additional information published since the 2013 release of this guideline related to the use of radium-223 in the treatment of CRPC warranted the addition of discussion text to Guideline Statement 20; however, the statement itself as well as Guideline Statement 21 remains unchanged from the initial 2013 release of this guideline. Guideline Statement 20 Clinicians should offer palliative care to patients with mCRPC with poor performance status who received prior docetaxel chemotherapy. Alternatively, for selected patients, clinicians may offer treatment with abiraterone þ prednisone, enzalutamide, ketoconazole þ steroid or radionuclide therapy. (Expert Opinion) Palliative care is an interdisciplinary, holistic approach to managing an advanced disease such as cancer with a guarded prognosis. It can include controlling symptoms that are physical, psychological, Dochead: Adult Urology
spiritual and social. The goal of palliation is to prevent and relieve suffering and to support the best possible QoL for the patient and family. Advanced prostate cancer can be debilitating with bone pain, fatigue and weight loss. Palliative radiotherapy can be an option for controlling bone pain in some patients. An increasing dependence upon others and a feeling of losing control can contribute to anxiety and depression. Other symptoms include urinary outflow obstruction, weakness secondary to spinal cord compression, lymphedema and anemia. Evaluation and treatment should be comprehensive and patient centered, focusing on the goals of the individual patient as well as the patient’s family. Comprehensive palliative care often requires a multidisciplinary approach where various providers of differing expertise assess and treat the complex needs of the advanced disease prostate cancer patient.16,17 Radionuclide Therapy One example of a Phase III randomized clinical trial of radioactive samarium-153 (153Sm) lexidronam versus nonradioactive 153Sm-lexidronam for palliation of bone pain in patients with CRPC is by Sartor.18 A total of 152 men with painful bone metastases were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Patients were randomized (2:1) to the radioactive 153Sm-lexidronam agent. Patients completed pain and analgesic diaries twice daily. Blinded medications were given intravenously; the study was unblinded after four weeks when 28 of 52 placebo patients had not achieved satisfactory pain relief by week four; 22 of 28 chose to receive open label treatment with radioactive 153Sm-lexidronam. The authors concluded that 1 mCi/kg 153Sm-lexidronam is safe and effective for palliation of painful bone metastases in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Side effects included mild bone marrow suppression. Multiple non-randomized trials have been done with samarium-153 alone19,20 with unclear adverse events and outcomes. Other studies included samarium-153 with docetaxel;21,22 these studies were also unclear in outcomes or adverse events. Studies looking at radium-223 have focused on those patients with good performance status, and there is no data indicating an advantage over standard radiopharmaceuticals in this patient population. Bone Health The 2014 amendment literature search did not uncover additional information relevant to bone health; as such, Guideline Statements 22 and 23 remain unchanged from the 2013 publication of this guideline.
PGL 5.2.0 DTD JURO11945_proof 4 November 2014 10:20 am EO: JU-14-1854
628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684
AUA GUIDELINE AMENDMENT
685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741
FUTURE DIRECTIONS Over the past 15 years there has been un-paralleled scientific progress and investment in drug development for patients with mCRPC. As a direct result of these studies, several lines of systemic therapies have been FDA approved for use in mCRPC on grounds of pain palliation, minimizing disease adverse effects and prolonging survival. Ongoing Research In addition to agents discussed above, several other drugs are in the pipeline. Completed, Unpublished Phase III Trial as of Guideline Publication Enzalutamide: The Phase III PREVAIL trial evaluating enzalutamide versus placebo in chemotherapynaive men with mCRPC was stopped early by the Data Safety Monitoring Committee after an interim analysis revealed improvements in overall survival (HR 0.706, 95% CI 0.60e0.84) and radiographic progression-free survival (HR 0.186, 95% CI 0.15e0.23) for the enzalutamide arm. A total of 1,717 men with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic mCRPC (including some with visceral metastases) were randomly assigned to placebo versus 160 mg/day of enzalutamide.23 These data were recently published on June 1, 2014. As final publication occurred after the release of this guideline amendment, this publication will be incorporated into future updates of this guideline. Ongoing Phase III Trials as of Guideline Publication Orteronel. Orteronel is a CYP17A inhibitor but is more specifically a 17,20-lyase inhibitor. As of the publication of this amendment, this drug was being tested in a phase III trial comparing orteronel and prednisone to placebo and prednisone (NCT01193244). As of June 19, 2014, following the publication of this amendment, the development program for orteronel was voluntarily terminated following Phase III results that showed that the drug failed to extend patient OS. Tasquinomod. Tasquinomod is an orally active quinoline-3-carboxamide. It has anti-angiogenic and anti-tumor properties and is currently in ongoing phase III testing to assess men with bonemetastatic disease to assess its impact on survival (NCT01234311). Immunotherapy. Novel vaccine strategies to harness the immune system are being tested, such as PROSTVAC in asymptomatic, chemotherapyna€ıve men with mCRPC in a phase III study randomizing participants to PROSTVAC with or without GM-CSF or to placebo (NCT01322490). Other immune based strategies include inhibition Dochead: Adult Urology
7
of immune check points using Ipilimumab, which is a monoclonal anti-CTLA4 antibody that binds to the CTLA-4 receptor on T cells, blocking CTLA4 and, in turn, activating T-cell anti-tumor activity. A phase III study comparing ipilimumab to placebo is ongoing (NCT01057810). Custirsen. Custirsen inhibits the production of clusterin, a protein associated with treatment resistance in a number of cancers, including prostate cancer. Adding agents with novel or different mechanisms of action to a docetaxel-backbone remains an area of significant interest. Results are pending from the phase III trials combining docetaxel þ prednisone with custirsen, (NCT01188187), and another phase III trial was recently activated comparing cabazitaxel þ prednisone with or without custirsen (NCT01578655). Cabozantinib. Cabozantinib is a MET and VEGFR2 oral TKI. In a phase II trial, it had promising antitumor activity, particularly in patients with bone metastasis.24 It is currently in Phase III trials in the post docetaxel setting (NCT01605227 and NCT01522443). Future Research The impact on survival in mCRPC from each of these individual agents thus far remains modest, being measured only in months. To further impact outcomes, development in this stage of disease must focus on the totality of disease biology integrating a comprehensive molecular understanding of castration resistance and investigating mechanisms of resistance to current therapies so as to better guide future treatment development. One of the glaring deficiencies in prostate cancer drug development, by comparison to several other solid tumors, has been the lack of predictive biomarkers to help personalize therapy. This is especially important if we are to optimize risk/benefit, particularly given that a significant percentage of patients do not benefit or have small benefits from current FDA approved agents. In addition to the continued investigation of new agents in mCRPC, it is critical that we prospectively define the optimal sequence of approved treatments in order to guide proper use taking into account efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, maximizing the antitumor effect by investigating scientifically rational combinations should be an area of high priority. Over the past decade there have been considerable advances in our understanding of mCRPC that have led to an explosion of novel treatments. Unfortunately, mCRPC remains a fatal disease. Hence, research to maximize the efficacy of ADT with the use of even more effective agents and investigating
PGL 5.2.0 DTD JURO11945_proof 4 November 2014 10:20 am EO: JU-14-1854
742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798
AUA GUIDELINE AMENDMENT
8
799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855
alternative combination strategies in well-designed and supported clinical trials is critical.
