4.4 Article

Multiple Rechallenges for Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Patients Responding to First-line Docetaxel: Assessment of Clinical Outcomes and Predictive Factors

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 79, 期 3, 页码 644-649

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.11.043

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To describe the feasibility and efficacy of multiple sequential rechallenges and analyze the predictive factors that may aid in selecting patients who are more likely to respond. Several studies have demonstrated the feasibility and activity of a single docetaxel rechallenge in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), thus providing an additional opportunity for treatment in docetaxel-sensitive CRPC patients in clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS CRPC patients who completed first-line docetaxel therapy without disease progression have been offered a docetaxel rechallenge, and the responders have undergone further rechallenges until the appearance of docetaxel resistance. We assessed their clinical outcomes and evaluated all the variables potentially capable of predicting the response to rechallenge by means of uni- and multivariate analysis. RESULTS Forty-six consecutive patients underwent 92 rechallenges. The overall biochemical response rate (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] reduction >50%) was 66%. Median overall survival was 32 months with a projected 2-year overall survival from the first docetaxel administration of 77.5%. Multivariate analysis showed that the time slope-log PSA, the time from the previous cycle, and the response to the previous cycle were predictive of the response to a rechallenge. CONCLUSION A docetaxel rechallenge may be safely repeated several times in CRPC patients and in selected patients could improve disease control. The predictive factors found in our analysis may help select the most appropriate strategy in the light of the availability of active second-line drugs. UROLOGY 79: 644-649, 2012. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据