The ASCO Genitourinary (ASCO GU) and the Annual ASCO meetings are the leading educational and scientific events for oncologists, urologists, and the cancer team, providing the latest clinical and scientific data from clinical trials and basic and translational research in GU cancer. Thousands of abstracts summarizing state-of-the-art treatment modalities and novel therapies for patients with Prostate Cancer will be presented and it will be critical that educational programing provide learners with not only key data, but interpretation by faculty as to how best to incorporate into clinical practice.
Data Updates in the Treatment of Hormone Sensitive Prostate Cancer (HSPC)
Data Updates in the Treatment of Hormone Sensitive Prostate Cancer (HSPC)
Welcome to CME on ReachMD. This episode is part of our MinuteCE curriculum.
Prior to beginning the activity, please be sure to review the faculty and commercial support disclosure statements as well as the learning objectives.
Welcome. I’m Dr. Dan George, Professor of Medicine and Surgery from Duke University Medical Center. I’m happy to talk with you today about hormone sensitive prostate cancer management with my good friend and colleague, Dr. Fred Saad. Fred, do you want to introduce yourself?
Sure, Dan. So, I am Fred Saad, Professor and Chairman of Urology and Director of GU Oncology at the University of Montreal in Montreal, Canada.
Fantastic. Well, welcome Fred, and, uh, what a great GU ASCO ’23 we just finished. And I thought we could jump right in with some of the latest updates from – in this hormone sensitive space. Fred, do you want to lead us through a couple of, I think maybe some of the key presentations there?
Right, so, I think one of the key presentations which was an oral presentation was some of the updated data on ARASENS. So I guess everybody knows ARASENS. Almost 1,500 patients randomized to one-to-one, to getting ADT and docetaxel, which was, for a long time, considered the standard of care for hormone sensitive metastatic disease and patients were randomized to get that standard of care, plus or minus darolutamide, to see if we can prolong survival if we do a triplet approach versus a doublet approach, and that study was clearly positive, with more than 32% reduction risk of death. The question that keeps coming up was, how do patients with high volume versus low volume, or high risk versus low risk perform with this triplet? Is there a difference, and do we really – should we really limit this triplet approach to a certain population of patients?
And so, we were both at that session. I think it stimulated some discussion. The bottom line is, we see the same kind of overall advantage survival, whether patients were high risk or low risk, or whether they were high volume or low volume. Now, when we get into statistics, the low volume patients were a small group of the patients, who came in because, you know, because patients have to be both eligible, or considered needing chemotherapy, there was a bit of a selection for the higher risk, higher volume patients. But the bottom line is we’re seeing the same kind of survival advantage if we look at the hazard ratios – around 0.68, 0.7 hazard ratio.
Yeah, it’s really interesting, Fred. I think with that point you just made about they had to be patients who were otherwise docetaxel-eligible, so their treating physician felt that docetaxel was appropriate. Because remember, you know, this was being done in an era when we also had, now, novel hormonal therapies like abiraterone available, and for patients that feel like, you know, that chemotherapy was really the appropriate, you know, treatment regardless of randomization. And then, obviously, you know, concerned enough to say would we want to offer these patients a triplet? So, this was probably patients in general that we felt, you know, kind of needed intensification, or maybe what we might term dual intensification, with chemotherapy and a novel hormonal therapy, and I think this is really kind of amazing, to be honest with you. I mean, granted that the numbers are small in terms of the low risk and the low volume patients, but they were, you know, still trends very much in favor of this, particularly in the low risk patients. You know, when you actually look at some of the breakdowns, in the low risk patients they got as much, and in some cases maybe even more benefit, in terms of preventing skeletal events and things like this, than we saw in some of our high volume patients. So it really suggests to me that risk – that is, although it’s important, you know, it’s really determined by that Gleason score, and volume, you know, is probably the real driver there, and so to me, anybody that has sort of multiple bony metastasis, that we really should be thinking about docetaxel chemotherapy and darolutamide therapy, or dual intensification in that population of patients.
Yeah, absolutely, and I think the patients really have to be part of this discussion. It’s unfair that it’s only us that would decide you can benefit and other can’t. I mean, in terms of docetaxel versus NHT, we have heard docetaxel is not used anymore, or very rarely used. That’s true, because we have always had to choose one of the four – one of the three novel hormones, or docetaxel. So obviously, the results are very similar, so why would you choose docetaxel? But now that we have the option of combining, I think we have to look at our patient and say, is novel hormonal going to be enough on the long term? And if you think that patient might have clones that might be hormone-insensitive, we really need to consider that triple approach up front, you know, and what’s amazing – and like you said, in the low risk, low volume, we’re seeing some really tremendous long-term responses. And, you know, we’re talking more and more about de-intensification. How are we going to de-intensify if we can’t get as close as possible to cure, up front? So this very aggressive approach might actually allow us – with more research, in two or three years – to say, “Well, we’ll stop everything. There’s no trace of disease.” I think our biggest opportunity is up front, so I think we really have to just avoid saying only the very worst are going to benefit from triplet. You might actually be many more patients than the very worst that will benefit from the long-term benefit, of having an aggressive, up front approach.
Well said, Fred. Well said, and I like that idea of at least offering to patients, you know, more broadly now that we’re not competing one therapy against another. I want to switch gears now, because there was something new presented at GU ASCO ’23, in the salvage space with radiation therapy, and we’ve all known that, you know, salvage radiation therapy and hormonal therapy has been kind of a standard of care, but intensification in this space has – you know, we haven’t seen a tremendous amount of data. And there was a new, really investigator-led, multi-center effort, that showed some fairly provocative results. You want to walk us through that?
