/
Thomas E. Keane  Medical University of South Carolina Thomas E. Keane  Medical University of South Carolina

Thomas E. Keane Medical University of South Carolina - PowerPoint Presentation

valerie
valerie . @valerie
Follow
342 views
Uploaded On 2022-06-01

Thomas E. Keane Medical University of South Carolina - PPT Presentation

Charleston SC Bones Hot Flashes and ADT Use With Chemotherapy and Timing Toxicities of ADT Hot Flashes sexual dysfunction and many other complications of therapy are seen in greater than 90 of men on ADT ID: 913421

months adt bone docetaxel adt months docetaxel bone men cancer chaarted oncol volume toxicity median hot prostate metastatic nejm

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Thomas E. Keane Medical University of S..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Thomas E. Keane

Medical University of South Carolina Charleston, SC

Bones, Hot Flashes, and ADT Use With Chemotherapy and Timing

Slide2

Toxicities of ADTHot Flashes, sexual dysfunction and many other complications of therapy are seen in greater than 90% of men on ADT

Higano

CS. J

Clin

Oncol

. 2012;30:3720-5

Nguyen PL, et al.

Eur

Urol. 2015;67:825-36

Slide3

Strategies to Mitigate Side effects of ADT

Intermittent ADT – Rising PSA after local RXReducing the duration of ADT – No data in metastatic DZ : 6 worse than 36 in RT failureAntiandrogen monotherapy – Inferior to ADT

Exercise therapy

Crook JM, et al. N

Eng

J Med 2012;367:895-903

Smith MR, et al. J

Clin

Oncol 2004;22:2546-53Bolla M, et al. N Engl J Med 2009;360:2516-27Cormie P, et al. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2013;16;170-5

Slide4

Intermittent vs. Continuous ADT7 published phase 111 trials revealed concerns related to design and interpretation

Survival is worse in IAD for patients with

metastatic disease

compared to CAD

Median OS differences of 8-10 months in CAD vs. IAD

A l

ack of statistically significant inferiority of IAD does not equal clinically insignificant differences

Combined data from RCTs does not support large or durable effects on QOL: due to short follow-up time

ans

small underpowered trials Hussain M, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34:280-5

Slide5

Hot Flashes and ADT

Over 50% of men on ADT experience hot flashes

ADT lowers set point resulting in easier activation….

Allan CA, et al.

Endocr

Relat

Cancer. 2014;21:119-29

Nguyen PL, et al.

Eur

Urol. 2015;67:825-36

Slide6

Management of Hot Flashes

Medroxyprogesterone acetate

Irani

J, et al. Lancet

Oncol

2010;11:147-54

Harding C, et al. BJU

Int

2009;103:186-90

Ashamalla H, et al. Int J Radiat Oncol

Biol

Phys 2011;79:1358-63

Slide7

Management of Hot Flashes

Adverse events with all – GI, Vascular and CNS

Slide8

Management of Hot Flashes

Acupuncture: Prospective studies: 85-90% improvement

Twice weekly sessions for 6 weeks

12 acupuncture sites

Needles left in place for 45 minutes

Hirsch L, Goldstein L. Canadian Journal of Urology 2015; 22:7938

Men with prostate cancer on ADT treated with acupuncture

-reduction in severity of hot flash score from 70-89.2%

-greater than 50% reduction in daily number of hot flashes

Slide9

Management of Hot FlashesAcupuncture:

Proposed mechanism of action:Acupuncture stimulates release of serotonin and norepinephrine in hypothalamic regulatory centerModulates peripheral autonomic nervous system

Slide10

Management of Hot Flashes

Acupuncture:

RCT comparing 12 weeks of acupuncture versus venlafaxine in breast cancer patients on hormone therapy with

tamoxifen

Walker et al. J

Clin

Oncol

. 2010;28:634-40

Slide11

ADT and Bone Health

ADT accelerates bone loss in menBone mineral density decreases 5-10% at 1 yr and begins within 6-9 months of ADT initiation

