Definition of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC)
CRPC is defined by disease progression despite ADT and may present as one or any combination of a continuous rise in serum levels of PSA, progression of pre-existing disease or appearance of new metastases.
In their second publication, the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 2 (PCWG2) defines patients with CRPC as patients with castrate serum levels of testosterone (testosterone < 50 ng/dL or 1.7 nmol/L) plus biochemical or radiological progression despite anti-androgen withdrawal for at least 4–6 weeks [
16]. Biochemical progression is defined as three consecutive rises in PSA 1 week apart, resulting in two 25% increases over the nadir, and PSA > 2 ng/mL. Radiologic progression is defined when the appearance of new lesions: either two or more new bone lesions on bone scan or a soft tissue lesion using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).
PCWG2 advises investigators not to wait to assess for a withdrawal response in patients who did not respond or who showed a decline in PSA for 3 months or less after an antiandrogen was administered as a second-line or later intervention.
Continuing treatment with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analogs in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer
When disease progresses, discontinuation LHRH analogs therapy can result in an increase in serum testosterone, and thus, contribute to disease progression. Continuation of treatment with LHRH analogs in patients with castration-resistant disease remains controversial, but exogenous testosterone has been demonstrated to exacerbate disease in the metastatic setting [
17].
Two trials have shown a marginal survival benefit for patients with metastatic CRPC (mCRPC) remaining on LHRH analogs during second- and third-line therapies [
18,
19]. In addition, all subsequent treatments have been studied in men with ongoing androgen suppression; therefore, it should be continued indefinitely in these patients.
Asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients with mCRPC
To date, three randomized phase III trials have demonstrated increased survival in patients with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC. The three studies included patients with PS equal to 0–1, with a low level of pain as measured by the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form Scale (BPI-SF) equal to 0–1 (asymptomatic) or 2–3 (minimally symptomatic), respectively. In these trials, metastatic disease was documented.
In 2010, the IMPACT study [
20], sipuleucel-T, an autologous active cellular immunotherapy agent, prolonged OS among men with mCRPC, before or after docetaxel treatment, with a relative reduction of 22% in the risk of death as compared with the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.78; 95% CI 0.61–0.98;
p = 0.03). This reduction represented a 4.1 month improvement in OS (25.8 months vs. 21.7 months). The most common associated adverse events (AEs) were chills (51%), fever (22%), fatigue (16%), nausea (14%) and headache (11%). Sipuleucel-T is not available in Europe.
In the second study (COU-AA-302) [
21], abiraterone in combination with prednisone was superior to placebo plus prednisone. Overall survival, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and secondary endpoints all favored the abiraterone arm (in terms of time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, opiate use for cancer-related pain, PSA progression and decline in performance status). After a median follow-up of 22.2 months, there was significant improvement of rPFS (median: 16.5 months vs. 8.2 months; HR 0.52;
p < 0.001), and the trial was unblinded. At the final analysis, with a median follow-up of 49.2 months, the OS endpoint was significantly positive (34.7 months vs. 30.3 months; HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.70–0.93;
p = 0.0033) [
7]. With regard to toxicity, adverse events related to mineralocorticoid excess and liver function abnormalities were more frequent with abiraterone but were mostly grades 1–2. The role of abiraterone in the groups of patients not included in the COU-AA-302 study, especially in patients with symptomatic or visceral metastases, is controversial.
PREVAIL was a phase III trial comparing enzalutamide activity with placebo in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC patients [
22,
23]. Unlike the COU-AA-302 study, approximately 12% of the patients had visceral metastases (lung and/or liver). Enzalutamide demonstrated significant improvement in both co-primary end points of rPFS (HR 0.186; 95% CI 0.15–0.23;
p < 0.0001) and OS (HR 0.706; 95% CI 0.6–0.84;
p < 0.001). It also showed a benefit with respect to all secondary end points, including the time to initiation of chemotherapy, the time until first skeletal-related event (SRE), complete or partial soft tissue response, time to PSA progression and rate of decline of at least 50% in PSA. The most common clinically relevant adverse events were fatigue and hypertension.
