scholarly journals Targeting Angiogenesis in Prostate Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 2676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zsombor Melegh ◽  
Sebastian Oltean
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Refractory Disease ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Angiogenic Activity ◽  
Angiogenic Therapy ◽  
Resistant Refractory ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among men in the Western world. Although localized disease can be effectively treated with established surgical and radiopharmaceutical treatments options, the prognosis of castration-resistant advanced prostate cancer is still disappointing. The objective of this study was to review the role of angiogenesis in prostate cancer and to investigate the effectiveness of anti-angiogenic therapies. A literature search of clinical trials testing the efficacy of anti-angiogenic therapy in prostate cancer was performed using Pubmed. Surrogate markers of angiogenic activity (microvessel density and vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A) expression) were found to be associated with tumor grade, metastasis, and prognosis. Six randomizedstudies were included in this review: two phase II trials on localized and hormone-sensitive disease (n = 60 and 99 patients) and four phase III trials on castration-resistant refractory disease (n = 873 to 1224 patients). Although the phase II trials showed improved relapse-free survival and stabilisation of the disease, the phase III trials found increased toxicity and no significant improvement in overall survival. Although angiogenesis appears to have an important role in prostate cancer, the results of anti-angiogenic therapy in castration-resistant refractory disease have hitherto been disappointing. There are various possible explanations for this lack of efficacy in castration-resistant refractory disease: redundancy of angiogenic pathways, molecular heterogeneity of the disease, loss of tumor suppressor protein phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) expression as well as various VEGF-A splicing isoforms with pro- and anti-angiogenic activity. A better understanding of the molecular mechanisms of angiogenesis may help to develop effective anti-angiogenic therapy in prostate cancer.

Biofeedback

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Lehrer
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Clinical Environment ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Psychosomatic Problems ◽  
Biofeedback Research

Although evidence supports the efficacy of biofeedback for treating a number of disorders and for enhancing performance, significant barriers block both needed research and payer support for this method. Biofeedback has demonstrated effects in changing psychophysiological substrates of various emotional, physical, and psychosomatic problems, but payers are reluctant to reimburse for biofeedback services. A considerable amount of biofeedback research is in the form of relatively small well-controlled trials (Phase II trials). This article argues for greater payer support and research support for larger trials in the “real life” clinical environment (Phase III trials) and meta-analytic reviews.

scholarly journals Anti-Angiogenic Agents in Management of Sarcoma Patients: Overview of Published Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre-Yves Cren ◽  
Loïc Lebellec ◽  
Thomas Ryckewaert ◽  
Nicolas Penel
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Multikinase Inhibitors ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

We reviewed all fully published clinical trials assessing anti-angiogenic agents in sarcoma patients (last issue, January 13, 2020). Anti-angiogenic macromolecules (e.g., bevacizumab or ombrabulin) provide disappointing results. Many multikinase inhibitors have been assessed with non-randomized phase II trials with limited samples and without stratification according to histological subtypes, therefore interpretation of such trials is very challenging. On the contrary, pazopanib, regorafenib, and sorafenib have been assessed using double-blind placebo-controlled randomized phase II or phase III trials. Compared to placebo, sorafenib demonstrates activity in desmoid-type fibromatosis patients. Based on results of phase 3 trial, pazopanib had obtained approval for treatment of pretreated non-adipocytic soft tissue sarcoma. Regorafenib is currently assessed in several clinical settings and provides significant improvement of progression-free survival in pre-treated non-adipocytic soft tissue sarcoma and in advanced pretreated osteosarcoma. Multikinase inhibitors are a breakthrough in sarcoma management. Many trials are ongoing. Nevertheless, predictive factors are still missing.

scholarly journals Clinical Development of PARP Inhibitors in Treating Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

Cells ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. 860 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob J. Adashek ◽  
Rohit K. Jain ◽  
Jingsong Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Unmet Need ◽  
Parp Inhibitors ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Phase Ii Studies ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Signaling Inhibitors

