Yu-Ning Wong1, Judith Manola2, Gary R Hudes3, Bruce J Roth4, Judd W Moul5, Andrea M Barsevick3, Richard M Scher3, Michael J Volk6, David J Vaughn7, Stephen D Williams4, Michael J Fisch8, David Cella9, Michael A Carducci10, George Wilding11. 1. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA. Electronic address: yuningwong123@gmail.com. 2. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, ECOG-ACRIN Biostatistics Center, Boston, MA. 3. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA. 4. Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN. 5. Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC. 6. Saint Vincent Hospital, Green Bay, WI. 7. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 8. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. 9. Evanston Hospital, Evanston, IL. 10. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. 11. University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, WI.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This multicenter phase 2 study assessed the combination of estramustine and weekly paclitaxel with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We enrolled 77 patients who had received no prior chemotherapy for CRPC between 1998 and 2000; a total of 74 subjects were eligible for the study. Each 8-week cycle included paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 provided intravenously weekly for 6 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off therapy and oral estramustine 280 mg twice daily for 3 days beginning 24 hours before the first dose of paclitaxel. The primary end point was rate of objective or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response at 16 weeks. A 50% response rate was considered of further interest. RESULTS: Eligible patients received a median of 3 cycles (range, 1-10 cycles). The response rate among patients with measurable disease was 34% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19-52). The PSA response rate was 58% (95% CI, 47-70). Clinical benefit rate was 45% (95% CI, 33-57). The median progression-free survival was 5.9 months (95% CI, 4.4-6.7). The median overall survival was 17.6 months (95% CI, 14.6-20.8). The most common clinical grade 3/4 toxicities were fatigue (14%) and sensory neuropathy (7%). Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included lymphopenia (21%) and anemia (9%). There was one toxicity-related death. Quality-of-life scores improved by week 8, but the change was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The combination has activity defined by PSA declines in CRPC but did not meet the protocol-specified end point for efficacy as defined by objective response rate. Since this study was conducted, more effective, better-tolerated regimens have been developed.
INTRODUCTION: This multicenter phase 2 study assessed the combination of estramustine and weekly paclitaxel with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We enrolled 77 patients who had received no prior chemotherapy for CRPC between 1998 and 2000; a total of 74 subjects were eligible for the study. Each 8-week cycle included paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 provided intravenously weekly for 6 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off therapy and oral estramustine 280 mg twice daily for 3 days beginning 24 hours before the first dose of paclitaxel. The primary end point was rate of objective or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response at 16 weeks. A 50% response rate was considered of further interest. RESULTS: Eligible patients received a median of 3 cycles (range, 1-10 cycles). The response rate among patients with measurable disease was 34% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19-52). The PSA response rate was 58% (95% CI, 47-70). Clinical benefit rate was 45% (95% CI, 33-57). The median progression-free survival was 5.9 months (95% CI, 4.4-6.7). The median overall survival was 17.6 months (95% CI, 14.6-20.8). The most common clinical grade 3/4 toxicities were fatigue (14%) and sensory neuropathy (7%). Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included lymphopenia (21%) and anemia (9%). There was one toxicity-related death. Quality-of-life scores improved by week 8, but the change was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The combination has activity defined by PSA declines in CRPC but did not meet the protocol-specified end point for efficacy as defined by objective response rate. Since this study was conducted, more effective, better-tolerated regimens have been developed.
Authors: N Haas; B Roth; C Garay; G Yeslow; M Entmacher; A Weinstein; A Rogatko; J Babb; C Minnitti; D Flinker; T Gillon; G Hudes Journal: Urology Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: G Hudes; L Einhorn; E Ross; A Balsham; P Loehrer; H Ramsey; J Sprandio; M Entmacher; W Dugan; R Ansari; F Monaco; M Hanna; B Roth Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Johann Sebastian de Bono; Stephane Oudard; Mustafa Ozguroglu; Steinbjørn Hansen; Jean-Pascal Machiels; Ivo Kocak; Gwenaëlle Gravis; Istvan Bodrogi; Mary J Mackenzie; Liji Shen; Martin Roessner; Sunil Gupta; A Oliver Sartor Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-10-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Daniel P Petrylak; Catherine M Tangen; Maha H A Hussain; Primo N Lara; Jeffrey A Jones; Mary Ellen Taplin; Patrick A Burch; Donna Berry; Carol Moinpour; Manish Kohli; Mitchell C Benson; Eric J Small; Derek Raghavan; E David Crawford Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ian F Tannock; Ronald de Wit; William R Berry; Jozsef Horti; Anna Pluzanska; Kim N Chi; Stephane Oudard; Christine Théodore; Nicholas D James; Ingela Turesson; Mark A Rosenthal; Mario A Eisenberger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Karim Fizazi; Aurelie Le Maitre; Gary Hudes; William R Berry; W Kevin Kelly; Jean-Christophe Eymard; Christopher J Logothetis; Jean-Pierre Pignon; Stefan Michiels Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2007-10-17 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Ethan Basch; D Andrew Loblaw; Thomas K Oliver; Michael Carducci; Ronald C Chen; James N Frame; Kristina Garrels; Sebastien Hotte; Michael W Kattan; Derek Raghavan; Fred Saad; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Cindy Walker-Dilks; James Williams; Eric Winquist; Charles L Bennett; Ted Wootton; R Bryan Rumble; Stacie B Dusetzina; Katherine S Virgo Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-08 Impact factor: 44.544