OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of 'Casodex' monotherapy (150 mg daily) for metastatic and locally advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: A total of 1,453 patients with either confirmed metastatic disease (M1), or T3/T4 non-metastatic disease with elevated prostate-specific antigen (M0) were recruited into one of two identical, multicentre, randomised studies to compare 'Casodex' 150 mg/day with castration. The protocols allowed for combined analysis. RESULTS: At a median follow-up period of approximately 100 weeks for both studies, 'Casodex' 150 mg was found to be less effective than castration in patients with metastatic disease (M1) at entry (hazard ratio of 1.30 for time to death) with a difference in median survival of 6 weeks. In symptomatic M1 patients, 'Casodex' was associated with a statistically significant improvement in subjective response (70%) compared with castration (58%). Analysis of a validated quality-of-life questionnaire proved an advantage for 'Casodex' in sexual interest and physical capacity. 'Casodex' had a substantially lower incidence of hot flushes compared to castration (6-13% compared with 39-44%) and the most commonly reported adverse events were those expected for a potent antiandrogen. However, in patients with M0 disease at entry, the data are still immature with only 13% of M0 patients having died. An initial analysis of this immature data has suggested that the results in these patients may be different to those obtained in patients with M1 disease. A further survival analysis in patients with M0 disease is therefore planned when the data are more mature. CONCLUSIONS: 'Casodex' 150 mg is less effective than castration in patients with M1 disease. However, 'Casodex' has shown a benefit in terms of quality of life and subjective response when compared to castration and has an acceptable tolerability profile. Thus 'Casodex' 150 mg monotherapy is an option for patients with M1 prostate cancer for whom surgical or medical castration is not indicated or is not acceptable.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of 'Casodex' monotherapy (150 mg daily) for metastatic and locally advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: A total of 1,453 patients with either confirmed metastatic disease (M1), or T3/T4 non-metastatic disease with elevated prostate-specific antigen (M0) were recruited into one of two identical, multicentre, randomised studies to compare 'Casodex' 150 mg/day with castration. The protocols allowed for combined analysis. RESULTS: At a median follow-up period of approximately 100 weeks for both studies, 'Casodex' 150 mg was found to be less effective than castration in patients with metastatic disease (M1) at entry (hazard ratio of 1.30 for time to death) with a difference in median survival of 6 weeks. In symptomatic M1 patients, 'Casodex' was associated with a statistically significant improvement in subjective response (70%) compared with castration (58%). Analysis of a validated quality-of-life questionnaire proved an advantage for 'Casodex' in sexual interest and physical capacity. 'Casodex' had a substantially lower incidence of hot flushes compared to castration (6-13% compared with 39-44%) and the most commonly reported adverse events were those expected for a potent antiandrogen. However, in patients with M0 disease at entry, the data are still immature with only 13% of M0 patients having died. An initial analysis of this immature data has suggested that the results in these patients may be different to those obtained in patients with M1 disease. A further survival analysis in patients with M0 disease is therefore planned when the data are more mature. CONCLUSIONS: 'Casodex' 150 mg is less effective than castration in patients with M1 disease. However, 'Casodex' has shown a benefit in terms of quality of life and subjective response when compared to castration and has an acceptable tolerability profile. Thus 'Casodex' 150 mg monotherapy is an option for patients with M1 prostate cancer for whom surgical or medical castration is not indicated or is not acceptable.
Authors: William U Shipley; Wendy Seiferheld; Himanshu R Lukka; Pierre P Major; Niall M Heney; David J Grignon; Oliver Sartor; Maltibehn P Patel; Jean-Paul Bahary; Anthony L Zietman; Thomas M Pisansky; Kenneth L Zeitzer; Colleen A F Lawton; Felix Y Feng; Richard D Lovett; Alexander G Balogh; Luis Souhami; Seth A Rosenthal; Kevin J Kerlin; James J Dignam; Stephanie L Pugh; Howard M Sandler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 91.245