Increase bone turnover = increase fracture risk

Up to a 21% relative increase in clinical fractures on ADT

Smith MR, et al. J

Clin

Oncol

2005;23:7897-903Shahinian VB, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:154-64

Slide12

Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX)

For men with a 10 year risk of hip fracture >3% based on this tool, a baseline bone mineral density scan should be obtained before initiating ADT, followed by a scan after 1 year of therapy for men on long-term ADT

Slide13

ADT and Bone Health-Prevention

1200 mg calcium and 800-1000 IU vitamin D

No RCT have been performed to evaluate whether supplementation improves bone mineral density for patients on ADT

However, it is reasonable to recommend 1200 mg calcium and 800-1000IU/day vitamin D (National Osteoporosis Foundation)

Bisphosphonates

Denosumab

SERMs

Slide14

ADT and Bone Health- Prevention

Bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid, alendronate): RCTs show increased BMD or reduced BMD loss

Klotz LH et al.

Eur

Urol

2013;63:927-35 – weekly Alendronate increased Spine BMD 1.7%

vs

-1.9% with Ca and

Vit D alone.

Slide15

ADT and Bone Health- Prevention

Bisphosphonates (

zoledronic

acid, alendronate):

Serpa

Neto

A, et al. Prostate Cancer

P

rostatic Dis 2012;15:36-44

M

eta-analysis of 15 trials and 2634 subjects: bisphosphonates as a class

prevented fractures and osteoporosis (RR 0.8 and 0.39 respectively)

Slide16

Denosumab: Humanized

M

onoclonal

A

ntibody Against NF-KB

Blocks maturation of

preosteoclasts

to osteoclasts

Prevents bone resorptionHealthplexus.net /article/bone-biology-and-role-rankranklopg

-pathway

Slide17

ADT and Bone Health-Prevention

Denosumab:

Smith MR, et al. N

Engl

J Med 2009;361:745-55

RCT of 1468 men:

-increased lumbar spine BMD at 24 months by 5.6%

vs

1% loss in the placebo

-decreased incidence in new vertebral fractures at 3 years (1.5%

vs

3.9%, RR 0.38)

Slide18

ADT and Bone Health-Prevention

Selective estrogen receptor modulators (raloxifene, toremifine

)

Smith MR, et al. J

Urol

2010;184:1316-21

SERMS improve mean BMD and reduce incidence of new fractures by 50% compared to placebo in men on ADT

However not FDA approved due to increased incidence in venous

thromboembolic

events

Slide19

ADT and Bone H

ealth-PreventionNCCN guidelinesFor men with a 10 year risk of hip fracture >3% based on the FRAX algorithm

1200 mg calcium, 800-1000 IU vitamin D

AND either

-denosumab

60mg SQ every 6 months

OR

-zolendronic acid 5mg IV annually OR -alendronate 70 mg PO weekly

Slide20

Personalized ADT for the Specific Patient

CardiacObesity and testosteroneFshHigh volume metastatic diseaseDocetaxol

Significant LUTS

Slide21

Sources of Androgen Production

Androgens are produced at 3 sites:

Testes

Adrenal gland

Prostate tumor

cells (NEW DISCOVERY!)

Slide22

1984-1989

The Leuprolide Study Group. NEJM 1984;311:1281-1286. 2. Crawford ED, et al.

NEJM. 1989;321:419-424. 3.

Tannock IF, et al. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:1756-1764. 4.

Saad F, et al. JNCI 2002;94:1458-1468.

5. Petrylak DP, et al. NEJM. 2004;351:1513-1520.

6. Tannock IF, et al.

NEJM. 2004;351:1502-1512.

7.

de Bono JS, et al. Lancet. 2010;376:1147-1154.

8. Kantoff PW, et al. NEJM. 2010;363:411-422. 9. Fizazi K, et al. Lancet. 2011;377:813-822. 10.

de Bono JS, et al. NEJM. 2011;364:1995-2005.

11.

S

cher

HI, et al.

NEJM.

