a v a i l a b l e a t w w w . s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e u r o p e a n u r o l o g y . c o m Article info AbstractBackground: Few randomised studies have compared antiandrogen intermittent hormonal therapy (IHT) with continuous maximal androgen blockade (MAB) therapy for advanced prostate cancer (PCa). Objective: To determine whether overall survival (OS) on IHT (cyproterone acetate; CPA) is noninferior to OS on continuous MAB. Design, setting, and participants: This phase 3 randomised trial compared IHT and continuous MAB in patients with locally advanced or metastatic PCa. Intervention: During induction, patients received CPA 200 mg/d for 2 wk and then monthly depot injections of a luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH; triptoreline 11.25 mg) analogue plus CPA 200 mg/d. Patients whose prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was <4 ng/ml after 3 mo of induction treatment were randomised to the IHT arm (stopped treatment and restarted on CPA 300 mg/d monotherapy if PSA rose to 20 ng/ml or they were symptomatic) or the continuous arm (CPA 200 mg/d plus monthly LHRH analogue). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Primary outcome measurement was OS. Secondary outcomes included cause-specific survival, time to subjective or objective progression, and quality of life. Time off therapy in the intermittent arm was recorded. Results and limitations: We recruited 1045 patients, of which 918 responded to induction therapy and were randomised (462 to IHT and 456 to continuous MAB). OS was similar between groups ( p = 0.25), and noninferiority of IHT was demonstrated (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.07). There was a trend for an interaction between PSA and treatment ( p = 0.05), favouring IHT over continuous therapy in patients with PSA 1 ng/ml (HR: 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-1.02). Men treated with IHT reported better sexual function. Among the 462 patients on IHT, 50% and 28% of patients were off therapy for 2.5 yr or >5 yr, respectively, after randomisation. The main limitation is that the length of time for the trial to mature means that other therapies are now available. A second limitation is that T3 patients may now profit from watchful waiting instead of androgen-deprivation therapy. Conclusions: Noninferiority of IHT in terms of survival and its association with better sexual activity than continuous therapy suggest that IHT should be considered for use in routine clinical practice.

Bone metastases are a very common problem in prostate cancer. They are associated with considerable morbidity, adversely affect quality of life and frequently lead to advanced bone events (so-called skeletal-related events, SREs); SREs include fractures, spinal cord compression and the requirement for bone surgery or bone radiation. The aim of this paper was to evaluate currently available treatment options in the prevention and management of SREs and bone metastases in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer and to outline the importance of interdisciplinary management strategies. It also discusses the diagnostic workup of osseous metastases and practical considerations for the utilization of bone-targeted therapies in accordance with current guidelines to provide a consensus for special and/or difficult clinical situations.

IMPORTANCE DCVAC/PCa is an active cellular immunotherapy designed to initiate an immune response against prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCVAC/PCa plus chemotherapy followed by DCVAC/PCa maintenance treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThe VIABLE double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase 3 randomized clinical trial enrolled patients with mCRPC among 177 hospital clinics in the US and Europe between June 2014 and November 2017. Data analyses were performed from December 2019 to July 2020.INTERVENTIONS Eligible patients were randomized (2:1) to receive DCVAC/PCa (add-on and maintenance) or placebo, both in combination with chemotherapy (docetaxel plus prednisone). The stratification was applied according to geographical region (US or non-US), prior therapy (abiraterone, enzalutamide, or neither), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0-1 or 2). DCVAC/PCa or placebo was administered subcutaneously every 3 to 4 weeks (up to 15 doses). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was overall survival (OS), defined as the time from randomization until death due to any cause, in all randomized patients. Survival was compared using 2-sided log-rank test stratified by geographical region, prior therapy with abiraterone and/or enzalutamide, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. RESULTS A total of 1182 men with mCRPC (median [range] age, 68 [46-89] years) were randomized to receive DCVAC/PCa (n = 787) or placebo (n = 395). Of these, 610 (81.8%) started DCVAC/PCa, and 376 (98.4%) started placebo. There was no difference in OS between the DCVAC/PCa and placebo groups in all randomized patients (median OS, 23.9 months [95% CI, 21.6-25.3] vs 24.3 months [95% CI, 22.6-26.0]; hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90-1.21; P = .60). No differences in the secondary efficacy end points (radiological progression-free survival, time to prostate-specific antigen progression, or skeletal-related events) were observed. Treatment-emergent adverse events related to DCVAC/PCa or placebo occurred in 69 of 749 (9.2%) and 48 of 379 (12.7%) patients, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (DCVAC/PCa [n = 749] vs placebo [n = 379]) were fatigue (271 [36.2%] vs 152 [40.1%]), alopecia (222 [29.6%] vs 130 [34.3%]), and diarrhea (206 [27.5%] vs 117 [30.9%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, DCVAC/PCa combined with docetaxel plus prednisone and continued as maintenance treatment did not extend OS in patients with mCRPC and was well tolerated.

No abstract

No abstract