A significant improvement in OS of 2.0–2.9 months occurred with docetaxel-based chemotherapy compared with mitoxantrone plus prednisone therapy [
24]. No comparative studies have been conducted with docetaxel against new hormonal treatments. There are general factors that predict a rapidly progressive disease and shorter survival and could justify the choice of docetaxel as first line: the presence of anemia, multiple metastatic sites, elevated LDH and alkaline phosphatase, and a PSA-DT of less than 55 days [
25,
26]. In these patients, docetaxel-based chemotherapy would be the treatment of choice.
Recommendations
-
Sipuleucel-T would be a treatment option in asymptomatic patients with mCRPC if regulatory approval is obtained in Europe. Level of evidence: Ib. Strength of recommendation: A.
-
Abiraterone is a treatment option for asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients with mCRPC without visceral metastases and previously untreated with chemotherapy. Level of evidence: Ib. Strength of recommendation: A.
-
Enzalutamide is a treatment option for asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic patients with mCRPC, including selected patients with visceral metastases, who have not received previous chemotherapy. Level of evidence: Ib. Strength of recommendation: A.
-
Patients with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC and adverse prognostic factors (the presence of visceral metastases) should also be considered for docetaxel treatment. Level of evidence: 1a. Strength of recommendation: A.
First-line therapy for symptomatic mCRPC
In contrast to asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic disease, the definition of symptomatic mCRPC status needs further explanation. Noticeably, this definition requires of the presence of symptoms clearly attributable to disease burden, which frequently in mCRPC are identified as pain. Various contemporaneous trials have defined symptomatic patients as those who present with a BPI-SF score > 3 and/or regular opiates for pain control [
20‐
22]. Nonetheless, the definition of a symptomatic mCRPC patient in a daily clinical practice should warrant further assessment than just a pain scale. For example, many patients reported symptoms different from pain but clearly related to metastases and tumor burden in a recent large survey conducted by the International Prostate Cancer Coalition (results available at MenWhoSpeakUp.com).
Since 2004, docetaxel has become the preferred cytotoxic chemotherapy option for symptomatic mCRPC. Two phase III studies, TAX327 [
24] and SWOG99-16 [
27] demonstrated the superiority of docetaxel (± estramustine) over the mitoxantrone plus prednisone. The TAX327 (
n = 1006) patients compared (a) 3-week docetaxel 75 mg/m
2, (b) 1-week docetaxel 30 mg/m
2, and (c) 3-week mitoxantrone 12 mg/m
2; all patients received continuous oral prednisone 5 mg bid. The 3-week docetaxel arm was superior to the mitoxantrone arm with a OS of 18.9 months versus 16.5 months, respectively (HR 0.76,
p = 0.009), and has been confirmed (19.2 vs. 16.3) in a later updated analysis with 867 deaths [
28]. Bone pain responses were more significant in docetaxel patients (35% vs. 22%;
p = 0.08), as were improvements in quality of life (QoL) compared to the mitoxantrone group. The weekly docetaxel arm was not significantly superior to the mitoxantrone arm in terms of OS, pain reduction or improvement of QoL [
24]. The SWOG99-16 also supported the superiority of docetaxel plus estramustine over mitoxantrone in terms of OS but with a significant increase in toxicity in the experimental arm [
27]. A phase III study by Kellokumpu-Lehtinen et al., showed a significantly lower rate of grades 3–4 AEs with 2-week docetaxel at 50 mg/m
2 compared with 3-week docetaxel [
29]. Although the use of the 2-week schedule has been proposed as an alternative for unfit patients, it should be cautiously considered. First, this study did not meet the predesigned primary endpoint, and second, data on comorbidities were not reported and only 6% of patients included had poor performance status (PS 2).
The Firstana Study (NCT01308567), which was presented at ASCO 2016 [
30] but has not been published yet, compared 3-week cabazitaxel 25 mg/m
2 (C25) to 3-week cabazitaxel 20 mg/m
2 (C20) and 3-week docetaxel 75 mg/m
2 (D) all in combination with prednisone 5 mg bid as first-line chemotherapy in men with mCRPC, has failed to show superiority of cabazitaxel in median OS (C25 25.2 vs. C20 24.5 vs. D 24.3 months). However, toxicity profiles for cabazitaxel and docetaxel differ. Febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, and haematuria occurred more often with C25 in while peripheral neuropathy, oedema, alopecia, and nail disorders were associated with docetaxel.