PANEL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The AUA would like to recognize the members of the Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: AUA Guideline panel for their contributions to the development of the original guideline that served as a basis for this amendment: Michael S. Cookson, Bruce J. Roth, Philipp Dahm, Christine Engstrom, Stephen J. Freedland, Maha Hussain, Daniel W. Lin, William T. Lowrance, Mohammad Hassan Murad, William K. Oh, David F. Penson and Adam S. Kibel Disclaimer The original version of this Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Guideline was created in 2011 by a multi-disciplinary Panel assembled by the Practice Guidelines Committee (PGC) of the American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. (AUA). This amended Castration-Resistant Cancer Guideline, drafted in 2014 by a subset of the original Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel. This amendment updates the original guideline document to reflect literature released following the original publication. The mission of the original and amendment Panels was to develop clinical guideline recommendations based on an in-depth evidence report of the peer-reviewed literature. The recommendations are based on evidence strength, or where evidence is not available, on Delphi-modification consensus statements. The purpose of each guideline is to provide physicians and non-physician providers (primary care and specialists) with a consensus of principles and treatment plans for the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer. While these guidelines do not necessarily establish the standard of care, AUA seeks to recommend and to encourage compliance by practitioners with current best practices related to the condition being treated. Funding of the original and amendment Panels was provided by the AUA. Panel members receive no remuneration for their work. Panel members’ potential conflicts of interest are subject to rigorous
and on-going review during the development of the original Guideline and amendment Panel members are screened for conflicts throughout the amendment process. As medical knowledge expands and technology advances, AUA guidelines are subject to change. Evidence-based guidelines statements are not absolute mandates but thoroughly considered strategies for best practice under the specific conditions described in each document. For all these reasons, the guidelines do not pre-empt physician judgment in individual cases. Treating physicians must take into account variations in resources, and patient tolerances, needs, and preferences. Similarly, conformance with any clinical guideline cannot assure a successful outcome. These guidelines and best practice statements are not intended to provide legal advice. The guideline text may include information or recommendations about certain drug or device use (‘off label’) that are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or about medications or substances not subject to the FDA approval process. AUA urges strict compliance with all government regulations and protocols for prescription and use of these substances. The physician is encouraged to understand and carefully follow all available prescribing information about indications, contraindications, precautions and warnings. Although guidelines are intended to encourage best practices and to reflect available technologies with sufficient data as of the date of close of the literature review, guidelines are necessarily time-limited. Guidelines cannot include evaluation of all data on emerging technologies, pharmaceuticals or management practices, including both those that are FDA-approved, or those which may immediately come to represent accepted clinical practices. For this reason, the AUA does not regard emerging technologies or management techniques not addressed by this guideline as manifestly experimental or investigational. These emerging technologies or techniques may simply be too new to be included or fully incorporated in the Panel’s evidence-based evaluation at the time the guideline is developed.
REFERENCES 1. Faraday M, Hubbard H, Kosiak B et al: Staying at the cutting edge: a review and analysis of evidence reporting and grading; the recommendations of the American Urological Association. BJU Int 2009; 104: 294. 2. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA et al: GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004; 328: 1490. Dochead: Adult Urology
3. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A et al: Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012; 62: 10. 4. Montgomery RB, Mostaghel EA, Vessella R et al: Maintenance of intratumoral androgens in metastatic prostate cancer: a mechanism for castration-resistant tumor growth. Cancer Res 2008; 68: 4447.
5. Mohler JL, Titus MA, Bai S et al: Activation of the androgen receptor by intratumoral bioconversion of androstanediol to dihydrotestosterone in prostate cancer. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 1486. 6. Tannock IF, de Wit R, Berry WR et al: Docetaxel plus prednisone or mitoxantrone plus prednisone for advanced prostate cancer. N Eng J Med 2004; 351: 1502.
PGL 5.2.0 DTD JURO11945_proof 4 November 2014 10:20 am EO: JU-14-1854
856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912
AUA GUIDELINE AMENDMENT
913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942
7. Petrylak DP, Tangen CM, Hussain MHA et al: Docetaxel and estramustine compared with mitoxantrone and prednisone for advanced refractory prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 1513. 8. Scher HI, Fizazi K, Saad F et al: Increased survival with enzalutamide in prostate cancer after chemotherapy. N Eng J Med 2012; 367: 1187. 9. de Bono JS, Logothetis CJ, Molina A et al: Abiraterone and increased survival in metastatic prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 1995. 10. Kantoff PW, Higano CS, Shore ND et al: Sipuleucel-T immunotherapy for castrationresistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 411. 11. de Bono JS, Oudard S, Ozguroglu M et al: Prednisone plus cabazitaxel or mitoxantrone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel treatment: a randomized open-label trial. Lancet 2010; 376: 1147. 12. Parker C, Nilsson S, Heinrich D et al: Alpha emitter radium-223 and survival in metastatic prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 213. 13. Smith MR, Saad F, Coleman R et al: Denosumab and bone-metastasis-free survival in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer: results of a
Dochead: Adult Urology
9
phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2012; 379: 39.
samarium infusion: a pilot study. Support Care Cancer 2007; 15: 339.
