Novel hormonal agents in men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer and reduced performance status: Experiences of a specialized single center

IF 2.2 Q3 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Aging Medicine Pub Date : 2024-12-19 DOI:10.1002/agm2.12372
Thomas Büttner, Philipp Lossin, Stefan Latz, Carolin Jacobs, Philipp Krausewitz, Stefan Hauser
{"title":"Novel hormonal agents in men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer and reduced performance status: Experiences of a specialized single center","authors":"Thomas Büttner,&nbsp;Philipp Lossin,&nbsp;Stefan Latz,&nbsp;Carolin Jacobs,&nbsp;Philipp Krausewitz,&nbsp;Stefan Hauser","doi":"10.1002/agm2.12372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Attaining castration resistance in metastatic prostate cancer (mCRPC) represents a pivotal juncture in the progression of the patient's illness and treatment regimen. Within this therapeutic context, novel hormonal agents (NHA) constitute a fundamental component of pharmacological intervention. However, the efficacy of NHA therapy remains uncertain for patients with a compromised general condition, as indicated by an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) score of ≥2. Notably, most clinical trials excluded individuals with an ECOG PS ≥2, leaving a gap in our understanding of the potential benefits of NHA therapy for this specific patient cohort.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted an analysis of fifty-three NHA-naïve men characterized by attaining mCRPC at an ECOG PS of ≥2 subsequent to androgen deprivation monotherapy between 2008 and 2023. Patients were then treated with either NHA or Best Supportive Care (BSC) based on individual decisions. Survival and adverse event (AE) analysis was performed to assess the outcomes of NHA therapy compared to BSC.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Among the patients, 30 (56.6%) received NHA, whereas the remaining 23 (43.4%) choose BSC. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the NHA and BSC group. Median overall survival (OS) was 9.1 months in the BSC group and 7.0 months in the NHA group, with no significant OS benefits associated with NHA treatment. AEs and severe AEs commonly occurred, but remained indifferent between treatment groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Our findings suggest that NHA therapy may confer reduced survival benefits in mCRPC patients with ECOG PS ≥2. While hope for NHA treatment persists, particularly given its oral administration and tolerability, careful consideration and discussion with patients regarding treatment expectations and palliative care goals are warranted in this challenging patient population.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":32862,"journal":{"name":"Aging Medicine","volume":"7 6","pages":"761-769"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11702429/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aging Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/agm2.12372","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Attaining castration resistance in metastatic prostate cancer (mCRPC) represents a pivotal juncture in the progression of the patient's illness and treatment regimen. Within this therapeutic context, novel hormonal agents (NHA) constitute a fundamental component of pharmacological intervention. However, the efficacy of NHA therapy remains uncertain for patients with a compromised general condition, as indicated by an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) score of ≥2. Notably, most clinical trials excluded individuals with an ECOG PS ≥2, leaving a gap in our understanding of the potential benefits of NHA therapy for this specific patient cohort.

Methods

We conducted an analysis of fifty-three NHA-naïve men characterized by attaining mCRPC at an ECOG PS of ≥2 subsequent to androgen deprivation monotherapy between 2008 and 2023. Patients were then treated with either NHA or Best Supportive Care (BSC) based on individual decisions. Survival and adverse event (AE) analysis was performed to assess the outcomes of NHA therapy compared to BSC.

Results

Among the patients, 30 (56.6%) received NHA, whereas the remaining 23 (43.4%) choose BSC. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the NHA and BSC group. Median overall survival (OS) was 9.1 months in the BSC group and 7.0 months in the NHA group, with no significant OS benefits associated with NHA treatment. AEs and severe AEs commonly occurred, but remained indifferent between treatment groups.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that NHA therapy may confer reduced survival benefits in mCRPC patients with ECOG PS ≥2. While hope for NHA treatment persists, particularly given its oral administration and tolerability, careful consideration and discussion with patients regarding treatment expectations and palliative care goals are warranted in this challenging patient population.

Abstract Image

新型激素治疗转移性去势抵抗性前列腺癌患者并降低工作表现:一个专门的单一中心的经验。
目的:在转移性前列腺癌(mCRPC)中获得去势抵抗是患者疾病进展和治疗方案的关键节点。在这种治疗背景下,新型激素制剂(NHA)构成了药理学干预的基本组成部分。然而,根据东部肿瘤合作组表现状态(ECOG PS)评分≥2分,NHA治疗对一般情况受损患者的疗效仍不确定。值得注意的是,大多数临床试验排除了ECOG PS≥2的个体,这使得我们对NHA治疗对这一特定患者群体的潜在益处的理解存在空白。方法:我们对53名NHA-naïve男性进行了分析,这些男性在2008年至2023年间接受雄激素剥夺单药治疗后,ECOG PS≥2时达到mCRPC。然后患者根据个人决定接受NHA或最佳支持治疗(BSC)。进行生存和不良事件(AE)分析,以评估NHA治疗与BSC治疗的结果。结果:30例(56.6%)患者接受NHA治疗,23例(43.4%)患者选择BSC治疗。NHA组和BSC组的基线特征无显著差异。BSC组的中位总生存期(OS)为9.1个月,NHA组的中位总生存期(OS)为7.0个月,NHA治疗没有显著的OS获益。不良反应(ae)和严重不良反应(ae)普遍发生,但在治疗组之间没有差异。结论:我们的研究结果表明,对于ECOG PS≥2的mCRPC患者,NHA治疗可能会降低生存获益。虽然NHA治疗的希望仍然存在,特别是考虑到其口服给药和耐受性,但在这一具有挑战性的患者群体中,需要仔细考虑和与患者讨论治疗期望和姑息治疗目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Aging Medicine
Aging Medicine Medicine-Geriatrics and Gerontology
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信