The ALSYMPCA study randomized mCRPC patients with symptomatic bone metastases and no known visceral metastatic disease to receive six doses of Ra-223 every 4 weeks at 50 kBq/kg (55 kBq/kg following 2015 NIST update) versus best supportive care (BSC). In this study, definition of asymptomatic patient was closer than in COU-AA-302. The study showed a significant improvement in median OS with Ra-223 (14.9 vs. 11.3;
p < 0.001). Ra-223 was also associated with longer time to first SRE, improved pain, and improved QoL [
31]. This study included patients unfit for docetaxel or unwilling to have chemotherapy, and then Ra-223 could be indicated in patients either pre- and post-docetaxel without an apparent detriment in benefit from Ra-223 or the subsequent chemotherapy lines [
32].
Although abiraterone plus prednisone or enzalutamide has not been studied as first-line treatment for symptomatic mCRPC patients, they both have shown activity in a symptomatic population after docetaxel with a favorable safety profile. The APCCC 2015 [
33] supported to extrapolate the data of the COU-AA-301 [
34] and AFFIRM [
35] study to the first-line symptomatic mCPRC population. Then they could be considered as alternative for those patients rejecting chemotherapy or unfit for such treatment.
The incorporation of docetaxel to the castration-naive metastatic (mCNPC) setting has generated new questions about sequencing other therapies with regards to the first-line in mCRPC. When there are not specific studies analyzing the best therapy in this setting, similar approaches to patient who undergo a second-line treatment after docetaxel may be considered.
Recommendations
-
Docetaxel at 75 mg/m2 every 21 days plus prednisone 5 mg bid is the preferred first-line treatment for symptomatic mCRPC naïve for docetaxel. Level of evidence: I. Strength of recommendation: A.
-
Docetaxel at 50 mg/m2 every 15 days may be considered as potentially less toxic alternative. Level of evidence: II. Strength of recommendation: C
-
Ra-223 at 55 mBq/kg every 28 days for six cycles could be offered to mCRPC patients naïve for docetaxel, with symptomatic bone metastases and not known visceral metastases how are unfit or are not willing to receive docetaxel (Level of evidence: I. Strength of recommendation: A)
-
Abiraterone or enzalutamide could be considered as an alternative first-line treatment for symptomatic mCRPC patients naïve for docetaxel unfit or unwilling to receive docetaxel. Level of evidence: V. Strength of recommendation: A
Second-line therapy: cabazitaxel and second-line hormone therapy
Cabazitaxel and hormone therapies, enzalutamide and abiraterone have been tested in large randomized phase III trials in mCPC patients that progressed to docetaxel [
34‐
36].
Cabazitaxel is a semisynthetic taxane that acts promoting tubulin assembly and stabilizing microtubules that was selected for clinical development based on a better anti-proliferative activity than docetaxel against chemotherapy-resistant tumor cell lines. It is approved for the treatment of patients with mCRPC who had progressed to docetaxel, after the results of the TROPIC trial [
36].
The TROPIC trial was an open-label randomized phase III trial in men with metastatic CRPC patients who had received previously docetaxel. Cabazitaxel (25 mg/m
2 every 3 weeks) prednisone was compared with mitoxantrone 12 mg/m
2, up to 10 cycles, both in combination with continuous prednisone (10 mg/day PO). A total of 755 patients were included. The primary endpoint was OS, which was 15.1 months in the cabazitaxel and 12.7 months in the mitoxantrone group (HR was 0.70 (95% CI 0.59–0.83,
p < 0.0001). Secondary endpoints included PFS and safety. Median PFS was 2.8 months in the cabazitaxel arm and 1.4 months in the mitoxantrone arm HR 0.74, 0.64–0.86,
p < 0.0001). Cabazitaxel also showed significant improvement in PSA and objective response rate and time to PSA progression. Updated data with a median follow-up of 25.5 months showed that more patients remained alive at 2 years following cabazitaxel than mitoxantrone (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% CI 1.33–3.33) [
37]. Cabazitaxel showed more toxicity than mitoxantrone, being neutropenia and diarrhea the most common clinically significant grade 3 or higher toxicities that occurred in 82 and 58% of patients treated with cabazitaxel. Moreover, 28 (8%) patients in the cabazitaxel group had febrile neutropenia respect to only 5 (1%) in the mitoxantrone arm [
36]. Thus, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administered prophylactically in the high-risk patient population is recommended.
