BACKGROUND: In the CARD study (NCT02485691), cabazitaxel significantly improved median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) versus abiraterone/enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had previously received docetaxel and progressed ≤12 mo on the alternative agent (abiraterone/enzalutamide). OBJECTIVE: To assess cabazitaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide in older (≥70 yr) and younger (<70 yr) patients in CARD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with mCRPC were randomized 1:1 to cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 plus prednisone and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg plus prednisone) or enzalutamide (160 mg). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Analyses of rPFS (primary endpoint) and safety by age were prespecified; others were post hoc. Treatment groups were compared using stratified log-rank or Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 255 patients randomized, 135 were aged ≥70 yr (median 76 yr). Cabazitaxel, compared with abiraterone/enzalutamide, significantly improved median rPFS in older (8.2 vs 4.5 mo; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38-0.89; p = 0.012) and younger (7.4 vs 3.2 mo; HR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.30-0.74; p < 0.001) patients. The median OS of cabazitaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide was 13.9 versus 9.4 mo in older patients (HR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.41-1.06; p = 0.084), and it was 13.6 versus 11.8 mo in younger patients (HR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.41-1.08; p = 0.093). Progression-free survival, prostate-specific antigen, and tumor and pain responses favored cabazitaxel, regardless of age. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 58% versus 49% of older patients receiving cabazitaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide and 48% versus 42% of younger patients. In older patients, cardiac adverse events were more frequent with abiraterone/enzalutamide; asthenia and diarrhea were more frequent with cabazitaxel. CONCLUSIONS: Cabazitaxel improved efficacy outcomes versus abiraterone/enzalutamide in patients with mCRPC after prior docetaxel and abiraterone/enzalutamide, regardless of age. TEAEs were more frequent among older patients. The cabazitaxel safety profile was manageable across age groups. PATIENT SUMMARY: Clinical trial data showed that cabazitaxel improved survival versus abiraterone/enzalutamide with manageable side effects in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had previously received docetaxel and the alternative agent (abiraterone/enzalutamide), irrespective of age.

• MeSH
• abirateron terapeutické užití   MeSH
• androsteny MeSH
• benzamidy škodlivé účinky   terapeutické užití   MeSH
• docetaxel škodlivé účinky   MeSH
• fenylthiohydantoin škodlivé účinky   terapeutické užití   MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• nádory prostaty rezistentní na kastraci * farmakoterapie   MeSH
• nitrily škodlivé účinky   terapeutické užití   MeSH
• prednison škodlivé účinky   MeSH
• přežití po terapii bez příznaků nemoci MeSH
• protokoly antitumorózní kombinované chemoterapie škodlivé účinky   MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• taxoidy škodlivé účinky   terapeutické užití   MeSH
• výsledek terapie MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• mužské pohlaví MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• práce podpořená grantem MeSH
• randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management. DESIGN: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference. SETTING: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach. PATIENT SUMMARY: This report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available.

• MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mezinárodní spolupráce MeSH
• nádory močového měchýře patologie   terapie   MeSH
• staging nádorů MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• konsensus - konference MeSH
• směrnice pro lékařskou praxi MeSH

