PURPOSE: We defined the antitumor effects of bortezomib alone and in combination with prednisone in patients with progressive, castration resistant metastatic prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 30 men with progressive castration resistant disease were treated in 2 groups. Cohort 1 received 1.5 mg/m2 bortezomib intravenously twice weekly for 2 cycles (2 weeks on and 1 week off), followed by 1.6 mg/m2 weekly (4 weeks on and 2 weeks off). Prednisone (10 mg) was given orally throughout. Cohort 2 comprised patients with limited chemotherapy exposure who received a decreased dose of bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) during the induction period with prednisone added only at disease progression. The primary end point was no evidence of disease progression at 12 weeks, defined as no increase in prostate specific antigen from baseline and no radiographic progression. Interleukin-6 was assessed to correlate with antitumor effects. RESULTS: One of 24 evaluable patients (4%) achieved the primary end point. In cohort 1, 18 patients were treated, 13 were evaluable for response and 4 discontinued treatment due to toxicities, including 3 before attaining the point of being evaluable. No patient achieved the primary end point. In cohort 2, 12 patients were treated and 11 were evaluable for response. Toxicity was slightly mitigated compared with that in cohort 1. One patient achieved the primary end point. Interleukin-6 did not correlate with posttreatment prostate specific antigen changes in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Although interleukin-6 and other pathways regulated by nuclear factor-kappa B may be legitimate targets, treatment with bortezomib alone and with prednisone does not appear to have significant antitumor effects in patients with castration resistant metastatic prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: We defined the antitumor effects of bortezomib alone and in combination with prednisone in patients with progressive, castration resistant metastatic prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 30 men with progressive castration resistant disease were treated in 2 groups. Cohort 1 received 1.5 mg/m2 bortezomib intravenously twice weekly for 2 cycles (2 weeks on and 1 week off), followed by 1.6 mg/m2 weekly (4 weeks on and 2 weeks off). Prednisone (10 mg) was given orally throughout. Cohort 2 comprised patients with limited chemotherapy exposure who received a decreased dose of bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) during the induction period with prednisone added only at disease progression. The primary end point was no evidence of disease progression at 12 weeks, defined as no increase in prostate specific antigen from baseline and no radiographic progression. Interleukin-6 was assessed to correlate with antitumor effects. RESULTS: One of 24 evaluable patients (4%) achieved the primary end point. In cohort 1, 18 patients were treated, 13 were evaluable for response and 4 discontinued treatment due to toxicities, including 3 before attaining the point of being evaluable. No patient achieved the primary end point. In cohort 2, 12 patients were treated and 11 were evaluable for response. Toxicity was slightly mitigated compared with that in cohort 1. One patient achieved the primary end point. Interleukin-6 did not correlate with posttreatment prostate specific antigen changes in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Although interleukin-6 and other pathways regulated by nuclear factor-kappa B may be legitimate targets, treatment with bortezomib alone and with prednisone does not appear to have significant antitumor effects in patients with castration resistant metastatic prostate cancer.
Authors: Zhongyun Dong; Yin Liu; Kieran F Scott; Linda Levin; Krishnanath Gaitonde; R Bruce Bracken; Barbara Burke; Qihui Jim Zhai; Jiang Wang; Leslie Oleksowicz; Shan Lu Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2010-09-13 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: David J Barakat; Janet Mendonca; Theresa Barberi; Jing Zhang; Sushant K Kachhap; Ido Paz-Priel; Alan D Friedman Journal: Cancer Lett Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 8.679