14. Scher HI, Halabi S, Tannock I et al: Design and end points of clinical trials for patients with progressive prostate cancer and castrate levels of testosterone: recommendations of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 1148.
20. Dolezal J, Vizda J and Odrazka K: Prospective evaluation of samarium-153-EDTMP radionuclide treatment for bone metastases in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Urol Int 2007; 78: 50.
15. Parker C, Coleman RE, Nilsson S et al: Updated survival, quality of life (QOL), and safety data of radium-223 chloride (RA-223) in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) with bone metastases from the phase 3 double-blind, randomized, multinational study (ALSYMPCA). Ann of Oncol 2012; 23: ix294.
21. Fizazi K, Beuzeboc P, Lumbroso J et al: Phase II trial of consolidation docetaxel and samarium153 in patients with bone metastases from castration-resistant prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 2429.
16. de Bono DJ: Integration of palliative medicine into routine oncological care: what does the evidence show us? J Oncol Pract 2011; 7: 1. 17. Thompson JC, Wood J and Feuer D: Prostate cancer: palliative care and pain relief. Brit Med Bull 2007; 83: 341. 18. Sartor O: Overview of samarium Sm 153 lexidronam in the treatment of painful metastatic bone disease. Rev Urol 2004; 6: s3. 19. Ripamonti C, Fagnoni E, Campa T et al: Incident pain and analgesic consumption decrease after
22. Suttmann H, Grgic A, Lehmann J et al: Combining 153Sm-lexidronam and docetaxel for the treatment of patients with hormonerefractory prostate cancer: first experience. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2008; 23: 609. 23. Beer TM, Armstrong AJ, Rathkopf DE et al: Enzalutamid in metastatic prostate cancer before chemotherapy. New Engl J Med 2014; Epub ahead of print. 24. Smith DC, Smith MR, Sweeney C et al: Cabozantinib in patients with advanced prostate cancer: results of a Phase II randomized discontinuation trial. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31: 412.
PGL 5.2.0 DTD JURO11945_proof 4 November 2014 10:20 am EO: JU-14-1854
943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972
Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: AUA Guideline Amendment Michael S. Cookson, William T. Lowrance, Mohammad Hassan Murad and Adam S. Kibel* From the American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc., Linthicum, Maryland
Purpose: The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate relevant newlypublished literature to better provide a rational basis for the management of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: The original systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature yielded 303 articles published from 1996 through 2013. This review formed a majority of the guideline statements. Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions were used for guideline statements lacking sufficient evidencebased data. In April 2014, the CRPC guideline underwent amendment based on a second comprehensive literature search, which retrieved additional studies published between February 2013 and February 2014. Thirty-seven studies from this search provided data relevant to the specific treatment modalities for CRPC. Results: Guideline statements based on six index patients developed to represent the most common scenarios encountered in clinical practice were amended appropriately. The additional literature provided the basis for an update of current supporting text as well as the incorporation of new guideline statements. Specifically, the addition of Radium-223 was placed in the guidelines related to the treatment of CRPC. Conclusions: Given the rapidly evolving nature of this field, this guideline should be used in conjunction with recent systematic literature reviews and an understanding of the individual patient’s treatment goals. Patients’ preferences and personal goals should be considered when choosing management strategies. The newly incorporated evidence-based statements supplement the original guideline published in 2013, which provided guidance for the treatment of men with CRPC. This guideline will be continually updated as new literature emerges in the field.
Abbreviations and Acronyms AR ¼ androgen receptor CRPC ¼ castration-resistant prostate cancer ECOG ¼ Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group mCRPC ¼ metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer OS ¼ overall survival PFS ¼ progression-free survival PSA ¼ prostate specific antigen QoL ¼ quality of life RCT ¼ randomized controlled trial The complete guideline is available at www.AUAnet.org/education/guidelines/castrationresistant-prostate-cancer.cfm. This document is being printed as submitted independent of editorial or peer review by the Editors of The Journal of UrologyÒ. * Financial and/or other relationship with Dendreon and Sanofi Aventis.
Key Words: prostatic neoplasms, radium, radiopharmaceuticals
INTRODUCTION Purpose. As a result of the significant increase in multiple FDA approved therapeutic agents for use in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, clinicians are challenged with a multitude of treatment options and potential sequencing agents that, consequently, make clinical decision-making more complex. These Guidelines were developed to
provide a rational basis for treatment of patients with CRPC, based on currently available published data. The CRPC guideline was amended in 2014 to incorporate newly published literature specifically related to the use of radium-223 for the treatment of men with mCRPC. To assist in decision-making, six index patients were developed representing the most common scenarios that are
0022-5347/15/1932-0001/0 THE JOURNAL OF UROLOGY® © 2015 by AMERICAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, INC.
Dochead: Adult Urology
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.104 Vol. 193, 1-9, February 2015 Printed in U.S.A.