BACKGROUND: In the CARD study, cabazitaxel significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. Here, we report the quality-of-life outcomes from the CARD study. METHODS: CARD was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study involving 62 clinical sites across 13 European countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2) with confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of an interactive voice-web response system to receive cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks, 10 mg daily prednisone, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg orally once daily plus 5 mg prednisone twice daily) or enzalutamide (160 mg orally daily). Stratification factors were ECOG performance status, time to disease progression on the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor, and timing of the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival; here, we present more detailed analyses of pain (assessed using item 3 on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF]) and symptomatic skeletal events, alongside preplanned patient-reported outcomes, assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire and the EuroQoL-5 dimensions, 5 level scale (EQ-5D-5L). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Pain response was analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of BPI-SF item 3, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of either FACT-P or EQ-5D-5L (PRO population). Analyses of skeletal-related events were also done in the intention-to-treat population. The CARD study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02485691, and is no longer enrolling. FINDINGS: Between Nov 17, 2015, and Nov 28, 2018, of 303 patients screened, 255 were randomly assigned to cabazitaxel (n=129) or abiraterone or enzalutamide (n=126). Median follow-up was 9·2 months (IQR 5·6-13·1). Pain response was observed in 51 (46%) of 111 patients with cabazitaxel and 21 (19%) of 109 patients with abiraterone or enzalutamide (p<0·0001). Median time to pain progression was not estimable (NE; 95% CI NE-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·5 months (4·9-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·55, 95% CI 0·32-0·97; log-rank p=0·035). Median time to symptomatic skeletal events was NE (95% CI 20·0-NE) with cabazitaxel and 16·7 months (10·8-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·35-1·01; log-rank p=0·050). Median time to FACT-P total score deterioration was 14·8 months (95% CI 6·3-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·9 months (6·3-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·72, 95% CI 0·44-1·20; log-rank p=0·21). There was a significant treatment effect seen in changes from baseline in EQ-5D-5L utility index score in favour of cabazitaxel over abiraterone or enzalutamide (p=0·030) but no difference between treatment groups for change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (p=0·060). INTERPRETATION: Since cabazitaxel improved pain response, time to pain progression, time to symptomatic skeletal events, and EQ-5D-5L utility index, clinicians and patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer can be reassured that cabazitaxel will not reduce quality of life when compared with treatment with a second androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. FUNDING: Sanofi.

• MeSH
• androgeny genetika   MeSH
• androsteny aplikace a dávkování   škodlivé účinky   MeSH
• antagonisté androgenů aplikace a dávkování   škodlivé účinky   MeSH
• fenylthiohydantoin aplikace a dávkování   škodlivé účinky   analogy a deriváty   MeSH
• kvalita života MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• metastázy nádorů MeSH
• nádory prostaty rezistentní na kastraci farmakoterapie   epidemiologie   patologie   MeSH
• přežití po terapii bez příznaků nemoci MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• taxoidy aplikace a dávkování   škodlivé účinky   MeSH
• výsledek terapie MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mužské pohlaví MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• klinické zkoušky, fáze IV MeSH
• multicentrická studie MeSH
• práce podpořená grantem MeSH
• randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH

• Publikační typ
• tisková chyba MeSH

INTRODUCTION: Platelet-derived growth factor receptor-α (PDGFRα) is expressed in primary prostate adenocarcinoma and in associated skeletal metastases. Olaratumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds PDGFRα and blocks downstream signalling. This phase II study assessed the efficacy and safety of olaratumab in combination with mitoxantrone and prednisone (M/P) versus M/P alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who progressed after docetaxel. METHODS: Patients were randomised to receive 21-d cycles of olaratumab (15 mg/kg, Days 1 and 8) plus mitoxantrone (12 mg/m2, Day 1) and prednisone (5 mg, twice daily) or M/P alone. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end-point. Secondary end-points included overall survival (OS), safety, and circulating tumour cell (CTC) counts. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients were randomised, 63 to olaratumab + M/P and 60 to M/P. Median PFS was 2.3 months for olaratumab + M/P and 2.4 months for M/P (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87-1.90). Median OS was 14.2 months for olaratumab + M/P and 12.8 months for M/P (HR = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.72-1.61). Both treatment arms had similar toxicity profiles; neutropenia (24% versus 15%), anaemia (13% versus 14%) and fatigue (11% versus 9%) (olaratumab + M/P versus M/P, respectively) were the most common grade ≥3 events. High CTC count was associated with poorer OS in both arms. Patients with very high cell counts (>37 cells/7.5 ml) exhibited improved OS with olaratumab + M/P (interaction P = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: Olaratumab + M/P had an acceptable safety profile but did not improve the efficacy of M/P chemotherapy. Further study with selected patient populations and earlier in the disease course might be considered.

