Raoul S. Concepcion

Background: Advanced prostate cancer (PC) patients, especially those with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC), often require complex management pathways. Despite the publication of clinical practice guidelines by leading urological and oncological organizations that provide a substantial and comprehensive framework, there are numerous clinical scenarios that are not always addressed, especially as new treatments become available, new imaging modalities are developed, and advances in genetic testing continue.Methods: A 14‐member expert review panel comprised of urologists and medical oncologists were chosen to provide guidance on addressing specific topics and issues regarding metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. Panel members were chosen based upon their experience and expertise in the management of PC patients. Four academic members (two urologists and two medical oncologists) of the panel served as group leaders; the remaining eight panel members were from Large Urology Group Practice Association (LUGPA) practices with proven experience in leading their advanced PC clinics. The panel members were assigned to four separate working groups, each assigned a specific mCRPC topic to review and discuss with the entire panel.Results: This article describes the practical recommendations of an expert panel on the management of mCRPC patients. The target reading audience for this publication is all providers (urologists, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, or advanced practice providers) who evaluate and manage advanced PC patients, regardless of their practice setting.Conclusion: The panel has provided recommendations for managing mCRPC with regard to specific issues: (a) biomarker monitoring and the role of genetic and molecular testing; (b) rationale, current strategies, and optimal sequencing of the various approved therapies, including hormonal therapy, cytotoxic chemotherapy, radiopharmaceuticals and immunotherapy; (c) adverse event management and monitoring; and (d) imaging advanced PC patients. These recommendations seek to complement national guidelines, not replace them, and a discussion of where the panel agreed or disagreed with national guidelines is included.

Purpose:We evaluated the timeliness of androgen deprivation therapy dosing, the impact of dosing nonadherence on testosterone, and the frequency of testosterone and prostate specific antigen testin...

This analysis estimated the number needed to treat with enzalutamide versus bicalutamide to achieve one additional patient with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who would obtain clinical benefit regarding progression-free survival, radiographic progression-free survival, or no prostate-specific antigen progression at 1 and 2 years following treatment initiation. Clinical event rates were obtained from the STRIVE (NCT01664923) and TERRAIN (NCT01288911) trials, and the number needed to treat was the inverse of the absolute rate difference between the event rates of enzalutamide and bicalutamide. The 95% Confidence Interval of the number needed to treat was derived from the 95% Confidence Interval of the event rate difference. Using STRIVE data (patients with metastatic disease: n = 128 enzalutamide; n = 129 bicalutamide) comparing enzalutamide with bicalutamide at 1 and 2 years, the numbers needed to treat to achieve one additional patient with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with progression-free survival were 2.0 and 2.8, respectively; with radiographic progression-free survival, 2.6 and 3.0, respectively; and without prostate-specific antigen progression, 1.8 and 2.4, respectively. Using TERRAIN data (n = 184 enzalutamide; n = 191 bicalutamide) comparing enzalutamide with bicalutamide at 1 and 2 years, the numbers needed to treat to achieve one additional patient with progression-free survival were 4.3 and 3.7, respectively; with radiographic progression-free survival, 10.0 and 2.8, respectively; and without prostate-specific antigen progression, 2.1 and 3.2, respectively. The combined data from TERRAIN and STRIVE demonstrated that treating chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with enzalutamide leads to more patients without clinical progression at 1 and 2 years than with bicalutamide. STRIVE (NCT01664923; registration date: August 10, 2012) and TERRAIN (NCT01288911; registration date: February 1, 2011).