www.jurology.com
PGL 5.2.0 DTD JURO11945_proof 4 November 2014 10:20 am EO: JU-14-1854
j
1
58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114
2
115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171
AUA GUIDELINE AMENDMENT
172 the statements relating to all Index Patients can be found in the figure. ½F1 173 174 Since this is a rapidly evolving field, this guide175 line should be used in conjunction with recent sys176 tematic literature reviews and an understanding of 177 the individual patient’s treatment goals. In all 178 cases, the patient’s preferences and personal goals 1. Asymptomatic non-metastatic CRPC 179 should be considered when choosing therapy. 2. Asymptomatic or minimally-symptomatic mCRPC 180 Although we are discussing castration-resistant without prior docetaxel chemotherapy 181 disease, we support the standard of care to main3. Symptomatic mCRPC, good performance status, 182 tain castrate testosterone levels even in the face of no prior docetaxel chemotherapy 183 castration-resistant disease. 4. Symptomatic mCRPC, poor performance status, 184 Methodology no prior docetaxel chemotherapy 185 Consistent with the AUA published guideline 5. Symptomatic mCRPC, good performance status, 186 methodology framework,1 the initial guideline prior docetaxel chemotherapy 187 development began with a comprehensive system6. Symptomatic mCRPC, poor performance status, 188 atic review. The AUA commissioned an independent prior docetaxel chemotherapy 189 group to conduct a systematic review and meta190 The newly incorporated literature specifically analysis of the published literature on various 191 relates to Index Patients 3, 4 and 5. A summary of therapies for CRPC. The evidence report was 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 Summary flowchart 228 encountered in clinical practice. These index patients were created based on the presence or absence of metastatic disease, the degree of symptoms, the patients’ performance status (defined by the ECOG scale) and the prior treatment with docetaxel-based chemotherapy.
Dochead: Adult Urology
PGL 5.2.0 DTD JURO11945_proof 4 November 2014 10:20 am EO: JU-14-1854
AUA GUIDELINE AMENDMENT
229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285
limited to English-language, peer reviewed literature published between January 1996 and February 2013. Controlled vocabulary supplemented with keywords was used to search for the relevant concepts of prostate cancer and castration resistance. An expert panel identified additional references to supplement the electronic search, which were required to meet the same criteria as the previously used studies. The search strategy focused on commonly used as well as experimental therapies including systemic chemotherapy (estramustine, mitoxantrone, docetaxel, cabazitaxel), immunotherapy (sipuleucel-T) and vaccine therapy, agents targeting the androgen signaling pathway (abiraterone, ketoconazole, corticosteroids, antiandrogens), radiotherapy and radiopharmaceuticals (strontium-89 [MetastronÒ], Samarium- 153 [QuadrametÒ]), antiandrogen withdrawal, bone targeted therapies (zoledronic acid, denosumab), enzalutamide [androgen receptor inhibitor], palliative care and experimental therapy, (TAK700 [CYP-17 inhibitor], cabozantanib [cMET/ VEGFR inhibitor], radium-223 [AlpharadinÒ]). The methodology team independently rated the methodological quality of the studies and provided an overall judgment of the body of evidence based on confidence in the available estimates of effect. This initial review included 303 eligible studies that addressed the pre-identified questions of interest. A large body of evidence evaluated established chemotherapy agents such as docetaxel [19 Randomized controlled trials (RCTs)], estramustine (5 RCTs) and mitoxantrone (5 RCTs). Randomized evidence was also available for various immunotherapies (8 RCTs), therapies targeting the androgen signaling pathway (12 RCTs), radiotherapy and radiopharmaceuticals (4 RCTs) and bone targeting therapies (6 RCTs). The quality of these trials was acceptable overall and ranged from moderate to low risk of bias. All remaining studies were otherwise non-randomized (observational) and considered to be at high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence (confidence in the estimates) was limited in many studies by indirectness. Indirectness occurs when studies use surrogate endpoints that depend on laboratory or radiographic measurements (PSA-free survival, PSA decline or PFS based on imaging).2 These outcomes usually are surrogates for other important outcomes more essential for decision making, such as mortality, pain and quality of life (QoL). Imprecision (wide confidence intervals due to small number of events) was also common in most CRPC trials and can lower the confidence in the provided estimates. In April 2014 the CRPC guideline was updated through the AUA amendment process in which newly published literature is reviewed and integrated into Dochead: Adult Urology
3
previously published guidelines in an effort to maintain currency. The amendment allowed for the incorporation of additional literature released since the initial publication of this guideline in 2013. A comprehensive search of several databases from February 2013 to February 2014, English language, was conducted. The search strategy was designed and conducted by an experienced librarian with input from the study’s principle investigator. Controlled vocabulary supplemented with keywords was used to search for studies on therapy for CRPC. The search yielded 998 references, of which 662 were excluded after duplicate abstract and title review. We retrieved the full texts for the 336 included studies. Eventually, 37 studies provided relevant data on the specific treatment modalities for CRPC. The resulting amendment focuses on the incorporation of literature relevant to the use of radium223 in the treatment of men with mCRPC. The newly incorporated statements specifically relate to treatment of Index Patients 3, 4 and 5. Limitations of the Literature The initial systematic review and subsequent amendment process identified clear gaps in the available evidence base. None of the therapies identified in these reviews was curative or resulted in long-term remission. Therefore, primary research on new agents is clearly needed for this important and common condition. Future trials should also use and incorporate patient reported outcomes, such as QoL and pain control. For a complete discussion of the methodology and evidence grading, please refer to the unabridged guideline available at www.AUAnet.org/education/ guidelines/castration-resistant-prostate-cancer.cfm.
