Advertisement

Targeted Oncology

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 649–655 | Cite as

Comparison Between Prognostic Classifications in De Novo Metastatic Hormone Sensitive Prostate Cancer

  • Roberto Iacovelli
  • Chiara Ciccarese
  • Claudia Mosillo
  • Davide Bimbatti
  • Emanuela Fantinel
  • Lisa Stefani
  • Michele Simbolo
  • Mario Romano
  • Renzo Mazzarotto
  • Matteo Brunelli
  • Emilio Bria
  • Aldo Scarpa
  • Rita T. Lawlor
  • Walter Artibani
  • Giampaolo Tortora
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

The CHAARTED and LATITUDE trials demonstrated improved outcomes with docetaxel or abiraterone plus androgen deprivation therapy in metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) using two different prognostic scores.

Objective

The aim of our study was to assess the concordance between the two scores and if these retained their prognostic value exclusively in de novo mHSPC.

Patients and Methods

De novo mHSPC patients referring to our institution were retrospectively stratified according to the CHAARTED and LATITUDE classifications: high volume/high risk (HV/HR), low-volume/low-risk (LV/LR), and HVorHR (HV/LR and LV/HR). The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional-hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios for overall survival.

Results

The study population included 106 patients. Concordance between the CHAARTED and LATITUDE classifications was observed in 86.8% of cases (65.1% HV/HR, 21.7% LV/LR), while 13.2% of patients fulfill the criteria of only one of the two classifications (HVorHR). When analyzed independently, the CHAARTED and LATITUDE classifications maintained their prognostic value (mOS 28.2 months in HV versus 60.9 months in LV, p = 0.006; 28.2 months in HR versus 40.6 months in LR, p = 0.017). The LR/LV population showed significantly longer mOS compared to the HR/HV group (72.6 months versus 26.3 months; p = 0.005), and to HVorHR patients (35.1 months; p = 0.003). No difference in OS was observed between HV/HR and HVorHR patients. ECOG PS ≥ 1 and patient age improved the prognostic value of the two classifications with multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

Our study showed a lack of complete concordance between the CHAARTED and LATITUDE classifications. The analysis confirmed the role of these prognostic scores to stratify de novo mHSPC patients in clinical practice.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

No external funding was used in the preparation of this manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

Roberto Iacovelli, Chiara Ciccarese, Claudia Mosillo, Davide Bimbatti, Emanuela Fantinel, Lisa Stefani, Michele Simbolo, Mario Romano, Renzo Mazzarotto, Matteo Brunelli, Emilio Bria, Aldo Scarpa, Rita T. Lawlor, Walter Artibani, and Giampaolo Tortora declare that they have no conflicts of interest that might be relevant to the contents of this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Center MM. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol. 2012;61:1079–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Malvezzi G. European cancer mortality predictions for the year 2017, with focus on lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2017;5:1117–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buzzoni C. Metastatic prostate cancer incidence and prostate-specific antigen testing: new insights from the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68(5):885–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wu JN. No improvement noted in overall or cause-specific survival for men presenting with metastatic prostate cancer over a 20-year period. Cancer. 2014;120(6):818–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    James ND. Survival with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer in the "docetaxel era": data from 917 patients in the control arm of the STAMPEDE trial (MRC PR08, CRUK/06/019). Eur Urol. 2015;67(6):1028–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berg KD. Improved survival for patients with de novo metastatic prostate cancer in the last 20 years. Eur J Cancer. 2017;72:20–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huggins C. Studies on prostatic cancer. II. The effects of castration on advanced carcinoma of the prostate cancer. Arch Surg. 1941;43:209–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Seidenfeld J. Single-therapy androgen suppression in men with advanced prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:566–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sweeney CJ. Chemohormonal therapy in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(8):737–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fizazi K. Abiraterone plus prednisone in metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(4):352–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    James ND. Abiraterone for prostate cancer not previously treated with hormone therapy. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(4):338–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    James ND. Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10024):1163–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gravis G. Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus docetaxel versus ADT alone in metastatic non castrate prostate cancer: impact of metastatic burden and long-term survival analysis of the randomized phase 3 GETUG-AFU15 trial. Eur Urol. 2016;70(2):256–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fizazi K. Should docetaxel be standard of care for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer? Pro and contra. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(8):1660–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Finianos A. Characterization of differences between prostate cancer patients presenting with De novo versus primary progressive metastatic disease. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017;S1558-7673(17):30247–51.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mosillo C. De novo metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer: state of art and future perspectives. Cancer Treat Rev. 2018.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tannock IF. Many men with castrate-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer should not receive chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(3):545–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Iacovelli R. De novo, progressed, and neglected metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer: is one therapy fit for all? Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tait C. Quantification of skeletal metastases in castrate-resistant prostate cancer predicts progression-free and overall survival. BJU Int. 2014;114(6b):E70–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Glass TR. Metastatic carcinoma of the prostate: identifying prognostic groups using recursive partitioning. J Urol. 2003;169(1):164–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tangen CM. Ten-year survival in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Clin Prostate Cancer. 2003;2(1):41–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yossepowitch O. The natural history of noncastrate metastatic prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007;51(4):940–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Strock J. Characterization of patients who present with de novo metastatic prostate cancer: single-institution database analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(6_supplement):33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Halabi S. Clinical outcomes by age in men with hormone refractory prostate cancer: a pooled analysis of 8 cancer and leukemia group B (CALGB) studies. J Urol. 2006;176(1):81–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pettersson A. Age at diagnosis and prostate cancer treatment and prognosis: a population-based cohort study. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(2):377–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Iacovelli
    • 1
    • 2
  • Chiara Ciccarese
    • 1
  • Claudia Mosillo
    • 1
    • 3
  • Davide Bimbatti
    • 1
  • Emanuela Fantinel
    • 1
  • Lisa Stefani
    • 1
  • Michele Simbolo
    • 4
  • Mario Romano
    • 5
  • Renzo Mazzarotto
    • 5
  • Matteo Brunelli
    • 4
  • Emilio Bria
    • 1
    • 2
  • Aldo Scarpa
    • 4
    • 6
  • Rita T. Lawlor
    • 4
    • 6
  • Walter Artibani
    • 7
  • Giampaolo Tortora
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Medical Oncology UnitAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata di VeronaVeronaItaly
  2. 2.U.O.C. Oncologia Medica, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCSUniversità Cattolica del Sacro CuoreRomeItaly
  3. 3.Division of Medical Oncology“Sapienza” University of RomeRomeItaly
  4. 4.Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, Section of Anatomical PathologyUniversity of VeronaVeronaItaly
  5. 5.Radiotherapy UnitAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata of VeronaVeronaItaly
  6. 6.ARC-NET Research CentreUniversity of VeronaVeronaItaly
  7. 7.Urology UnitAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata of VeronaVeronaItaly

Personalised recommendations