Background: Docetaxel (D) or secondary hormonal therapy (SHT) each combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) represent possible treatment options in males with metastasized hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Real-world data comparing different protocols are lacking yet. Thus, our objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of abiraterone acetate (AA)+ADT versus D+ADT in mHSPC. Methods: In a retrospective multicenter analysis including males with mHSPC treated with either of the aforementioned protocols, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival 1 (PFS1), and progression-free survival 2 (PFS2) were assessed for both cohorts. Median time to event was tested by Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank test. The Cox-proportional hazards model was used for univariate and multivariate regression analyses. Results: Overall, 196 patients were included. The AA+ADT cohort had a longer PFS1 in the log-rank testing (23 vs. 13 mos., p < 0.001), a longer PFS2 (48 vs. 33 mos., p = 0.006), and longer OS (80 vs. 61 mos., p = 0.040). In the multivariate analyses AA+ADT outperformed D+ADT in terms of PFS1 (HR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.183–0.623; p = 0.001) and PFS2 (HR = 0.33 95% CI = 0.128–0.827; p = 0.018), respectively, while OS and toxicity rate were similar between both groups. Conclusions: AA+ADT is mainly associated with a similar efficacy and overall toxicity rate as D+ADT. Further prospective research is required for validation of the clinical value of the observed benefit of AA+ADT for progression-free end-points.
A real-world comparison of docetaxel versus abiraterone acetate for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer
Zattoni F.;
2021
Abstract
Background: Docetaxel (D) or secondary hormonal therapy (SHT) each combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) represent possible treatment options in males with metastasized hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Real-world data comparing different protocols are lacking yet. Thus, our objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of abiraterone acetate (AA)+ADT versus D+ADT in mHSPC. Methods: In a retrospective multicenter analysis including males with mHSPC treated with either of the aforementioned protocols, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival 1 (PFS1), and progression-free survival 2 (PFS2) were assessed for both cohorts. Median time to event was tested by Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank test. The Cox-proportional hazards model was used for univariate and multivariate regression analyses. Results: Overall, 196 patients were included. The AA+ADT cohort had a longer PFS1 in the log-rank testing (23 vs. 13 mos., p < 0.001), a longer PFS2 (48 vs. 33 mos., p = 0.006), and longer OS (80 vs. 61 mos., p = 0.040). In the multivariate analyses AA+ADT outperformed D+ADT in terms of PFS1 (HR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.183–0.623; p = 0.001) and PFS2 (HR = 0.33 95% CI = 0.128–0.827; p = 0.018), respectively, while OS and toxicity rate were similar between both groups. Conclusions: AA+ADT is mainly associated with a similar efficacy and overall toxicity rate as D+ADT. Further prospective research is required for validation of the clinical value of the observed benefit of AA+ADT for progression-free end-points.
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