BACKGROUND Definition For the purpose of the guideline, CRPC was defined as a rising PSA level and/or radiographic evidence of prostate cancer progression despite medical or surgical castration. Incidence and Epidemiology Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed solid organ malignancy in the United States and remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths among American men. Approximately 240,000 new diagnoses of prostate cancer and over 28,000 deaths were estimated in the U.S. in 2012.3 Prostate cancer deaths are typically the result of mCRPC, and historically the median survival for men with mCRPC has been less than two years. The recent availability of novel treatments for mCRPC has given a resurgence of hope for these men as studies
PGL 5.2.0 DTD JURO11945_proof 4 November 2014 10:20 am EO: JU-14-1854
286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342
4
343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399
AUA GUIDELINE AMENDMENT
now demonstrate improved survival with a variety of new agents. However, the unfortunate reality is that mCRPC remains an incurable disease, and it is against this backdrop that we look to the future with cautious optimism and new hope for scientific discovery. The exact mechanism of transition from castration-sensitive prostate cancer to castrationresistant disease is still not fully understood, but with recent scientific breakthroughs in basic research, there is now a greater understanding. We now know that despite castrate levels of androgens, the androgen receptor remains active and continues to drive prostate cancer progression.4,5 This understanding has led to the development of novel agents aimed at further decreasing androgen production or blocking AR function. However, there are also many other biologic pathways that function independent of androgen signaling resulting in CRPC. The treatment of men with mCRPC has dramatically changed over the past decade. Prior to 2004, once patients failed primary androgen deprivation, treatments were administered solely for palliation. Landmark articles by Tannock et al6 and Petrylak et al7 demonstrated that docetaxel improved survival for these patients. Since the approval of docetaxel, five additional agents that show a survival benefit have been FDA-approved on the basis of randomized clinical trials. These have included enzalutamide and abiraterone, two agents designed specifically to affect the androgen axis;8,9 sipuleucel-T, which stimulates the immune system;10 cabazitaxel, a chemotherapeutic agent;11 and radium-223, a radionuclide therapy.12 These agents have been tested in multiple “disease states” of CRPC to determine if or when patients might benefit from each treatment. Other treatments for men with mCRPC have been shown to improve outcomes, but remain to be FDA approved.13
GUIDELINE AMENDMENTS Index Patient 1: Asymptomatic Non-metastatic CRPC The initial clinical presentation of CRPC occurs in a patient with a rising PSA despite castration. This is typically defined as a patient with a rising PSA and no radiologic evidence of metastatic prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 2 defines PSA only failure as a rising PSA that is greater than 2 ng/mL higher than the nadir; the rise has to be at least 25% over nadir and the rise has to be confirmed by a second PSA at least three weeks later. In addition, the patient is required to have castrate levels of testosterone (less than 50 ng/mL) and no radiographic evidence of metastatic Dochead: Adult Urology
disease.14 To date, there are no randomized trials showing an OS benefit in this patient population from a particular form of treatment. The 2014 amendment literature search did not uncover additional information relevant to this index patient; as such, Guideline Statements 1 to 3 related to Index Patient 1 remain unchanged. Index Patient 2: Asymptomatic or Minimally Symptomatic, mCRPC without Prior Docetaxel Chemotherapy This patient represents a common clinical presentation, and is characterized as having a rising PSA in the setting of castrate levels of testosterone, documented metastatic disease on radiographic imaging and no prior treatment with docetaxel chemotherapy. The key distinction between this patient and Index Patients 3 and 4 is symptom status. Specifically, this patient is defined as having no symptoms or mild symptoms attributable to his prostate cancer. However, one must then consider whether the patient requires regular opioid pain medications for symptoms thought to be attributable to documented metastases to achieve this level of pain control. In general, if patients require regular narcotic medications for pain relief, they are not included in this category. The 2014 amendment literature search did not uncover additional information relevant to this index patient; as such, Guideline Statements 4 and 5 related to Index Patient 2 remain unchanged. Index Patient 3: Symptomatic, mCRPC with Good Performance Status and no Prior Docetaxel Chemotherapy These patients have a rising PSA in the setting of castrate levels of testosterone, documented symptomatic metastatic disease on radiographic imaging and no prior history of docetaxel chemotherapy. The definition of symptomatic disease warrants additional explanation to contrast with Index Patient 2. First, the patient must have symptoms that are clearly attributable to the metastatic disease burden, not any other medical condition. Second, if having pain, the patient should require regular opiate pain medications for symptoms attributable to documented metastases in order to achieve an acceptable level of pain control. If patients require regular narcotic medications for pain relief, then they are symptomatic from their prostate cancer and should be included in this category. Additional information published since the 2013 release of this guideline related to the use of radium-223 in the treatment of CRPC warranted the addition of Guideline Statement 9. All other statements relevant to Index Patient 3 (Guideline Statements 6 to 8, 10) remain unchanged.
PGL 5.2.0 DTD JURO11945_proof 4 November 2014 10:20 am EO: JU-14-1854
400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456
AUA GUIDELINE AMENDMENT
457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513
Guideline Statement 9 Clinicians should offer radium-223 to patients with symptomatic, mCRPC with good performance status and no prior docetaxel chemotherapy with symptomatic bone metastases and without known visceral disease. (Standard; Evidence Strength: Grade B) Radium-223 is an a-emitting radiopharmaceutical capable of inducing double strand DNA breaks in cancer cells while minimizing exposure to surrounding marrow. The use of radium-223 for the treatment on bone metastases relies on the chemical similarity to calcium and the ability of the a-radiation and the short-lived decay products of radium-223 to kill cancer cells. The short range of a-radiation reduces the damage to surrounding healthy tissue creating a more localized effect compared to other radionuclide therapies, such as strontium-89. This is an appropriate treatment for patients with symptomatic bone pain and nonvisceral metastases. A phase III trial with radium-223 in symptomatic men with progressive mCRPC with or without prior docetaxel exposure and no evidence of visceral metastasis reported improvement in median survival (14.9 months vs 11.3 months, HR 0.695, 95% CI 0.581e0.832, p¼0.00007) in favor of radium-223 over placebo. Time to first skeleton related event improved from 9.8 month with placebo to 15.6 months with radium-223 (HR 0.658, 95% CI 0.522e0.830, p¼0.00037). Significant improvements in QoL measurements were reported in the patients treated with radium-223. Of the 921 patients of this trial, those receiving treatment were given six intravenous injections with a dose of 50 kBq per kilogram of body weight every four weeks.12 Rates of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were low at 2.2% and 6.3%, respectively.15 Index Patient 4: Symptomatic, mCRPC with Poor Performance Status and no Prior Docetaxel Chemotherapy Clinical trials have generally excluded patients with a poor performance status (ECOG 3-4) from participation. Thus, most data regarding management of patients is extrapolated from randomized trials of eligible patients who had a better performance status. Even a phase III clinical trial that was presumptively designed for a population considered “unfit” for docetaxel (ALSYMPCA to evaluate radium-223) still only allowed a performance status of ECOG 0-1. However, treatments with acceptable safety profiles do exist and should be considered, even in poor performance status patients. This is especially true in those patients in whom the poor performance status is directly related to the cancer Dochead: Adult Urology
