J Valero1, P Peleteiro2, I Henríquez3, A Conde4, T Piquer5, A Lozano6, C C Soler7, J Muñoz8, A Illescas9, J Jove10, M M Flores11, J Baquedano11, P Diezhandino12, R P de Celis13, E H Pardo13, P Samper14, I Villoslada15, M Eguiguren16, V Millan17. 1. Hospital Universitario HM Sanchinarro, Madrid, Spain. jvalero@hmhospitales.com. 2. Hospital Clinico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago, Spain. 3. Hospital Universitario Sant Joan de Reus, Tarragona, Spain. 4. Hospital La Fe de Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 5. Hospital de Castellon, Castellón, Spain. 6. Hospital Virgen de la Arrixaca de Murcia, El Palmar, Spain. 7. Hospital Torrecardenas Almeria, Almería, Spain. 8. Hospital Universitario Infanta Cristina de Badajoz, Badajoz, Spain. 9. Hospital Virgen de la Macarena de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain. 10. Instituto Catalan de Oncologia Badalona, Barcelona, Spain. 11. Hospital Universitario Arnau de Vilanova, Lleida, Spain. 12. Hospital Clinico Universitario de Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain. 13. Hospital Txagorritxu de Vitoria, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain. 14. Hospital Universitario Rey Juan Carlos de Mostoles, Madrid, Spain. 15. Hospital Gomez Ulla de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 16. Hospital Universitario Donostia, Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain. 17. Hospital Clinico Universitario de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) has changed significantly in recent years. Inhibitors of androgen receptors have shown especially significant benefits in overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), with a good toxicity profile. Treatment selection depends on the patient's individual clinical, radiological, and biological characteristics. OBJECTIVE: To describe treatment outcomes (efficacy, toxicity) in a cohort of patients with mCRPC in Spain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective study of patients with mCRPC included in a database of the Urological Tumour Working Group (URONCOR) of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR). Metastatic CRPC was defined according to the prostate cancer working group 3 (PCWG3) criteria. The Kaplan-Meier technique was used to evaluate OS and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE, v.4.0) were used to assess toxicity. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to identify the factors significantly associated with OS. RESULTS: A total of 314 patients from 17 hospitals in Spain diagnosed with mCRPC between June 2010 and September 2017 were included in this study. Mean age at diagnosis was 68 years (range 45-89). At a median follow-up of 35 months, OS at 1, 3, and 5 years were 92%, 38%, and 28%, respectively. Grades 1-2 and grade 3 toxicity rates were, respectively, 68% and 19%. No grade 4 toxicities were observed. On the multivariate analysis, the following factors were significantly associated with OS: age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.42, p = 0.010), PSA value at diagnosis of mCRPC (HR 0.55, p = 0.008), and Gleason score (HR 0.61, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Age, Gleason score, and PSA at diagnosis of mCRPC are independently associated with overall survival in patients with mCRPC. The efficacy and toxicity outcomes in this patient cohort treated in radiation oncology departments in Spain are consistent with previous reports.
INTRODUCTION: The treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) has changed significantly in recent years. Inhibitors of androgen receptors have shown especially significant benefits in overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), with a good toxicity profile. Treatment selection depends on the patient's individual clinical, radiological, and biological characteristics. OBJECTIVE: To describe treatment outcomes (efficacy, toxicity) in a cohort of patients with mCRPC in Spain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective study of patients with mCRPC included in a database of the Urological Tumour Working Group (URONCOR) of the Spanish Society of Radiation Oncology (SEOR). Metastatic CRPC was defined according to the prostate cancer working group 3 (PCWG3) criteria. The Kaplan-Meier technique was used to evaluate OS and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE, v.4.0) were used to assess toxicity. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to identify the factors significantly associated with OS. RESULTS: A total of 314 patients from 17 hospitals in Spain diagnosed with mCRPC between June 2010 and September 2017 were included in this study. Mean age at diagnosis was 68 years (range 45-89). At a median follow-up of 35 months, OS at 1, 3, and 5 years were 92%, 38%, and 28%, respectively. Grades 1-2 and grade 3 toxicity rates were, respectively, 68% and 19%. No grade 4 toxicities were observed. On the multivariate analysis, the following factors were significantly associated with OS: age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.42, p = 0.010), PSA value at diagnosis of mCRPC (HR 0.55, p = 0.008), and Gleason score (HR 0.61, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Age, Gleason score, and PSA at diagnosis of mCRPC are independently associated with overall survival in patients with mCRPC. The efficacy and toxicity outcomes in this patient cohort treated in radiation oncology departments in Spain are consistent with previous reports.
Entities:
Keywords:
Androgen deprivation; Metastatic CRPC; Prognostic factor; Prostate cancer