2012 Sep 27;367(13):

1187-97.

12.

Parker et al.

NEJM

. 2013;369:213-223.13.

Beer

T et al. 2014 ASCO

GU

San Francisco,

CA 14. Beer T

NEJM

2014;

371:424-433

1996

2002

2004

....

2010

2011

2012

Mitoxantrone

[3]

Docetaxel

[5,6]

Sipuleucel-T

[8]

LHRH agonists

[1,2]

Abiraterone Post

[10]

Reversible AR blockers

[1,2]

Denosumab

[9]

2014

Cabazitaxel

[7]

Abiraterone Pre

[13]

Enzalutamide Pre

[14]

Radium-223

[12]

Before 2010, the last agent approved for the treatment of CRPC was docetaxel

Zoledronic Acid

[4]

Enzalutamide Post

[11]

2013

Slide23

New Concept Should these advances be applied to Hormone Sensitive Prostate Cancer and if so:

Which agents and when

Slide24

Discussion TopicsE3805 (CHAARTED)

data reviewComparison with GETUG-AFU 15Who really should receive docetaxel? The high vs. low volume/risk disease debateSafety and toxicity considerations

Slide25

E3805 CHAARTED: ChemoHormonal Therapy vs. Androgen Ablation for Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Stratification

Extent of Mets

High

vs

Low

Age

≥70

vs

< 70yoECOG PS- 0-1 vs 2CAB> 30 days-Yes vs No

SRE Prevention

-Yes

vs

No

Prior Adjuvant ADT

≤12

vs

> 12 months

Randomize

ARM A:

ADT +

Docetaxel

75mg/m2 every 21 days for maximum 6 cycles

ARM B:

ADT (androgen deprivation therapy alone)

Evaluate every 3 weeks while receiving

docetaxel

and at week 24 then every 12 weeks

Evaluate every 12 weeks

Follow for time to progression and overall survival

Chemotherapy at investigator’s discretion at

progression

Sweeney C et al. ASCO 2014; Abstract LBA2.

ADT allowed up to 120 days prior to randomization

Intermittent ADT dosing was not allowed

Standard dexamethasone premedication but NO DAILY PREDNISONE

Original design n=568 for high volume disease

Adjustments for allowance of low volume disease and projected OS based on S9346 data n=780

Slide26

E3805 CHAARTED: ChemoHormonal Therapy vs. Androgen Ablation for Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Sweeney C et al. ASCO 2014; Abstract LBA2.

N=790 men accrued 07/28/06 - 11/21/12

Planned interim analysis at 53% information met 10/13

01/16/14 median

followup

29 months

136 (110 high volume) deaths ADT alone vs. 101 (82 high volume) deaths ADT+D

83.6% vs. 83.2% of deaths from prostate cancer

Primary endpoint – Overall survival

Slide27

E3805 CHAARTED: ChemoHormonal Therapy vs. Androgen Ablation for Metastatic Prostate Cancer

OS by extent of metastatic disease at start of ADT

Sweeney C et al. ASCO 2014; Abstract LBA2.

p=0.0006

HR=0.60 (0.45-0.81)

Median OS:

ADT + D: 49.2 months

ADT alone: 32.2 months

p=0.1398

HR=0.63 (0.34-1.17)

Median OS:

ADT + D: Not reached

ADT alone: Not reached

>

4 bone lesions

and

>

1 lesion in any bony structure

beyond

the spine/pelvis

OR

visceral disease

High volume

Low volume

Slide28

Gravis et al. Lancet

Oncol

. 2013; 14:149-58.

