Avishay Sella1, Tal Sella2, Avivit Peer3, Raanan Berger2, Stephen Jay Frank4, Eli Gez5, David Sharide5, Henry Hayat6, Ekaterina Hanovich7, Svetlana Kovel7, Eli Rosenbaum8, Victoria Neiman8, Daniel Keizman9. 1. Department of Oncology, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Zerifin, Israel, affiliated with the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel. Electronic address: a_sella@asaf.health.gov.il. 2. Department of Oncology, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat Gan, Israel. 3. Department of Oncology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel. 4. Department of Oncology, Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. 5. Department of Oncology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel. 6. Department of Oncology, Wolfson Medical Center, Holon, Israel. 7. Department of Oncology, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Zerifin, Israel, affiliated with the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel. 8. Department of Oncology, Rabin Medical Center, Petach-Tikva, Israel. 9. Department of Oncology, Meir Medical Center, Kfar-Saba, Israel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cabazitaxel and AA have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use after docetaxel in mCRPC. Recently, CAB appeared to be active when given after AA. AA is capable of inducing AR splice variants that confer ligand-independent AR transactivation. Because microtubule-targeting agents impair AR nuclear transport and activity, we raised concerns about CAB efficacy after AA failure in mCRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty mCRPC patients received AA after docetaxel treatment in compassionate programs. Of them, 24 (18.4%) subsequently received CAB. We retrospectively reviewed their data using conventional methods. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients received a median of 4 (range, 1-13) CAB cycles. Nineteen (79.1%) of them received primary prophylaxis with growth factors. Median patient characteristics were: age 65 (range, 57-85) years; Gleason score: 8 (range, 6-10); and PSA: 128.1 (range, 0.01-1700) ng/mL. A PSA response (≥ 50% decrease from baseline) occurred in 6 (31.5%) of 19 evaluable patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.8-54.2%). CAB therapy obtained a partial response in 2 of the 13 (15.3%) evaluable patients (95% CI, 2.9-45.4%). Median survival from initiation of CAB was 8.2 (95% CI, 3.34-13.05) months, from AA 16.1 (95% CI, 11.56-20.64) and from docetaxel 32.0 (95% CI, 11.56-39.69). CONCLUSION: A limited number of patients with mCRPC received CAB after docetaxel and AA treatment. In this selected population, CAB was active.
BACKGROUND:Cabazitaxel and AA have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use after docetaxel in mCRPC. Recently, CAB appeared to be active when given after AA. AA is capable of inducing AR splice variants that confer ligand-independent AR transactivation. Because microtubule-targeting agents impair AR nuclear transport and activity, we raised concerns about CAB efficacy after AA failure in mCRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty mCRPC patients received AA after docetaxel treatment in compassionate programs. Of them, 24 (18.4%) subsequently received CAB. We retrospectively reviewed their data using conventional methods. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients received a median of 4 (range, 1-13) CAB cycles. Nineteen (79.1%) of them received primary prophylaxis with growth factors. Median patient characteristics were: age 65 (range, 57-85) years; Gleason score: 8 (range, 6-10); and PSA: 128.1 (range, 0.01-1700) ng/mL. A PSA response (≥ 50% decrease from baseline) occurred in 6 (31.5%) of 19 evaluable patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.8-54.2%). CAB therapy obtained a partial response in 2 of the 13 (15.3%) evaluable patients (95% CI, 2.9-45.4%). Median survival from initiation of CAB was 8.2 (95% CI, 3.34-13.05) months, from AA 16.1 (95% CI, 11.56-20.64) and from docetaxel 32.0 (95% CI, 11.56-39.69). CONCLUSION: A limited number of patients with mCRPC received CAB after docetaxel and AA treatment. In this selected population, CAB was active.
Authors: R Petrioli; G Roviello; A I Fiaschi; L Laera; Salvatora T Miano; G De Rubertis; G Barbanti; V Bianco; S Brozzetti; E Francini Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2015-01-31 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Mark N Stein; Lawrence Fong; Ronald Tutrone; Anthony Mega; Elaine T Lam; Megan Parsi; Surya Vangala; Andres A Gutierrez; Naomi B Haas Journal: Oncologist Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: S Gillessen; A Omlin; G Attard; J S de Bono; E Efstathiou; K Fizazi; S Halabi; P S Nelson; O Sartor; M R Smith; H R Soule; H Akaza; T M Beer; H Beltran; A M Chinnaiyan; G Daugaard; I D Davis; M De Santis; C G Drake; R A Eeles; S Fanti; M E Gleave; A Heidenreich; M Hussain; N D James; F E Lecouvet; C J Logothetis; K Mastris; S Nilsson; W K Oh; D Olmos; A R Padhani; C Parker; M A Rubin; J A Schalken; H I Scher; A Sella; N D Shore; E J Small; C N Sternberg; H Suzuki; C J Sweeney; I F Tannock; B Tombal Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Stefanie Zschäbitz; Sonia Vallet; Boris Hadaschik; Daniel Debatin; Stefan Fuxius; Andreas Karcher; Sascha Pahernik; Cathleen Spath; Stefan Duensing; Dirk Jäger; Markus Hohenfellner; Carsten Grüllich Journal: J Cancer Date: 2017-02-11 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: Finn Edler von Eyben; Giandomenico Roviello; Timo Kiljunen; Christian Uprimny; Irene Virgolini; Kalevi Kairemo; Timo Joensuu Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-12-16 Impact factor: 9.236