Targeting the Unseen: Advances in Treatment of M0 CRPC

1. Patient selection remains key. As we consider using SPARTAN and PROSPER in daily clinical practice, it is important to remember that the patients included in these studies had a PSA doubling time (PSADT) ≤10 months while on ADT. This group was selected because data suggests that in untreated men with biochemical recurrence, PSADT ≤ 10 months is a cut point that represents a particularly high risk of developing metastatic disease. Other factors contributing to risk of developing metastases are Gleason ≥ 8, and recurrence ≤ 2 years after therapy for localized disease. The highest risk group with all of these features has a 3 year metastasis-free survival (MFS) of 52% when not treated with ADT (Eisenberger MA, et al. Proc ASCO 2003; 22:380a (abstract 1527). The low risk population with Gleason <8, PSADT >10 months, and recurrence > 2 years after initial therapy has a 3 year MFS of 92%, and a 7 year MFS of 84%. This data suggests 84% of men without high risk features are alive without metastatic disease without treatment with ADT 7 years after their PSA started to rise, identifying a population that may benefit most from avoiding the side effects and complications associated with ADT and AR directed therapies.

2. Imaging modality matters. The SPARTAN and PROSPER studies included patients who were non-metastatic by standard imaging modalities, not men who were non-metastatic by PSMA or Axumin PET. It is highly likely that a subset of these patients would have low volume metastatic disease if assessed using advanced imaging techniques (PSMA, Axumin). Given that this data was obtained using standard imaging, and the data for subsequent therapies for mCRPC was defined using standard imaging (PREVAlL, COU-302, TAX-327, IMPACT), clinicians should use standard imaging to integrate this data into practice. As further data is presented that provides information on relevant clinical options in the setting of novel imaging modalities, we can begin to shift to utilizing these for all patients as many already do in Europe and Australia.

3. We may not be able to make up lost time. SPARTAN introduced the concept of second PFS, defined as the time from randomization to investigator-assessed disease progression by PSA, imaging, or clinical progression by symptoms during the first subsequent treatment for mCRPC or death from any cause. This endpoint is an exploratory one that compares survival on ADT until metastasis followed by abiraterone (control arm) with apalutamide until metastasis followed by abiraterone (experimental arm). By definition, all patients had to develop metastases to get the second line drug (abiraterone for approximately 75% of patients in both arms), and the endpoint for second PFS included PSA progression in addition to progression of metastatic disease and survival.

4. Defining the long term complications from extreme androgen deprivation will be critical. Just as we learned that exposure to standard ADT puts men at risk for developing osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, diabetes or cognitive change, we will need to assess these outcomes in men receiving long term intense androgen deprivation in the M0CRPC setting. Complications may develop more quickly, be more pronounced, or may even be novel. This is not to say that we should avoid using treatments that prolong life and improve quality of life as we saw in these studies, but to say that we should be vigilant regarding complications and prevent, reverse, or treat them to ensure the best outcomes for our patients.
5. What we are doing to the biology of a patient’s disease is anyone’s guess, and next steps in treatment must be personalized. The earlier integration of more intense androgen deprivation means that we are altering selective pressure and potentially forcing cancers to develop a different spectrum of resistance mechanisms than we have previously. Recognizing this and developing strategies to sequence therapies in the mCRPC population after earlier use of apalutamide or enzalutamide will be important. Just as with each therapeutic advance in the past, we will need to think critically about resistance patterns and approaches to treatment that utilize alternate mechanisms of action to overcome them.

Written by: Alicia Morgans, MD, MPH, Associate Professor of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois

Published Date: April 13th, 2018

Read More: