Abstract

BackgroundSTAMPEDE has previously reported that the use of upfront docetaxel improved overall survival (OS) for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report on long-term outcomes stratified by metastatic burden for M1 patients.MethodsWe randomly allocated patients in 2 : 1 ratio to standard-of-care (SOC; control group) or SOC + docetaxel. Metastatic disease burden was categorised using retrospectively-collected baseline staging scans where available. Analysis used Cox regression models, adjusted for stratification factors, with emphasis on restricted mean survival time where hazards were non-proportional.ResultsBetween 05 October 2005 and 31 March 2013, 1086 M1 patients were randomised to receive SOC (n = 724) or SOC + docetaxel (n = 362). Metastatic burden was assessable for 830/1086 (76%) patients; 362 (44%) had low and 468 (56%) high metastatic burden. Median follow-up was 78.2 months. There were 494 deaths on SOC (41% more than the previous report). There was good evidence of benefit of docetaxel over SOC on OS (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69–0.95, P = 0.009) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P = 0.827). Analysis of other outcomes found evidence of benefit for docetaxel over SOC in failure-free survival (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.57–0.76, P < 0.001) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.59–0.81, P < 0.001) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P > 0.5 in each case). There was no evidence that docetaxel resulted in late toxicity compared with SOC: after 1 year, G3-5 toxicity was reported for 28% SOC and 27% docetaxel (in patients still on follow-up at 1 year without prior progression).ConclusionsThe clinically significant benefit in survival for upfront docetaxel persists at longer follow-up, with no evidence that benefit differed by metastatic burden. We advocate that upfront docetaxel is considered for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients regardless of metastatic burden.

Highlights

  • The primary analysis of STAMPEDE’s ‘docetaxel comparison’, reporting an improvement in survival, was triggered by reaching a pre-specified number of control group deaths [1]

  • The Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate surrogacy work showed that measures based on metastatic progression could be used as a surrogate for survival in patients presenting with M0 disease, allowing trials in that setting to achieve increased power sooner [2]

  • Since that initial STAMPEDE report, first-line systemic combination treatment options given with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in metastatic hormone naıve prostate cancer have expanded to include abiraterone, enzalutamide and apalutamide as well as docetaxel [1, 3,4,5,6,7,8]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The primary analysis of STAMPEDE’s ‘docetaxel comparison’, reporting an improvement in survival, was triggered by reaching a pre-specified number of control group deaths [1]. Metastatic burden sub-group analyses of the CHAARTED and GETUG-15 trials have led some to conclude that docetaxel should not be given as a first-line treatment of patients presenting with ‘low metastatic burden’ disease [3, 9,10,11]. This represents $40% of patients presenting with de novo mHNPC [12, 13]. Analysis used Cox regression models, adjusted for stratification factors, with emphasis on restricted mean survival time where hazards were non-proportional

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call