학술논문
Differences in clinical outcome between docetaxel and abiraterone acetate as the first-line treatment in chemo-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with or without the ineligible clinical factors of the COU-AA-302 study.
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
Poon DMC; Department of Clinical Oncology, State Key Laboratory in Oncology in South China, Sir YK Pao Centre for Cancer, Hong Kong Cancer Institute and Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.; Chan K; Department of Clinical Oncology, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong.; Lee SH; Department of Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Hong Kong.; Chan TW; Department of Clinical Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong.; Sze H; Department of Clinical Oncology, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong.; Lee EKC; Department of Clinical Oncology, Tuen Mun Hospital, Hong Kong.; Lam D; Department of Clinical Oncology, State Key Laboratory in Oncology in South China, Sir YK Pao Centre for Cancer, Hong Kong Cancer Institute and Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.; Chan MFT; Department of Clinical Oncology, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong.
Source
Publisher: Asian Pacific Prostate Society Country of Publication: Korea (South) NLM ID: 101605566 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Print ISSN: 2287-8882 (Print) Linking ISSN: 22878882 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Prostate Int Subsets: PubMed not MEDLINE
Subject
Language
English
ISSN
2287-8882
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of abiraterone acetate (AA) versus docetaxel (T) as first-line treatment in chemo-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with or without the ineligible factors of the COU-AA-302 study (presence of visceral metastases, symptomatic disease, and/or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 2).
Materials and Methods: The clinical records of chemo-naïve mCRPC patients who received AA in six public oncology centers or T in two of these centers between 2003 and 2014 were reviewed. The survival time was compared among four subgroups of patients: those with ineligible factors administered AA (Group Ineligible-AA) or T (Group Ineligible-T), and those without ineligible factors and administered AA (Group Eligible-AA) or T (Group Eligible-T).
Results: During the study period, we identified 115 mCRPC patients who received AA or T, among whom 29, 36, 29, and 21 patients were classified as Groups Ineligible-AA, Ineligible-T, Eligible-AA, and Eligible-T, respectively. Both Group Ineligible-AA and Group Eligible-AA had significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and similar overall survival (OS) as Group Ineligible-T and Group Eligible-T (Ineligible, PFS: 6.3 vs. 5.9 months, P = 0.0234, OS: 7.8 vs. 15.7 months, P = 0.1601; Eligible, PFS: 9.8 vs. 5.6 months, P = 0.0437, OS: 20.5 vs. 18.2 months, P = 0.7820).
Conclusions: Compared to T, AA treatment resulted in longer PFS and similar OS in chemo-naïve mCRPC patients, irrespective of the presence of ineligible factors, suggesting that the initial treatment by AA may still be beneficial to those with the aforementioned ineligible factors.
Materials and Methods: The clinical records of chemo-naïve mCRPC patients who received AA in six public oncology centers or T in two of these centers between 2003 and 2014 were reviewed. The survival time was compared among four subgroups of patients: those with ineligible factors administered AA (Group Ineligible-AA) or T (Group Ineligible-T), and those without ineligible factors and administered AA (Group Eligible-AA) or T (Group Eligible-T).
Results: During the study period, we identified 115 mCRPC patients who received AA or T, among whom 29, 36, 29, and 21 patients were classified as Groups Ineligible-AA, Ineligible-T, Eligible-AA, and Eligible-T, respectively. Both Group Ineligible-AA and Group Eligible-AA had significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and similar overall survival (OS) as Group Ineligible-T and Group Eligible-T (Ineligible, PFS: 6.3 vs. 5.9 months, P = 0.0234, OS: 7.8 vs. 15.7 months, P = 0.1601; Eligible, PFS: 9.8 vs. 5.6 months, P = 0.0437, OS: 20.5 vs. 18.2 months, P = 0.7820).
Conclusions: Compared to T, AA treatment resulted in longer PFS and similar OS in chemo-naïve mCRPC patients, irrespective of the presence of ineligible factors, suggesting that the initial treatment by AA may still be beneficial to those with the aforementioned ineligible factors.