A phase II study of vinorelbine and estramustine in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer

Hormone Refractory Prostate Cancer (Hrpc): Present and Future Approaches of Therapy

The mainstay of therapy for patients with advanced prostate cancer still remains androgen deprivation, although response to this is invariably temporary. Most of the patients develop hormone-refractory disease resulting in progressive clinical deterioration and, ultimately, death. Until recently there has been no standard chemotherapeutic approach for hormone refractory prostate cancer (HRPC), the major benefits of chemotherapy being only palliative. The studies combining mitoxantrone plus a corticosteroid demonstrated that chemotherapy could be given to men with symptomatic HRPC with minimal toxicity and a significant palliation could be provided. Recently, results from 2 phase III randomized clinical trials demonstrating that a combination of docetaxel plus prednisone can improve survival in men with HRPC have propelled docetaxel-based therapy into the forefront of treatment options for these patients as the new standard of care. There is a promising activity of new drug combinations such as taxanes plus vinca alkaloids; bisphosphonates are assuming a prominent role in prostate therapy through their ability to prevent skeletal morbidity. Combinations of classic chemotherapeutic agents and biological drugs began to be tested in phase II-III trials and the first results appear interesting. This article focuses on combinations recently evaluated or under clinical development for the treatment of HRPC.

SCAI Expert consensus statement: Evaluation, management, and special considerations of cardio-oncology patients in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (endorsed by the cardiological society of india, and sociedad Latino Americana de Cardiologıa intervencionista)

In the United States alone, there are currently approximately 14.5 million cancer survivors, and this number is expected to increase to 20 million by 2020. Cancer therapies can cause significant injury to the vasculature, resulting in angina, acute coronary syndromes (ACS), stroke, critical limb ischemia, arrhythmias, and heart failure, independently from the direct myocardial or pericardial damage from the malignancy itself. Consequently, the need for invasive evaluation and management in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) for such patients has been increasing. In recognition of the need for a document on special considerations for cancer patients in the CCL, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) commissioned a consensus group to provide recommendations based on the published medical literature and on the expertise of operators with accumulated experience in the cardiac catheterization of cancer patients.

Second-line therapy for castrate-resistant prostate cancer: a literature review

Despite a survival benefit in the first-line treatment of castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) with docetaxel, the prognosis remains limited. There are increasing options available for patients with CRPC in the second-line setting, but there is currently little consensus regarding the optimal treatment. There have been numerous phase II and retrospective studies examining second-line options in CRPC, including retreatment with docetaxel, mitoxantrone, cyclophosphamide and carboplatin, which can be associated with meaningful responses in a significant minority of patients. In 2010 three randomized trials were published or presented which demonstrated a survival benefit in the second-line setting. These included cabazitaxel compared with mitoxantrone, sipuleucel-T (immunotherapy) and abiraterone acetate versus placebo. Ongoing research in the second-line setting of CRPC to optimize treatment options, with the objectives of survival prolongation, improvement in quality of life and pain management, is still needed.

Assessing outcomes in prostate cancer clinical trials: a twenty-first century tower of Babel

BACKGROUND

Because of the osseous distribution of prostate cancer metastases, progression is more readily identified than response in prostate cancer clinical trials. As a result, there is an increased focus on progression-free survival (PFS) as a phase 2 endpoint. PFS, however, is vulnerable to inter-study design variability. The authors sought to identify and quantify this variability and the resultant error in PFS across prostate cancer clinical trials.

METHODS

The authors reviewed phase 2 clinical trials of cytotoxic agents in castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer over 5 years to evaluate the policies determining extent of disease and the definitions of disease progression. A simulation model was created to define the degree of error in estimating PFS in 3 hypothetical cohorts (median PFS of 12, 24, and 36 weeks) when the frequency of outcome assessments varies.

RESULTS

Imaging policies for trial entry were heterogeneous, as were the type, timing, and indications for outcome assessments. In the simulation, error in the reported PFS varied according to the interval between assessments. The difference between the detected and the true PFS could vary as much as 6.4 weeks per cycle, strictly resulting from the variability of assessment schedules tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcome assessment policies are highly variable in phase 2 studies of castration-resistant prostate cancer patients, despite published guidelines designed to standardize authentication of disease progression. The estimated error in PFS can exceed 6 weeks per cycle, exclusively because of variations in the assessment schedules. Comparisons of PFS times from different studies must be made with circumspection.

Response to Vinorelbine With or Without Estramustine as Second-Line Chemotherapy in Patients with Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Vinorelbine (VRL) in combination with estramustine has known efficacy in the initial chemotherapeutic management of hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC). However, little is known about the efficacy of VRL as second-line chemotherapy in HRPC.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients with HRPC treated in a single institution with VRL as second-line chemotherapy with or without estramustine. Patient baseline characteristics, declines in prostate-specific antigen, performance status, toxicities, and survival were assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients were treated with VRL between 1999 and 2005. Twenty-one patients (54%) received single-agent VRL and 18 patients (46%) had concomitant estramustine. Seven patients (17.9%, 95% confidence interval 7.5%-33.6%) treated with VRL experienced prostate-specific antigen declines >or=50%. Median duration of therapy was 1.4 months (range 0.2-14.0 months). Median overall survival was 6.9 months (range 1.4-29.9 months); it was 16.1 month in responders and 5.5 months in nonresponders. Median survival was significantly longer in patients with VRL and estramustine than in patients who received VRL alone (8.5 months versus 4.1 months, P=0.05). The most common reversible adverse effect of VRL was grade 1 or 2 fatigue observed in 36% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

As a second-line chemotherapy, VRL demonstrated moderate activity and was well tolerated in patients with HRPC. Patients treated with the combination of VRL and estramustine experienced a longer survival than those receiving VRL alone.