Phase II study of repeated single 24-hour infusion of low-dose 5-fluorouracil for palliation in symptomatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer

Extreme Prostate-Specific Antigen Response to Infusional 5-Flourouracil in Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer that has progressed after androgen deprivation, abiraterone, and taxane therapy is challenging to treat successfully. Herein we report a dramatic response to continuous-infusion 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) at a dose of 200 mg/m² in a patient with rapidly progressive, heavily pretreated, metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Baseline prostate-specific antigen values declined from 1,890 ng/mL to <1 ng/mL after 5-FU therapy. We hypothesized that prostate-specific membrane antigen overexpression may result in cancer cells uniquely susceptible to antifolate therapies.

Assessment of anticancer-treatment outcome in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer-going beyond PSA and imaging, a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

In the past years, there has been significant progress in anticancer drug development for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). However, the current instruments to assess clinical treatment response have limitations and may not sufficiently reflect patient benefit. Our objective was to systematically identify tools to evaluate both patient benefit and clinical anticancer-treatment response as basis for an international consensus process and development of a specific pragmatic instrument for men with CRPC.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and CINAHL were searched to identify currently available tools to assess anticancer-treatment benefit, other than standard imaging procedures and prostate-specific antigen measurements, namely quality of life (QoL), detailed pain assessment, physical function and objective measures of other complex cancer-related syndromes in patients with CRPC. Additionally, all CRPC phase III trials published in the last 5 years were reviewed as well as studies using physical function tools in a general cancer population. The PRIMSA statement was followed for the systematic review process.

RESULTS

The search generated 1096 hits, 185 full-text papers were screened and finally 73 publications were included. Additional 89 publications were included by hand-search. We identified a total of 98 tools used in CRPC trials and grouped these into three categories: 22 tools assessing QoL domains and subgroups, 47 tools for pain assessment and 29 tools for objective measures, mainly physical function and assessment of skeletal disease burden.

CONCLUSION

A wide variety of assessment tools and also efforts to standardize and harmonize patient-reported outcomes and pain assessment were identified. However, the specific needs of the increasing CRPC population living longer with their incurable cancer are insufficiently captured and objective physical outcome measures are under-represented. In the age of new anticancer drug targets and principles, new methods to monitor patient relevant outcomes of antineoplastic therapy are of utmost importance.

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.

Phase II study of oral capecitabine in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Currently available treatment for hormone refractory prostate cancer is limited in efficacy and associated with significant toxicity. This phase II study was performed to assess the efficacy of the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine in advanced prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who had a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) despite androgen withdrawal, but who remained free from cancer-related symptoms. In total, 14 patients received oral capecitabine 1250 mg/m2 twice daily for two weeks of a three-week cycle. Tumour response was assessed using serum PSA measurement at 3-weekly intervals and, where present, imaging of soft tissue metastases.

RESULTS

One of 14 patients experienced a partial response as assessed by both PSA and imaging of liver metastases. In seven other patients (50%), treatment decreased the rate of PSA rise. The duration of PSA stabilisation was generally short, but in 5/14 patients (36%) was sustained beyond 18 weeks, and in one patient to 24 weeks. Toxicity was significant but manageable, the most common adverse events being nausea, mucositis and hand-foot syndrome, each occurring in 50% of patients. Other common side effects were diarrhoea and lymphopenia. All toxicities were grade 1 or 2, except for grade 3 hand-foot syndrome occurring in one patient, and no dose reduction was required because of toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Capecitabine has limited activity as a single agent in prostate cancer, but appears to modulate tumour biology. Considering the added convenience of oral administration, these results support further evaluation of combinations containing capecitabine in hormone-refractory prostate cancer.