El Demery Mounira, Pouessel Damien, Avancès Christophe, Iborra François, Rebillard Xavier, Faix Antoine, Ségui Bruno, Delbos Olivier, Ayuso Didier, Culine Stéphane
CRLC, Val d'Aurelle, Montpellier, France.
Prog Urol. 2006 Jun;16(3):320-3.
Chemotherapy occupies an increasingly important place in the management of hormone-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. For the first time in this disease, docetaxel increases the survival of patients, with a modest, but definite median gain of about 2 months. In everyday practice, the indication for second-line chemotherapy after immediate or delayed failure of first-line chemotherapy is sometimes considered, although objective data concerning its efficacy are limited. The objective of the present study was to retrospectively evaluate the results obtained with second-line chemotherapy in a patient cohort managed at the Montpellier Regional Cancer Centre.
Clinical characteristics, treatments delivered and outcome of 43 patients who received two successive lines of chemotherapy were retrospectively collected by means of a standardized questionnaire. Three groups of patients were defined as a function of the chemotherapy protocols delivered: docetaxel alone or in combination, mitoxantrone and other protocols not comprising either docetaxel or mitoxantrone. Responses to chemotherapy were analysed according to three criteria: objective responses, laboratory responses and palliative responses.
At the time of second-line chemotherapy, the median age of the patients was 69 years (range: 46 to 83). The median interval between the end of first-line chemotherapy and the start of second-line chemotherapy was 3 months (range: 1 to 15). The protocols administered comprised docetaxel alone (12 patients) or in combination with cisplatin (4 patients), mitoxantrone in 13 patients, or other cytotoxic molecules such as vinblastine, doxorubicin or etoposide in combination with a platinum salt (14 patients). The median number of cycles delivered was 4 (range: 1 to 10). No objective response was observed. Six (14%) patients obtained a laboratory response. A palliative response was observed in 16 (37%) patients, 7 of whom were treated with a docetaxel-based protocol, 6 were treated with mitoxantrone and 3 were treated by other protocols. The median duration of palliative response was 3 months (range: 1 to 6). The median survival was 8 months (range: 1 to 24), with no significant difference between the various protocols.
In 2006, the objective of second-line chemotherapy in patients with hormone-resistant prostate cancer appears to be purely palliative. No reference protocol has been defined among currently available cytotoxic molecules. The indication must therefore take into account the benefit/risk balance to avoid compromising the patients quality of life. Therapeutic trials are essential to develop effective new molecules.
化疗在激素抵抗性转移性前列腺癌的治疗中占据着越来越重要的地位。在这种疾病中,多西他赛首次提高了患者的生存率,中位生存期有适度但明确的增加,约为2个月。在日常临床实践中,有时会考虑在一线化疗立即或延迟失败后进行二线化疗,尽管关于其疗效的客观数据有限。本研究的目的是回顾性评估在蒙彼利埃地区癌症中心接受治疗的一组患者中二线化疗的结果。
通过标准化问卷回顾性收集了43例接受了连续两线化疗的患者的临床特征、所接受的治疗及结果。根据所采用的化疗方案将患者分为三组:单独使用多西他赛或联合使用多西他赛、米托蒽醌以及不包含多西他赛或米托蒽醌的其他方案。根据三个标准分析化疗反应:客观反应、实验室反应和姑息反应。
在进行二线化疗时,患者的中位年龄为69岁(范围:46至83岁)。一线化疗结束至二线化疗开始的中位间隔时间为3个月(范围:1至15个月)。所采用的方案包括单独使用多西他赛(12例患者)或与顺铂联合使用(4例患者)、米托蒽醌治疗13例患者,或其他细胞毒性分子如长春碱、阿霉素或依托泊苷与铂盐联合使用(14例患者)。化疗的中位周期数为4个(范围:1至10个)。未观察到客观反应。6例(14%)患者出现实验室反应。16例(37%)患者出现姑息反应,其中7例接受基于多西他赛的方案治疗,6例接受米托蒽醌治疗,3例接受其他方案治疗。姑息反应的中位持续时间为3个月(范围:1至6个月)。中位生存期为8个月(范围:1至24个月),不同方案之间无显著差异。
在2006年,激素抵抗性前列腺癌患者二线化疗的目标似乎纯粹是姑息性的。在目前可用的细胞毒性分子中尚未确定参考方案。因此,适应证的选择必须考虑获益/风险平衡,以避免影响患者的生活质量。开展治疗试验对于开发有效的新分子至关重要。