Navigating systemic therapy for metastatic castration-naïve prostate cancer

Introduction: The last decade has seen a remarkable shift in the treatment landscape of advanced prostate cancer, none more so than in the management of metastatic castration-naïve disease.Methods: This narrative review will examine existing and emerging evidence supporting systemic therapy use for metastatic castration-naïve prostate cancer (mCNPC) and provide guidance on the selection of these agents with respect to optimising patient outcomes. Results: The addition of either docetaxel (chemohormonal approach) or an AR pathway inhibitor (abiraterone, enzalutamide or apalutamide) is a reasonable standard of care option for men commencing long-term ADT for mCNPC. While the issue of disease volume as a predictive biomarker for docetaxel benefit has previously been debated, recent data support consideration of upfront docetaxel in all patients, regardless of metastatic burden. Decisions regarding systemic treatment for men with mCNPC should be based on comprehensive consideration of disease, patient and logistical factors. Multiple novel therapeutics for mCNPC are currently under active investigation. Conclusion: The introduction of potent systemic therapy earlier in the mCNPC disease course has resulted in dramatic improvements in clinical outcomes for patients. As the management of mCNPC continues to evolve, the future remains promising, with the expectation of ongoing improvements to patient outcomes and quality of life

Indirect comparisons of efficacy between combination approaches in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Context: There have been substantial changes in the management of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) over the past 5 yr, with upfront combination therapies replacing androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) alone. A range of therapies have entered the space with no clear answer regarding their comparative efficacy. Objective: To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to characterise the comparative efficacy of combination approaches in men with mHSPC. Evidence acquisition: We searched multiple databases and abstracts of major meetings up to June 2019 for randomised trials of patients receiving first-line therapy for metastatic disease, a combination of ADT and one (or more) of taxane-based chemotherapy, and androgen receptor-targeted therapies. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and we evaluated progression-free survival as a secondary outcome. We performed subgroup analysis based on the volume of disease. Evidence synthesis: We found seven trials that met our eligibility criteria using either docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, or apalutamide in combination with ADT. All agents in combination with ADT were shown to be superior to ADT alone; enzalutamide + ADT had the lowest absolute hazard ratio compared with ADT only (hazards ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.37–0.75), and an estimated 76.9% probability that it is the preferred treatment to prolong OS compared with other combination treatments, or with ADT alone. Enzalutamide appeared to have better OS compared with docetaxel in men with low-volume disease, but there was no difference in other comparisons. Conclusions: Combination therapy with any of docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, or apalutamide provides a significant OS benefit when compared with ADT alone. We did not identify significant differences in OS between different combination therapies. Subtle differences between these options provide clinicians considerable flexibility when selecting options for individual patients. Patient summary: Many men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer should be managed with upfront combination therapy instead of androgen-deprivation therapy alone. Clinicians may consider many factors during the decision-making process, and thus management should be tailored for patients individually. Combination therapy with any of docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, or apalutamide provides a significant overall survival (OS) benefit when compared with androgen-deprivation therapy alone. We did not identify significant differences in OS between different combination therapies. Subtle differences between these options allow clinicians considerable flexibility when selecting options for individual patients

A Novel Risk Calculator Incorporating Clinical Parameters, Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography for Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification Before Transperineal Prostate Biopsy

Background: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) can detect multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-invisible prostate tumours and improve the sensitivity of detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in comparison to mpMRI alone. Numerous risk calculators have been validated as tools for stratification of men at risk of being diagnosed with clinically significant (cs)PCa. Objective: To develop a novel risk calculator using clinical parameters and imaging parameters from mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT in a cohort of patients undergoing mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT before biopsy. Design, setting, and participants: A total of 291 men from the PRIMARY prospective trial underwent mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT before transperineal prostate biopsy with sampling of systematic and targeted cores. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Novel risk calculators were developed using multivariable logistic regression analysis to predict detection of overall PCa (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group [GG] ≥1) and csPCa (GG ≥2). The risk calculators were then compared with the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer risk calculator incorporating mpMRI (ERSPC-MRI). Resampling methods were used to evaluate the discrimination and calibration of the risk calculators and to perform decision curve analysis. Results and limitations: Age, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, and mpMRI Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System scores were included in the MRI risk calculator, resulting in area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values of 0.791 for overall PCa (GG ≥1) and 0.812 for csPCa (GG ≥2). Addition of the maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) on PSMA PET/CT for the prostate lesion, and of SUVmax for the mpMRI lesions for the MRI-PSMA risk calculator resulted in AUCs of 0.831 for overall PCa and 0.876 for csPCa (≥ISUP2).The ERSPC-MRI risk calculator had AUCs of 0.758 (p = 0.02) for overall PCa and 0.805 (p = 0.001) for csPCa. Both the MRI and MRI-PSMA risk calculators were superior to the ERSPC-MRI for both overall PCa and csPCa. Conclusions: These novel risk calculators incorporate clinical and radiological parameters for stratification of men at risk of csPCa. The risk calculator including PSMA PET/CT data is superior to a calculator incorporating mpMRI data alone. Patient summary: We evaluated a new risk calculator that uses clinical information and results from two types of scan to predict the risk of clinically significant prostate cancer on prostate biopsy. This risk model can guide patients and clinicians in shared decision-making and may help in avoiding unnecessary prostate biopsies