HR=1.01 (0.75-1.36) p=0.955

Median OS:

ADT + D: 58.9 months

ADT alone: 54.2 months

HR=0.72 (0.57-0.91) p=0.005

Median OS:

ADT + D: 22.9 months

ADT alone: 12.9 months

Overall Survival

Biochemical PFS

Slide29

GETUG-15

CHAARTED

N

385

790

Docetaxel

cycles

Up to 9 (median 8)

6

Gleason 8-1056.1%68.6%PSA median (ng/mL)

ADT 25.8; ADT+D 26.7

ADT 50.5; ADT+D 56.0

High volume/risk

21.6%

1

65.1%

2,3

Discontinuations

early for toxicity

20.3%

12.5%

Treatment

related deaths

4 (2.1%)

1 (0.3%) but 8 (2%) unknown

Median

followup

50 months (data cutoff July

31, 2011)

29 months

Subsequent

docetaxel

with CRPC (%)

ADT (62); ADT+D (28)

ADT 129/174 (74.1) ; ADT+D 49/145 (33.8)

Subsequent potent AR therapy with CRPC (%)

ADT (<15); ADT+D (<16)

ADT 79/174 (45.5); ADT+D 92/145 (62.8)

Key Differences between GETUG-AFU 15 and CHAARTED

Slide30

Summary of Factors that may have Contributed to Different Results between GETUG-AFU 15 and CHAARTED

Study size/statistical powerPrognosis and staging definitions and disease risk/volume were different? Toxicity e.g. deaths and early discontinuations and the use of other subsequent therapies were different

Slide31

Grade 3-5 Hematologic Toxicity from TAX327 in mCRPC vs. GETUG-AFU 15 vs. CHAARTED

Toxicity

TAX327 (%)

GETUG-AFU

15 (%)

CHAARTED (%)

Neutropenia

32

32*

12

Febrile

neutropenia

3

7*

6

Death

0.3

2.1

0.3^

*After 56% accrual and 4 treatment-related deaths, DSMC recommended GCSF days 5-10 with Grade ¾ neutropenia rate decline from 41% to 15%, febrile neutropenia decline from 8% to 6% and no more deaths.

^2% of deaths were unknown

Tannock

IF et al. N

Engl

J Med 2004; 351:1502-12.

Key Conclusion

:

Tough

to interpret toxicity data with incomplete information on growth factors

and prophylactic

antibiotics, but, is there some a sense that

docetaxel

may surprisingly be more toxic in

mHSPC

?

Slide32

Docetaxel PK varies with Castration State

10 non-castrate and 20 castrate men with similar demographics

Clearance of

docetaxel

in castrate men was 100% increased with 2 fold reduction in AUC

Erythromycin breath test indicated hepatic CYP3A4 activity, for

docetaxel

metabolism, was not different

Castrate rats have higher AUC of

docetaxel

in liver compared to intact animals

Franke

RM et al. J

Clin

Oncol

2010; 28:4562-67; *Bruno R et al. J

Clin

Oncol

1998; 16:187-96.

50% decrease in

docetaxel

clearance associated with >430% increase in odds of grade ¾ neutropenia*

Slide33

What are the Implications of these PK Differences?

Between Different Trials

May explain some of the greater hematologic toxicity but also survival benefit observed in castration-sensitive compared to castration-resistant trials

Why was there greater hematologic toxicity in GETUG-AFU 15 compared to CHAARTED?

How many patients were non-castrate vs. castrate in each trial?

GETUG-AFU 15: 47% initiated ADT within 15 days of enrollment

CHAARTED: initiated ADT median 1.1 months to enrollment

How much GCSF was used in each trial?

For the Practicing Clinician

Consider waiting until after 1-2 months of ADT or castrate testosterone levels have been reached before starting

docetaxel

?

Use GCSF, at least for the first couple cycles, until castrate

Slide34

Question If toxicity is greater with the use of

Docetaxol in the pre- castrate state might not efficacy also be?We need a trial.

Slide35

A phase II study of docetaxel before medical castration with degarelix in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic prostatic adenocarcinoma.

N = 50 patients

Enrolling men with newly diagnosed treatment naïve metastatic prostate cancer of all volume statuses.

Primary Endpoint – Proportion of men who maintain a PSA

<

0.2 ng/ml at 40 weeks on study(7 months ADT)

Additional Endpoints – Toxicity, PSA response to Docetaxel alone, time to development of castration resistance, overall survival, correlating genomics with response.