5
itself and thus whose status might improve with treatment. Additional information published since the 2013 release of this guideline related to the use of radium-223 in the treatment of CRPC warranted the addition of Guideline Statement 14. All other statements relevant to Index Patient 4 (Guideline Statements 11 to 13, 15) remain unchanged. Guideline Statement 14 Clinicians may offer radium-223 to patients with symptomatic mCRPC with poor performance status and no prior docetaxel chemotherapy with symptomatic bone metastases and without known visceral disease in select cases, specifically when the performance status is directly related to symptoms related to bone metastases. (Expert Opinion) Radium-223 may be offered for patients with symptomatic bone pain and non-visceral metastases. Radium-223 has showed survival benefit in patients with good performance status. If it is believed that the poor performance status of Index Patient 4 is due to symptomatic bone pain, radium223 may also be beneficial to these patients. Samarium-153 and strontium-89 have not shown a survival benefit but may offer palliative benefit in patients symptomatic with bone pain. These are further discussed under Index Patient 6. Index Patient 5: Symptomatic, mCRPC with Good Performance Status and Prior Docetaxel Chemotherapy As patients with prostate cancer receive hormonal therapy earlier in the course of the disease (frequently for non-metastatic disease), they may actually develop castration-resistant disease (based on serologic progression) with non-metastatic or asymptomatic metastatic disease. Thus, additional agents, including docetaxel chemotherapy may be administered earlier in the course of metastatic disease. These trends have resulted in a population of mCRPC patients who have completed docetaxel and may continue to be asymptomatic or minimallysymptomatic with an excellent performance status. While such patients may be healthy enough to receive a number of subsequent therapies, a focus of therapy should also be to maintain their excellent performance status without significant toxicity from additional therapy. It is in this context that providers should choose from a number of additional therapies to offer to this patient population. Additional information published since the 2013 release of this guideline related to the use of radium-223 in the treatment of CRPC warranted the addition of Guideline Statement 19. All other statements relevant to Index Patient 5 (Guideline Statements 16 to 18) remain unchanged.
PGL 5.2.0 DTD JURO11945_proof 4 November 2014 10:20 am EO: JU-14-1854
514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570
6
571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627
AUA GUIDELINE AMENDMENT
Guideline Statement 19 Clinicians should offer radium-223 to patients with good performance status who received prior docetaxel chemotherapy with symptomatic bone metastases and without known visceral disease. (Standard; (Evidence Strength: Grade B) During the course of cancer treatment, bone marrow can become infiltrated by the cancer. Chemotherapeutic agents, such as docetaxel, can suppress bone marrow function while being used to extend survival and improve QoL. Radium-223 was shown to be an effective therapy in the previously discussed Parker et al. study12 in which 57% of patients had previously received chemotherapy. As with other treatments, such as electron beam radiation therapy, side effects can include anemia and thrombocytopenia. Those patients who have previously received chemotherapy are at greater risk for such side effects compared to chemotherapy na€ıve patients. Index Patient 6: Symptomatic, mCRPC with Poor Performance Status and Prior Docetaxel Chemotherapy The American Society of Clinical Oncology has posted recommendations regarding treatment for patients with advanced solid tumors; particularly in the last months of life. The society advocates for an increasing emphasis on a patient’s QoL and concentrates on symptom management. Treatment given in the last months of life may delay access to end of life care, increase costs and add unnecessary symptom management. Patients with poor performance status (ECOG 3 or 4) should not be offered further treatment (https://connection. asco.org/Magazine/Article/ID/3190/Choosing-WiselyConstructing-a-Top-Five-List-in-Oncology.aspx). Additional information published since the 2013 release of this guideline related to the use of radium-223 in the treatment of CRPC warranted the addition of discussion text to Guideline Statement 20; however, the statement itself as well as Guideline Statement 21 remains unchanged from the initial 2013 release of this guideline. Guideline Statement 20 Clinicians should offer palliative care to patients with mCRPC with poor performance status who received prior docetaxel chemotherapy. Alternatively, for selected patients, clinicians may offer treatment with abiraterone þ prednisone, enzalutamide, ketoconazole þ steroid or radionuclide therapy. (Expert Opinion) Palliative care is an interdisciplinary, holistic approach to managing an advanced disease such as cancer with a guarded prognosis. It can include controlling symptoms that are physical, psychological, Dochead: Adult Urology
spiritual and social. The goal of palliation is to prevent and relieve suffering and to support the best possible QoL for the patient and family. Advanced prostate cancer can be debilitating with bone pain, fatigue and weight loss. Palliative radiotherapy can be an option for controlling bone pain in some patients. An increasing dependence upon others and a feeling of losing control can contribute to anxiety and depression. Other symptoms include urinary outflow obstruction, weakness secondary to spinal cord compression, lymphedema and anemia. Evaluation and treatment should be comprehensive and patient centered, focusing on the goals of the individual patient as well as the patient’s family. Comprehensive palliative care often requires a multidisciplinary approach where various providers of differing expertise assess and treat the complex needs of the advanced disease prostate cancer patient.16,17 Radionuclide Therapy One example of a Phase III randomized clinical trial of radioactive samarium-153 (153Sm) lexidronam versus nonradioactive 153Sm-lexidronam for palliation of bone pain in patients with CRPC is by Sartor.18 A total of 152 men with painful bone metastases were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Patients were randomized (2:1) to the radioactive 153Sm-lexidronam agent. Patients completed pain and analgesic diaries twice daily. Blinded medications were given intravenously; the study was unblinded after four weeks when 28 of 52 placebo patients had not achieved satisfactory pain relief by week four; 22 of 28 chose to receive open label treatment with radioactive 153Sm-lexidronam. The authors concluded that 1 mCi/kg 153Sm-lexidronam is safe and effective for palliation of painful bone metastases in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Side effects included mild bone marrow suppression. Multiple non-randomized trials have been done with samarium-153 alone19,20 with unclear adverse events and outcomes. Other studies included samarium-153 with docetaxel;21,22 these studies were also unclear in outcomes or adverse events. Studies looking at radium-223 have focused on those patients with good performance status, and there is no data indicating an advantage over standard radiopharmaceuticals in this patient population. Bone Health The 2014 amendment literature search did not uncover additional information relevant to bone health; as such, Guideline Statements 22 and 23 remain unchanged from the 2013 publication of this guideline.
