PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to define clinical factors for successful treatment response and re-exposure to docetaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: An mCRPC database of patients receiving first-line docetaxel and rechallenge courses was established. Several clinical factors were evaluated for prediction of treatment response. Multivariate cox-regression analysis was used to define pre-treatment and treatment factors for survival. RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2013, 94 patients with mCRPC were treated with docetaxel. Full data set and follow-up were available for 62 patients. Median follow-up was 84 m [interquartile range (IQR) 64-104 m]. Median biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) and overall survival under docetaxel were 9 m (IQR 5-16 m) and 20 m (IQR 16-26 m), respectively. Partial PSA-response at first docetaxel-sequence (n = 62), rechallenge (n = 32), and third-sequence (n = 22) docetaxel was 48.4%, 31.6%, and 34.8%, respectively. Time from start of primary androgen deprivation to CRPC > 47 m was the only independent pre-treatment parameter to predict improved overall survival (Hazard Ratio 0.48, p = 0.015). Interestingly, there was a strong trend for improved overall survival in patients with high Gleason Score (Hazard Ratio 0.58; p = 0.08). Partial PSA-response at docetaxel-rechallenge (Hazard Ratio 0.31; p = 0.008) and treatment-free interval > 3 m (Hazard Ratio 3.49; p = 0.014) were the only independent predictive factors under taxane treatment for overall survival. CONCLUSION: Despite novel hormonal drugs, docetaxel still plays an important role in the treatment of mCRPC. Patients with partial-PSA-response at rechallenge or a treatment-free interval > 3 m benefit most from docetaxel re-exposure.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to define clinical factors for successful treatment response and re-exposure to docetaxel in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: An mCRPC database of patients receiving first-line docetaxel and rechallenge courses was established. Several clinical factors were evaluated for prediction of treatment response. Multivariate cox-regression analysis was used to define pre-treatment and treatment factors for survival. RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2013, 94 patients with mCRPC were treated with docetaxel. Full data set and follow-up were available for 62 patients. Median follow-up was 84 m [interquartile range (IQR) 64-104 m]. Median biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) and overall survival under docetaxel were 9 m (IQR 5-16 m) and 20 m (IQR 16-26 m), respectively. Partial PSA-response at first docetaxel-sequence (n = 62), rechallenge (n = 32), and third-sequence (n = 22) docetaxel was 48.4%, 31.6%, and 34.8%, respectively. Time from start of primary androgen deprivation to CRPC > 47 m was the only independent pre-treatment parameter to predict improved overall survival (Hazard Ratio 0.48, p = 0.015). Interestingly, there was a strong trend for improved overall survival in patients with high Gleason Score (Hazard Ratio 0.58; p = 0.08). Partial PSA-response at docetaxel-rechallenge (Hazard Ratio 0.31; p = 0.008) and treatment-free interval > 3 m (Hazard Ratio 3.49; p = 0.014) were the only independent predictive factors under taxane treatment for overall survival. CONCLUSION: Despite novel hormonal drugs, docetaxel still plays an important role in the treatment of mCRPC. Patients with partial-PSA-response at rechallenge or a treatment-free interval > 3 m benefit most from docetaxel re-exposure.
Authors: Robert J van Soest; Ellen S de Morrée; Liji Shen; Ian F Tannock; Mario A Eisenberger; Ronald de Wit Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-08-11 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Charles J Ryan; Matthew R Smith; Johann S de Bono; Arturo Molina; Christopher J Logothetis; Paul de Souza; Karim Fizazi; Paul Mainwaring; Josep M Piulats; Siobhan Ng; Joan Carles; Peter F A Mulders; Ethan Basch; Eric J Small; Fred Saad; Dirk Schrijvers; Hendrik Van Poppel; Som D Mukherjee; Henrik Suttmann; Winald R Gerritsen; Thomas W Flaig; Daniel J George; Evan Y Yu; Eleni Efstathiou; Allan Pantuck; Eric Winquist; Celestia S Higano; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Youn Park; Thian Kheoh; Thomas Griffin; Howard I Scher; Dana E Rathkopf Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-12-10 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: Andrew J Armstrong; Elizabeth S Garrett-Mayer; Yi-Chun Ou Yang; Ronald de Wit; Ian F Tannock; Mario Eisenberger Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Hannes Cash; Ursula Steiner; Axel Heidenreich; Theodor Klotz; Peter Albers; Sebastian Melchior; Peter Martus; Florian Fuller; Ahmed Magheli; Stefan Hinz; Carsten Kempkensteffen; Kurt Miller Journal: BJU Int Date: 2018-05-06 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Dominik R Berthold; Gregory R Pond; Freidele Soban; Ronald de Wit; Mario Eisenberger; Ian F Tannock Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-01-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Olesya Vakhrusheva; Holger H H Erb; Vitus Bräunig; Sascha D Markowitsch; Patricia Schupp; Patrick C Baer; Kimberly Sue Slade; Anita Thomas; Igor Tsaur; Martin Puhr; Zoran Culig; Jindrich Cinatl; Martin Michaelis; Thomas Efferth; Axel Haferkamp; Eva Juengel Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 6.244