Carolina Urologic Research Center, Myrtle Beach, SC.
Urology San Antonio, San Antonio, TX.
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019 Dec;17(6):457-463.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.07.017. Epub 2019 Aug 6.
The objective of this study was to evaluate differences in tolerability in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with enzalutamide (ENZA) or abiraterone acetate plus prednisone (AA+P).
This was a phase IV, prospective, open-label, multicenter, real-world study. Patients were prescribed ENZA or AA+P at the treating physician's discretion. Computerized tests of 4 cognitive domains (Cogstate), patient-reported outcomes (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 [EORTC QLQ-30], Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue [FACIT-Fatigue], Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function [FACT-Cog]), and patient/caregiver surveys were assessed at baseline and 2 months. Safety data were collected.
Of 100 treated patients, 92 were evaluable (46/arm). Baseline characteristics were similar, with mild cognitive impairment observed in ∼20% of patients. The FACIT-Fatigue demonstrated a statistically significant worsening from baseline of -4.00 (95% confidence interval, -6.61 to -1.39) for ENZA compared with AA+P, -0.01 (95% confidence interval, -2.40 to 2.38). Overall, more adverse events (AEs) and more AEs of fatigue were reported with ENZA versus AA+P (52% vs. 36% and 26% vs. 8%, respectively). Grade 3/4 AEs were similar (4% vs. 6%). Unique neuropsychiatric AEs reported with ENZA included amnesia, cognitive disorders, memory impairment, and confusional state; those for AA+P included cerebrovascular accident, presyncope, and spinal cord compression. Clinically meaningful cognitive decline was seen in 4 patients on ENZA versus 1 patient on AA+P. However, the overall mean changes from baseline for the Cogstate tests, the EORTC QLQ-C30, and the FACT-Cog assessment were similar and showed no meaningful change. Caregiver survey responses noted more fatigue with ENZA and more moodiness with AA+P compared with patient responses.
Although baseline values were similar, more fatigue and neurocognitive differences were observed with ENZA compared with AA+P.
本研究旨在评估转移性去势抵抗性前列腺癌患者接受恩扎鲁胺(ENZA)或醋酸阿比特龙联合泼尼松(AA+P)治疗的耐受性差异。
这是一项 IV 期、前瞻性、开放标签、多中心、真实世界研究。根据治疗医生的判断,为患者开处方使用 ENZA 或 AA+P。使用计算机测试 4 个认知领域(Cogstate)、患者报告的结果(欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织生活质量问卷核心 30 项[EORTC QLQ-30]、慢性疾病治疗功能评估-疲劳[FACIT-Fatigue]、癌症治疗功能评估认知功能[FACT-Cog]),以及患者/护理人员调查,在基线和 2 个月时进行评估。收集安全性数据。
在 100 名接受治疗的患者中,92 名可评估(每组 46 名)。基线特征相似,约 20%的患者存在轻度认知障碍。与 AA+P 相比,ENZA 的 FACIT-Fatigue 从基线下降了-4.00(95%置信区间,-6.61 至-1.39),具有统计学意义,而 AA+P 为-0.01(95%置信区间,-2.40 至 2.38)。总体而言,与 AA+P 相比,ENZA 报告的不良事件(AE)更多,疲劳相关 AE 更多(分别为 52%和 26%)。3/4 级 AE 相似(分别为 4%和 6%)。与 ENZA 相关的独特神经精神 AE 包括健忘症、认知障碍、记忆力损害和意识模糊状态;与 AA+P 相关的 AE 包括中风、晕厥和脊髓压迫。与 AA+P 相比,4 名接受 ENZA 治疗的患者出现有临床意义的认知能力下降,1 名接受 AA+P 治疗的患者出现认知能力下降。然而,从基线开始,Cogstate 测试、EORTC QLQ-C30 和 FACT-Cog 评估的总体平均变化相似,没有出现有意义的变化。与患者相比,护理人员的调查结果显示,ENZA 治疗组的疲劳感更明显,AA+P 治疗组的情绪变化更明显。
尽管基线值相似,但与 AA+P 相比,ENZA 治疗组观察到更多的疲劳和神经认知差异。