• MeSH
• dospělí MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• metastázy nádorů MeSH
• míra přežití MeSH
• mitoxantron aplikace a dávkování   MeSH
• monoklonální protilátky aplikace a dávkování   MeSH
• nádory prostaty rezistentní na kastraci farmakoterapie   patologie   MeSH
• následné studie MeSH
• prednison aplikace a dávkování   MeSH
• prognóza MeSH
• protokoly antitumorózní kombinované chemoterapie terapeutické užití   MeSH
• senioři nad 80 let MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• Check Tag
• dospělí MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mužské pohlaví MeSH
• senioři nad 80 let MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• ženské pohlaví MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• klinické zkoušky, fáze II MeSH
• multicentrická studie MeSH
• práce podpořená grantem MeSH
• randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH
• srovnávací studie MeSH

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel, as compared with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were previously treated with docetaxel and had progression within 12 months while receiving the alternative inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) are unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had previously received docetaxel and an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) to receive cabazitaxel (at a dose of 25 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously every 3 weeks, plus prednisone daily and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) or the other androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (either 1000 mg of abiraterone plus prednisone daily or 160 mg of enzalutamide daily). The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival. Secondary end points of survival, response, and safety were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 255 patients underwent randomization. After a median follow-up of 9.2 months, imaging-based progression or death was reported in 95 of 129 patients (73.6%) in the cabazitaxel group, as compared with 101 of 126 patients (80.2%) in the group that received an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median imaging-based progression-free survival was 8.0 months with cabazitaxel and 3.7 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. The median overall survival was 13.6 months with cabazitaxel and 11.0 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.89; P = 0.008). The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months with cabazitaxel and 2.7 months with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.68; P<0.001), a prostate-specific antigen response occurred in 35.7% and 13.5% of the patients, respectively (P<0.001), and tumor response was noted in 36.5% and 11.5% (P = 0.004). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 56.3% of patients receiving cabazitaxel and in 52.4% of those receiving an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Cabazitaxel significantly improved a number of clinical outcomes, as compared with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had been previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen-signaling-targeted agent (abiraterone or enzalutamide). (Funded by Sanofi; CARD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02485691.).

• MeSH
• androsteny aplikace a dávkování   škodlivé účinky   MeSH
• antagonisté androgenů aplikace a dávkování   škodlivé účinky   MeSH
• doba přežití bez progrese choroby MeSH
• fenylthiohydantoin aplikace a dávkování   škodlivé účinky   analogy a deriváty   MeSH
• intravenózní infuze MeSH
• Kaplanův-Meierův odhad MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• nádory prostaty rezistentní na kastraci farmakoterapie   mortalita   MeSH
• prednison aplikace a dávkování   MeSH
• protokoly antitumorózní kombinované chemoterapie škodlivé účinky   terapeutické užití   MeSH
• senioři nad 80 let MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• taxoidy aplikace a dávkování   škodlivé účinky   MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mužské pohlaví MeSH
• senioři nad 80 let MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• multicentrická studie MeSH
• práce podpořená grantem MeSH
• randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH
• srovnávací studie MeSH

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear-cell advanced renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level, 0.04), objective response rate (alpha level, 0.001), and progression-free survival (alpha level, 0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk. RESULTS: A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow-up of 25.2 months in intermediate- and poor-risk patients, the 18-month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression-free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate- and poor-risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749 .).

• MeSH
• analýza přežití MeSH
• dospělí MeSH
• indoly aplikace a dávkování   škodlivé účinky   MeSH
• ipilimumab aplikace a dávkování   škodlivé účinky   MeSH
• karcinom z renálních buněk farmakoterapie   mortalita   MeSH
• kvalita života MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• míra přežití MeSH
• monoklonální protilátky aplikace a dávkování   škodlivé účinky   MeSH
• nádory ledvin farmakoterapie   MeSH
• přežití po terapii bez příznaků nemoci MeSH
• protinádorové látky imunologicky aktivní aplikace a dávkování   škodlivé účinky   MeSH
• protokoly antitumorózní kombinované chemoterapie škodlivé účinky   terapeutické užití   MeSH
• pyrroly aplikace a dávkování   škodlivé účinky   MeSH
• riziko MeSH
• senioři nad 80 let MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• Check Tag
• dospělí MeSH
• lidé středního věku MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• mužské pohlaví MeSH
• senioři nad 80 let MeSH
• senioři MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• klinické zkoušky, fáze III MeSH
• multicentrická studie MeSH
• práce podpořená grantem MeSH
• randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH
• Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural MeSH
• srovnávací studie MeSH