Treatment patterns and clinical effectiveness in metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer after first-line docetaxel

Objective To examine treatment patterns, sequencing, and outcomes in patients receiving second- and third-line treatment after first-line docetaxel.

Methods We used a community oncology database to identify patients who progressed after line 1 docetaxel (D) and received line 2 cabazitaxel (DC), abiraterone (DA), or other therapy (DO). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan- Meier and Cox regression models. Line 3 included subsets DCA and DAC.

Results Line 2 groups (DC = 60 patients, DA = 71, DO = 153) did not differ significantly on demographic and clinical characteristics or median PFS on docetaxel therapy. Cox regression for OS by line 2 groups showed increased risk for DA compared with DC (HR, 1.69; P = .026) when 24 untreated DO patients were excluded. A similar nonsignificant pattern was observed when the 24 untreated patients were included. Of patients receiving DC in line 2, a nominally greater proportion received A in line 3 (57%, 34 of 60 patients) than did patients who received DA in line 2 followed by C in line 3 (25%, 18 of 71).

Limitations There was a small sample for line 3, and unexamined confounds and selection biases in observational research. Conclusions Treatment patterns in community settings following docetaxel are complex and may involve multiple hormonal agents prior to disease progression. Cabazitaxel may not be optimally used in advanced disease. Although Cox regression showed increased risk of death for DA compared with DC, results need to be validated prospectively.

Funding and disclosures This study was funded by Sanof US LLC. Dr Hennessy and Mr Thompson are employed by Sanof. Dr Hennessy holds restricted stock units and company stock in Sanof. Dr Nicacio was previously employed by Sanof. Drs Houts, Walker, and Miller’s institution is receiving research funding from Sanof for other research projects. Dr Walker’s institution received honoraria and travel expenses for his previous advisory board participation. Dr Somer declares no conflicts.

Objective To examine treatment patterns, sequencing, and outcomes in patients receiving second- and third-line treatment after first-line docetaxel.

Methods We used a community oncology database to identify patients who progressed after line 1 docetaxel (D) and received line 2 cabazitaxel (DC), abiraterone (DA), or other therapy (DO). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan- Meier and Cox regression models. Line 3 included subsets DCA and DAC.

Results Line 2 groups (DC = 60 patients, DA = 71, DO = 153) did not differ significantly on demographic and clinical characteristics or median PFS on docetaxel therapy. Cox regression for OS by line 2 groups showed increased risk for DA compared with DC (HR, 1.69; P = .026) when 24 untreated DO patients were excluded. A similar nonsignificant pattern was observed when the 24 untreated patients were included. Of patients receiving DC in line 2, a nominally greater proportion received A in line 3 (57%, 34 of 60 patients) than did patients who received DA in line 2 followed by C in line 3 (25%, 18 of 71).

Limitations There was a small sample for line 3, and unexamined confounds and selection biases in observational research. Conclusions Treatment patterns in community settings following docetaxel are complex and may involve multiple hormonal agents prior to disease progression. Cabazitaxel may not be optimally used in advanced disease. Although Cox regression showed increased risk of death for DA compared with DC, results need to be validated prospectively.

Funding and disclosures This study was funded by Sanof US LLC. Dr Hennessy and Mr Thompson are employed by Sanof. Dr Hennessy holds restricted stock units and company stock in Sanof. Dr Nicacio was previously employed by Sanof. Drs Houts, Walker, and Miller’s institution is receiving research funding from Sanof for other research projects. Dr Walker’s institution received honoraria and travel expenses for his previous advisory board participation. Dr Somer declares no conflicts.

Objective To examine treatment patterns, sequencing, and outcomes in patients receiving second- and third-line treatment after first-line docetaxel.

Methods We used a community oncology database to identify patients who progressed after line 1 docetaxel (D) and received line 2 cabazitaxel (DC), abiraterone (DA), or other therapy (DO). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan- Meier and Cox regression models. Line 3 included subsets DCA and DAC.

Results Line 2 groups (DC = 60 patients, DA = 71, DO = 153) did not differ significantly on demographic and clinical characteristics or median PFS on docetaxel therapy. Cox regression for OS by line 2 groups showed increased risk for DA compared with DC (HR, 1.69; P = .026) when 24 untreated DO patients were excluded. A similar nonsignificant pattern was observed when the 24 untreated patients were included. Of patients receiving DC in line 2, a nominally greater proportion received A in line 3 (57%, 34 of 60 patients) than did patients who received DA in line 2 followed by C in line 3 (25%, 18 of 71).

Limitations There was a small sample for line 3, and unexamined confounds and selection biases in observational research. Conclusions Treatment patterns in community settings following docetaxel are complex and may involve multiple hormonal agents prior to disease progression. Cabazitaxel may not be optimally used in advanced disease. Although Cox regression showed increased risk of death for DA compared with DC, results need to be validated prospectively.

Funding and disclosures This study was funded by Sanof US LLC. Dr Hennessy and Mr Thompson are employed by Sanof. Dr Hennessy holds restricted stock units and company stock in Sanof. Dr Nicacio was previously employed by Sanof. Drs Houts, Walker, and Miller’s institution is receiving research funding from Sanof for other research projects. Dr Walker’s institution received honoraria and travel expenses for his previous advisory board participation. Dr Somer declares no conflicts.