© 2004 European Society for Medical Oncology
Original Article |
Randomised phase III study of intravenous vinorelbine plus hormone therapy versus hormone therapy alone in hormone-refractory prostate cancer
1 University of Cape Town, South Africa; 2 Centre François Baclesse, Caen, France; 3 Alexandra Hospital, Athens, Greece; 4 Je Senius School of Medicine, Martin; 5 Comenius University Medical School, Bratislava, Slovak Republic; 6 Ospedale Policlinico Consorziale, Bari, Italy; 7 Institut Curie, Paris, France; 8 Maria Sklodowska Curie Memorial Cancer Center, Warsaw, Poland; 9 Hopital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France
* Correspondence to: Dr R. P. Abratt, Department of Radiation Oncology, Groote Schuur Hospital, Observatory, 7925, Cape Town, South Africa. Tel: +27-21-404-4266; Fax: +27-21-448-5707; Email: rpa{at}curie.uct.ac.za
Background: Vinorelbine (VRL) has been shown to be active in hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) in phase II studies, alone or in combination. Its moderate toxicity profile is well tolerated in elderly patients.
Patients and methods: Patients with metastatic prostate cancer, progressive after primary hormonal therapy, were randomised to receive intravenous VRL 30 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, and hydrocortisone 40 mg/day or hydrocortisone alone until disease progression. Centres could choose to add aminoglutethimide 1000 mg/day to hydrocortisone as second-line hormone therapy (HT) for all their patients. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Further chemotherapy was allowed after progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). The final analysis was performed on a total of 414 patients. Reported results were all based on intention-to-treat analyses. All progressions and responses were reviewed by an independent panel.
Results: PFS was significantly prolonged in the VRL plus HT arm compared with the HT alone arm, according to the statistical hypothesis of the protocol (P=0.055 in the two-sided log-rank test with a pre-specified significance level of 10%). The 6-month PFS rates were 33.2% versus 22.8%, and the median durations of PFS were 3.7 versus 2.8 months. In the multivariate Cox analysis, which included age, Karnofsky performance status (PS), haemoglobin, alkaline phosphatase at study entry and number of prior hormonal treatments, the P value was decreased to 0.005. The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (
50% decline sustained for at least 6 weeks) was significantly higher for VRL plus HT compared with HT (30.1% versus 19.2%; P=0.01). Clinical benefit, defined as a decrease in pain intensity or analgesic consumption or an improvement of Karnofsky PS for at least 9 weeks, and at least stable assessment in the other two, was also more frequently observed in patients who received VRL plus HT versus HT alone (30.6% and 19.2%; P=0.008). There was no statistical difference in overall survival. Forty-three per cent of patients in the HT arm received at least one line of further chemotherapy after progression, compared with 28% of patients in the VRL-based arm. Aminoglutethimide did not seem to result in better efficacy for either arm. VRL plus HT was well tolerated, with a median administered relative dose intensity of 90%; grade 4 neutropenia occurred in 6.5% of patients and non-haematological toxicity was rare.
Conclusions: The combination of VRL and hydrocortisone compared with hydrocortisone alone resulted in improved clinical benefit, PFS and PSA response rate. This therapeutic gain is similar to that previously reported with mitoxantrone in combination with low-dose corticosteroids. There was no gain in survival; however, the combination is well tolerated in this elderly group of patients, who often present cardiac co-morbidities, and therefore offers an active and safe therapeutic option for patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.
Key words: hormone-refractory prostate cancer, hormone therapy, randomised phase III clinical trial, vinorelbine
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Halabi, N. J. Vogelzang, S.-S. Ou, K. Owzar, L. Archer, and E. J. Small Progression-Free Survival as a Predictor of Overall Survival in Men With Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., June 10, 2009; 27(17): 2766 - 2771. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. J. Kerr KISS: the 2006 Annals of Oncology prizes Ann. Onc., September 1, 2006; 17(9): 1341 - 1342. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. A. Huff, W. Matsui, B. D. Smith, and R. J. Jones The paradox of response and survival in cancer therapeutics Blood, January 15, 2006; 107(2): 431 - 434. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. R. Berthold, C. N. Sternberg, and I. F. Tannock Management of Advanced Prostate Cancer After First-Line Chemotherapy J. Clin. Oncol., November 10, 2005; 23(32): 8247 - 8252. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. Berry and M. Eisenberger Achieving Treatment Goals for Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer with Chemotherapy Oncologist, October 1, 2005; 10(suppl_3): 30 - 39. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. J. Kerr Teenage kicks Ann. Onc., January 1, 2005; 16(1): 1 - 2. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Joly and I. F. Tannock Chemotherapy for patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer Ann. Onc., November 1, 2004; 15(11): 1582 - 1584. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|