To study if lower doses of cabazitaxel may induce similar antitumor activity with lower toxicity, the Phase III trial PROSELICA was designed. The main objective was to demonstrate the non-inferiority in OS of the dose of 20 mg/m
2 respect to 25 mg/m
2 [
38] 1200 patients were included, showing that 20 mg/m
2 was not inferior in OS and had a lower degree of grade III–IV toxicity. However, the PSA- and objective response rates were superior for the higher dose, 42.5% versus 29% and 23.4% versus 18.5%, respectively. Standard recommended dose for cabazitaxel is 20 mg/m
2.
Hormone-therapy Two phase III trials established the role of abiraterone and enzalutamide in mCRPC progressing after docetaxel. The mechanism of action for both drugs has been described in the “first line” section.
The COU-A-301 trial randomized in a 2:1 ratio, 1195 patients to receive 1000 mg of abiraterone acetate (797 patients) or placebo (398 abiraterone), both plus continuous prednisone 10 mg/daily [
34]. Overall survival was longer in the abiraterone group (14.8 months vs. 10.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.65;
p < 0.001). Abiraterone was also superior to placebo in all secondary end points, including time to PSA progression (10.2 months vs. 6.6 months;
p < 0.001), PFS (5.6 months vs. 3.6 months;
p < 0.001), and PSA response rate (29% vs. 6%,
p < 0.001). The most common adverse events for abiraterone were fluid retention, hypertension, and hypokalemia. This benefit for abiraterone was maintained in an updated follow-up publication (median follow-up of 20.2 months) [
39]. Moreover, it improves the quality of life, the pain control and delay and reduced the risk of bone-related events [
39,
40].
The AFFIRM study was a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, that randomized 1199 patients (2:1 ratio), to receive enzalutamide, 160 mg per day (800 patients) or placebo (399 patients) [
35]. Primary endpoint was OS. The median OS was 18.4 months in the enzalutamide group versus 13.6 months in the placebo group (HR 0.63;
p < 0.001). The superiority of enzalutamide over placebo was also observed with respect to all secondary endpoints: PSA response rate (54% vs. 2%,
p < 0.001), objective response rate (29% vs. 4%,
p < 0.001), the quality-of-life response rate (43% vs. 18%,
p < 0.001), the time to PSA progression (8.3 months vs. 3.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.25;
p < 0.001), radiographic PFS (8.3 months vs. 2.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.40;
p < 0.001), and the time to the first SRE (16.7 months vs. 13.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.69;
p < 0.001) [
41]. Rates of fatigue, diarrhea, and hot flashes were higher in the enzalutamide group. Seizures were reported in five patients (0.6%) receiving enzalutamide.
Abiraterone has minimal activity after enzalutamide treatment; in a phase IV trial, PFS was 5.8 months and only 2% of patients had a PSA decline of greater than 50%. On the other hand, enzalutamide after abiraterone treatment show some activity, with a 50% of PSA response in 22 of 33 patients of the post hoc analysis of COU-AA 302 trial [
42,
43]; although in the only prospective phase II trial that compares enzalutamide in patients with progressive mCRPC after ≥ 24 weeks of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone treatment, rPFS was 8 months [
44].
Recommendation
There are several options of choice after docetaxel treatment, according to patient characteristics and therapy received prior to docetaxel (today, most patients receive abiraterone or enzalutamide as a first-line treatment of CPCR)
Cabazitaxel
Level of evidence: I. Strength of recommendation: A
Abiraterone
In patients without prior enzalutamide. Level of evidence: I. Strength of recommendation: A
In patients with prior enzalutamide it may be considered in selected cases. Level of evidence: IV. Strength of recommendation: D
Enzalutamide
In patients without prior abiraterone. Level of evidence: I. Strength of recommendation: A
In patients with prior abiraterone, it may be considered in selected cases. Level of evidence: IV. Strength of recommendation: D