Yeah, so very briefly, I mean, it – we’re talking about intensification in the metastatic hormone sensitive, but maybe if we can attack the patients that are not yet metastatic, and do the very best, and we’ve seen results from STAMPEDE in the very high risk patients, localized, getting ADT plus abiraterone, for only two years. Well here, these are patients that are recurring after surgery, with relatively low PSA’s, and they got six months of ADT plus or minus APA and abiraterone. And what they saw is the patients that got the intensification with only six months, obviously a subgroup – but the patients with PSA’s above 0.5, with only six months of ADT and apalutamide – I don’t think we really need the abiraterone – had longer time to metastases. So, metastases-free survival, long term, recurrence-free survival was much improved. So really, a step in the right direction, that maybe with intensification we can avoid all these long-term needs for systemic therapy in these patients, that we might still have an opportunity to truly control their disease, if they’ve gone through surgery and had a recurrence.
Well, really exciting data. It’s an area we need to make more progress in, and obviously we would like to see, you know, a more definitive, larger powered study for metastasis-free survival. But seeing that signal, particularly in that kind of higher risk population, as you define by PSA, I think is super exciting, and really suggests it’s going to be even more opportunities for intensification early in the disease course. Well, thanks, Fred. This has been a great discussion. I appreciate it.
You have been listening to CME on ReachMD. This activity is jointly provided by Global Learning Collaborative (GLC) and TotalCME, Inc. and is part of our MinuteCE curriculum.
To receive your free CME credit, or to download this activity, go to ReachMD.com/CME. Thank you for listening.
This activity has been designed to meet the educational needs of the interprofessional team, including Medical Oncologists, Urologists, Nurses, Pharmacists as well as other clinicians involved in the management of patients with prostate cancer.
After participating in this educational activity, participants should be better able to:
- Apply recent practice-changing data to inform sequencing decisions and treatment strategies for patients with prostate cancer
In support of improving patient care, this activity has been planned and implemented by Global Learning Collaborative (GLC) and TotalCME, Inc. GLC is jointly accredited by the American Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC) to provide continuing education for the healthcare team.
This activity was planned by and for the healthcare team, and learners will receive 1.0 Interprofessional Continuing Education (IPCE) credit for learning and change.
In accordance with the ACCME Standards for Integrity and Independence, Global Learning Collaborative (GLC) requires that individuals in a position to control the content of an educational activity disclose all relevant financial relationships with any ineligible company. GLC mitigates all conflicts of interest to ensure independence, objectivity, balance, and scientific rigor in all educational programs.
The following faculty have disclosed:
Daniel J. George, MD, faculty for this educational event, is a contracted researcher for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer H/C Pharmaceuticals, BMS, Calithera, Exelixis, Inc, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and receives consulting fees from Novartis, Astellas, AstraZeneca, AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Brown and James Atty, Eisa, Exelixis, Inc, IdeoOncology, Janssen, Medscape Education, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Michael J Hennessey Associates, Myovant Sciences, Inc, Nektar Therapeutics, Pfizer, Propella TX, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, UroGPO, UroToday WebMD, WilmerHale and Xcures.
Fred Saad, MD, FRCS, faculty for this educational event, is a contracted researcher for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Janssen, Myovant, Pfizer, Novartis/AAA, Point, BMS, and Sanofi; and receives consulting fees from Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Janssen, Myovant, Pfizer, Novartis/AAA, Point, BMS, Tolmar, and Abbvie.
The following planners/reviewers/managers have disclosed:
Megan Reimann, PharmD, BCOP, planner for this educational event, has no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.
William Mencia, MD, FACEHP, CHCP, reviewer for this educational event, has no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies.
TotalCME, Inc. planners and managers have no relevant commercial relationships to disclose.
All the relevant financial relationships for these individuals have been mitigated.
The views and opinions expressed in this educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of GLC and TotalCME, Inc. This presentation is not intended to define an exclusive course of patient management; the participant should use his/her clinical judgment, knowledge, experience, and diagnostic skills in applying or adopting for professional use any of the information provided herein. Any procedures, medications, or other courses of diagnosis or treatment discussed or suggested in this activity should not be used by clinicians without evaluation of their patient's conditions and possible contraindications or dangers in use, review of any applicable manufacturer’s product information, and comparison with recommendations of other authorities. Links to other sites may be provided as additional sources of information. Once you elect to link to a site outside of MedEd On The Go you are subject to the terms and conditions of use, including copyright and licensing restrictions, of that site.
Reproduction of this material is not permitted without written permission from the copyright owner.
This activity is supported by independent educational grants from Bayer and Janssen Biotech, Inc., administered by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC.
Jointly provided by Global Learning Collaborative (GLC) and TotalCME, Inc.
This activity is FREE to all participants.
During the period 3/3/2023 through 3/3/2024, registered participants wishing to receive continuing education credit for this activity must follow these steps:
1. Read the learning objectives and faculty disclosures.
2. Answer a pre-program question.
3. View the program.
4. Complete the post-test with a score of 100%.
5. Complete activity evaluation.
6. Apply for credit and either bank your credits or print your certificate.
For Pharmacists: Upon successfully completing the post-test with a score of 100% and the activity evaluation form, transcript information will be sent to the NABP CPE Monitor Service. This may require you to add or update the e-profile ID/date of birth information saved in your account.