PGL 5.2.0 DTD JURO11945_proof 4 November 2014 10:20 am EO: JU-14-1854
628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684
AUA GUIDELINE AMENDMENT
685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741
FUTURE DIRECTIONS Over the past 15 years there has been un-paralleled scientific progress and investment in drug development for patients with mCRPC. As a direct result of these studies, several lines of systemic therapies have been FDA approved for use in mCRPC on grounds of pain palliation, minimizing disease adverse effects and prolonging survival. Ongoing Research In addition to agents discussed above, several other drugs are in the pipeline. Completed, Unpublished Phase III Trial as of Guideline Publication Enzalutamide: The Phase III PREVAIL trial evaluating enzalutamide versus placebo in chemotherapynaive men with mCRPC was stopped early by the Data Safety Monitoring Committee after an interim analysis revealed improvements in overall survival (HR 0.706, 95% CI 0.60e0.84) and radiographic progression-free survival (HR 0.186, 95% CI 0.15e0.23) for the enzalutamide arm. A total of 1,717 men with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic mCRPC (including some with visceral metastases) were randomly assigned to placebo versus 160 mg/day of enzalutamide.23 These data were recently published on June 1, 2014. As final publication occurred after the release of this guideline amendment, this publication will be incorporated into future updates of this guideline. Ongoing Phase III Trials as of Guideline Publication Orteronel. Orteronel is a CYP17A inhibitor but is more specifically a 17,20-lyase inhibitor. As of the publication of this amendment, this drug was being tested in a phase III trial comparing orteronel and prednisone to placebo and prednisone (NCT01193244). As of June 19, 2014, following the publication of this amendment, the development program for orteronel was voluntarily terminated following Phase III results that showed that the drug failed to extend patient OS. Tasquinomod. Tasquinomod is an orally active quinoline-3-carboxamide. It has anti-angiogenic and anti-tumor properties and is currently in ongoing phase III testing to assess men with bonemetastatic disease to assess its impact on survival (NCT01234311). Immunotherapy. Novel vaccine strategies to harness the immune system are being tested, such as PROSTVAC in asymptomatic, chemotherapyna€ıve men with mCRPC in a phase III study randomizing participants to PROSTVAC with or without GM-CSF or to placebo (NCT01322490). Other immune based strategies include inhibition Dochead: Adult Urology
7
of immune check points using Ipilimumab, which is a monoclonal anti-CTLA4 antibody that binds to the CTLA-4 receptor on T cells, blocking CTLA4 and, in turn, activating T-cell anti-tumor activity. A phase III study comparing ipilimumab to placebo is ongoing (NCT01057810). Custirsen. Custirsen inhibits the production of clusterin, a protein associated with treatment resistance in a number of cancers, including prostate cancer. Adding agents with novel or different mechanisms of action to a docetaxel-backbone remains an area of significant interest. Results are pending from the phase III trials combining docetaxel þ prednisone with custirsen, (NCT01188187), and another phase III trial was recently activated comparing cabazitaxel þ prednisone with or without custirsen (NCT01578655). Cabozantinib. Cabozantinib is a MET and VEGFR2 oral TKI. In a phase II trial, it had promising antitumor activity, particularly in patients with bone metastasis.24 It is currently in Phase III trials in the post docetaxel setting (NCT01605227 and NCT01522443). Future Research The impact on survival in mCRPC from each of these individual agents thus far remains modest, being measured only in months. To further impact outcomes, development in this stage of disease must focus on the totality of disease biology integrating a comprehensive molecular understanding of castration resistance and investigating mechanisms of resistance to current therapies so as to better guide future treatment development. One of the glaring deficiencies in prostate cancer drug development, by comparison to several other solid tumors, has been the lack of predictive biomarkers to help personalize therapy. This is especially important if we are to optimize risk/benefit, particularly given that a significant percentage of patients do not benefit or have small benefits from current FDA approved agents. In addition to the continued investigation of new agents in mCRPC, it is critical that we prospectively define the optimal sequence of approved treatments in order to guide proper use taking into account efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, maximizing the antitumor effect by investigating scientifically rational combinations should be an area of high priority. Over the past decade there have been considerable advances in our understanding of mCRPC that have led to an explosion of novel treatments. Unfortunately, mCRPC remains a fatal disease. Hence, research to maximize the efficacy of ADT with the use of even more effective agents and investigating
PGL 5.2.0 DTD JURO11945_proof 4 November 2014 10:20 am EO: JU-14-1854
742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798
AUA GUIDELINE AMENDMENT
8
799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855
alternative combination strategies in well-designed and supported clinical trials is critical.
PANEL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The AUA would like to recognize the members of the Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: AUA Guideline panel for their contributions to the development of the original guideline that served as a basis for this amendment: Michael S. Cookson, Bruce J. Roth, Philipp Dahm, Christine Engstrom, Stephen J. Freedland, Maha Hussain, Daniel W. Lin, William T. Lowrance, Mohammad Hassan Murad, William K. Oh, David F. Penson and Adam S. Kibel Disclaimer The original version of this Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Guideline was created in 2011 by a multi-disciplinary Panel assembled by the Practice Guidelines Committee (PGC) of the American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. (AUA). This amended Castration-Resistant Cancer Guideline, drafted in 2014 by a subset of the original Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel. This amendment updates the original guideline document to reflect literature released following the original publication. The mission of the original and amendment Panels was to develop clinical guideline recommendations based on an in-depth evidence report of the peer-reviewed literature. The recommendations are based on evidence strength, or where evidence is not available, on Delphi-modification consensus statements. The purpose of each guideline is to provide physicians and non-physician providers (primary care and specialists) with a consensus of principles and treatment plans for the management of castration-resistant prostate cancer. While these guidelines do not necessarily establish the standard of care, AUA seeks to recommend and to encourage compliance by practitioners with current best practices related to the condition being treated. Funding of the original and amendment Panels was provided by the AUA. Panel members receive no remuneration for their work. Panel members’ potential conflicts of interest are subject to rigorous
and on-going review during the development of the original Guideline and amendment Panel members are screened for conflicts throughout the amendment process. As medical knowledge expands and technology advances, AUA guidelines are subject to change. Evidence-based guidelines statements are not absolute mandates but thoroughly considered strategies for best practice under the specific conditions described in each document. For all these reasons, the guidelines do not pre-empt physician judgment in individual cases. Treating physicians must take into account variations in resources, and patient tolerances, needs, and preferences. Similarly, conformance with any clinical guideline cannot assure a successful outcome. These guidelines and best practice statements are not intended to provide legal advice. The guideline text may include information or recommendations about certain drug or device use (‘off label’) that are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or about medications or substances not subject to the FDA approval process. AUA urges strict compliance with all government regulations and protocols for prescription and use of these substances. The physician is encouraged to understand and carefully follow all available prescribing information about indications, contraindications, precautions and warnings. Although guidelines are intended to encourage best practices and to reflect available technologies with sufficient data as of the date of close of the literature review, guidelines are necessarily time-limited. Guidelines cannot include evaluation of all data on emerging technologies, pharmaceuticals or management practices, including both those that are FDA-approved, or those which may immediately come to represent accepted clinical practices. For this reason, the AUA does not regard emerging technologies or management techniques not addressed by this guideline as manifestly experimental or investigational. These emerging technologies or techniques may simply be too new to be included or fully incorporated in the Panel’s evidence-based evaluation at the time the guideline is developed.
REFERENCES 1. Faraday M, Hubbard H, Kosiak B et al: Staying at the cutting edge: a review and analysis of evidence reporting and grading; the recommendations of the American Urological Association. BJU Int 2009; 104: 294. 2. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA et al: GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004; 328: 1490. Dochead: Adult Urology
3. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A et al: Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012; 62: 10. 4. Montgomery RB, Mostaghel EA, Vessella R et al: Maintenance of intratumoral androgens in metastatic prostate cancer: a mechanism for castration-resistant tumor growth. Cancer Res 2008; 68: 4447.
5. Mohler JL, Titus MA, Bai S et al: Activation of the androgen receptor by intratumoral bioconversion of androstanediol to dihydrotestosterone in prostate cancer. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 1486. 6. Tannock IF, de Wit R, Berry WR et al: Docetaxel plus prednisone or mitoxantrone plus prednisone for advanced prostate cancer. N Eng J Med 2004; 351: 1502.
PGL 5.2.0 DTD JURO11945_proof 4 November 2014 10:20 am EO: JU-14-1854
856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912
AUA GUIDELINE AMENDMENT
913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942
7. Petrylak DP, Tangen CM, Hussain MHA et al: Docetaxel and estramustine compared with mitoxantrone and prednisone for advanced refractory prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 1513. 8. Scher HI, Fizazi K, Saad F et al: Increased survival with enzalutamide in prostate cancer after chemotherapy. N Eng J Med 2012; 367: 1187. 9. de Bono JS, Logothetis CJ, Molina A et al: Abiraterone and increased survival in metastatic prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 1995. 10. Kantoff PW, Higano CS, Shore ND et al: Sipuleucel-T immunotherapy for castrationresistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 411. 11. de Bono JS, Oudard S, Ozguroglu M et al: Prednisone plus cabazitaxel or mitoxantrone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel treatment: a randomized open-label trial. Lancet 2010; 376: 1147. 12. Parker C, Nilsson S, Heinrich D et al: Alpha emitter radium-223 and survival in metastatic prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 213. 13. Smith MR, Saad F, Coleman R et al: Denosumab and bone-metastasis-free survival in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer: results of a
Dochead: Adult Urology
9
phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2012; 379: 39.
samarium infusion: a pilot study. Support Care Cancer 2007; 15: 339.
14. Scher HI, Halabi S, Tannock I et al: Design and end points of clinical trials for patients with progressive prostate cancer and castrate levels of testosterone: recommendations of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 1148.
20. Dolezal J, Vizda J and Odrazka K: Prospective evaluation of samarium-153-EDTMP radionuclide treatment for bone metastases in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Urol Int 2007; 78: 50.
15. Parker C, Coleman RE, Nilsson S et al: Updated survival, quality of life (QOL), and safety data of radium-223 chloride (RA-223) in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) with bone metastases from the phase 3 double-blind, randomized, multinational study (ALSYMPCA). Ann of Oncol 2012; 23: ix294.
21. Fizazi K, Beuzeboc P, Lumbroso J et al: Phase II trial of consolidation docetaxel and samarium153 in patients with bone metastases from castration-resistant prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 2429.
16. de Bono DJ: Integration of palliative medicine into routine oncological care: what does the evidence show us? J Oncol Pract 2011; 7: 1. 17. Thompson JC, Wood J and Feuer D: Prostate cancer: palliative care and pain relief. Brit Med Bull 2007; 83: 341. 18. Sartor O: Overview of samarium Sm 153 lexidronam in the treatment of painful metastatic bone disease. Rev Urol 2004; 6: s3. 19. Ripamonti C, Fagnoni E, Campa T et al: Incident pain and analgesic consumption decrease after
22. Suttmann H, Grgic A, Lehmann J et al: Combining 153Sm-lexidronam and docetaxel for the treatment of patients with hormonerefractory prostate cancer: first experience. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2008; 23: 609. 23. Beer TM, Armstrong AJ, Rathkopf DE et al: Enzalutamid in metastatic prostate cancer before chemotherapy. New Engl J Med 2014; Epub ahead of print. 24. Smith DC, Smith MR, Sweeney C et al: Cabozantinib in patients with advanced prostate cancer: results of a Phase II randomized discontinuation trial. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31: 412.
PGL 5.2.0 DTD JURO11945_proof 4 November 2014 10:20 am EO: JU-14-1854
943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972
