Addition of docetaxel to hormonal therapy in low- and high-burden metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer: long-term survival results from the STAMPEDE trial.
Aged
Androgen Antagonists
/ administration & dosage
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ administration & dosage
Disease Progression
Docetaxel
/ administration & dosage
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Metastasis
Progression-Free Survival
Proportional Hazards Models
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Retrospective Studies
STAMPEDE trial
docetaxel
hormone naive
metastatic
prostate cancer
randomised control trial
Journal
Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology
ISSN: 1569-8041
Titre abrégé: Ann Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9007735
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 12 2019
01 12 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
29
9
2019
medline:
28
7
2020
entrez:
28
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
STAMPEDE 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. We 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. Between 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). The 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
STAMPEDE 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.
METHODS
We 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.
RESULTS
Between 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).
CONCLUSIONS
The 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31560068
pii: S0923-7534(20)32552-7
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz396
pmc: PMC6938598
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Androgen Antagonists
0
Docetaxel
15H5577CQD
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1992-2003Subventions
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : 3804
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_12023/25
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Cancer Research UK
ID : CRUK_A12459
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
Références
Eur Urol. 2019 Dec;76(6):719-728
pubmed: 31447077
Stat Med. 2011 Aug 30;30(19):2409-21
pubmed: 21611958
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 4;381(1):13-24
pubmed: 31150574
Ann Oncol. 2018 May 1;29(5):1235-1248
pubmed: 29529169
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jul 27;377(4):338-351
pubmed: 28578639
Lancet Oncol. 2019 May;20(5):686-700
pubmed: 30987939
BJU Int. 2019 Jan;123(1):65-73
pubmed: 29777564
N Engl J Med. 2015 Aug 20;373(8):737-46
pubmed: 26244877
Lancet. 2016 Mar 19;387(10024):1163-77
pubmed: 26719232
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Feb;17(2):243-256
pubmed: 26718929
Eur Urol. 2016 Aug;70(2):256-62
pubmed: 26610858
Ann Oncol. 2015 Sep;26 Suppl 5:v69-77
pubmed: 26205393
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Apr 10;36(11):1080-1087
pubmed: 29384722
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 11;381(2):121-131
pubmed: 31157964
Eur Urol. 2018 Jun;73(6):847-855
pubmed: 29475737
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017 Aug 31;:
pubmed: 28899723
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Sep 20;35(27):3097-3104
pubmed: 28796587
Lancet. 2018 Dec 1;392(10162):2353-2366
pubmed: 30355464