The approval of upfront abiraterone for castration-sensitive prostate cancer and the approval of enzalutamide and apalutamide for non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have led to early utilization of potent androgen receptor (AR) signaling inhibitors in treating advanced prostate cancer. There is an unmet need to develop novel therapies beyond targeting AR signaling for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) belong to a class of targeted agents being developed for the treatment of homologous recombination repair (HRR) deficient tumors. Olaparib, rucaparib, niraparib, veliparib, and talazoparib were evaluated in early phase trials as a monotherapy for HRR-deficient mCRPC. Among them, olaparib and rucaparib have breakthrough designations for BRCA1/2-mutated mCRPC. Phase II studies also reported clinical activity of the PARPi and abiraterone combination and the PARPi checkpoint inhibitor combination in HRR-intact mCRPC. Ongoing phase III trials are testing these combinations as frontline or later line treatments for mCRPC. This review summarizes the critical clinical data as well as ongoing clinical trials for developing PARPi in treating mCRPC.

State-of-the-Art Management for the Patient with Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer in 2012

2012 ◽  
pp. 289-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Sartor
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Optimal Sequence ◽  
Molecular Stratification ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Radium 223 ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Overview: Much progress has been made in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and multiple new U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved survival-prolonging drugs are now available. In 2004, docetaxel/prednisone was the first therapy shown to prolong survival. In 2010 and 2011, sipuleucel-T, cabazitaxel/prednisone, and abiraterone/prednisone were FDA approved. Two new agents, radium-223 and MDV-3100, have recently reported large phase III trials prolonging overall survival and will be submitted for regulatory approval in 2012. One can now begin to ask, is there an optimal sequence for therapies in metastatic CRPC? Despite the recent progress, there is much we do not know and virtually no information on this important question. We know that abiraterone/prednisone and cabazitaxel/prednisone are appropriate choices for a patient after receiving docetaxel, but we do not know what, if anything, represents the optimal sequence for abiraterone and cabazitaxel. In fact we do not understand how one therapy may affect the response to a subsequent therapy. We are also aware that the pre- and postdocetaxel spaces represent regulatory rather than biologic divisions. In addition, despite the proven role of docetaxel/prednisone, many patients with CRPC are not considered to be suitable for chemotherapy, and worldwide many never receive any form of chemotherapy. What is the optimal management for these patients? Taken together it is reasonable to assess patient preferences, prior therapies and response/tolerance to prior therapies, burden of disease, comorbidities, current symptoms, drug toxicities, out-of-pocket costs, etc., in clinical decision making. Given the many factors we do not know, it is hard to be dogmatic in approaching the therapeutic options for the patient with CRPC. We will likely soon move beyond the current sequencing paradigm and begin to assess new combinations in a systematic and rational fashion. Perhaps one day, in the not too distant future, we will develop molecular “stratification systems” to better guide therapeutic choices in CRPC.

Capecitabine and irinotecan (XELIRI) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): A systematic review of controlled clinical trials

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15100-e15100
Author(s):  
S. Sukumaran ◽  
N. Pavlakis ◽  
K. B. Pittman ◽  
K. Patterson ◽  
T. J. Price
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
First Line ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Phase Ii And Iii ◽  
First Line Treatment

e15100 Background: Irinotecan and 5-Fluorouracil based combination is an effective regimen for mCRC. Capecitabine, an oral fluoropyrimidine, is a convenient alternative to intravenous 5- Fluorouracil. This study aims to systematically review all published and unpublished controlled phase II and III trials of XELIRI combination, used in first line treatment of mCRC, reported from 2000–2008, to describe its efficacy and safety. Methods: A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and proceedings from ASCO, ESMO and WGIC was conducted. The primary end point was response rate (RR), secondary endpoints include: time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. Results: Thirty non-randomised phase II trials (n = 1380) along with 6 randomised phase II and 3 phase III trials, were included (pooled n = 1478). The daily dose of capecitabine ranged from 1,800 mg/m2 to 2,500 mg/m2 for 7 to 14 days per cycle and the dose of irinotecan varied from 180mg/m2 to 350 mg/m2, over a 3 week period per cycle. Amongst the non-randomised studies, the median patient age was 61 years (53–72).The median RR was 46.75% (25–78%). The median reported TTP was 7.9 months (mo) (5- 9.9 mo) and the median OS was 15.6 months (7–24.8 mo). Grade 3–4 toxicity incidence was: diarrhoea (21.5%), neutropenia (12%), vomiting (12.5%), fatigue (6%) and Hand-foot syndrome (6%). The pooled incidence of febrile neutropenia was 2.5%. Amongst the randomised trials, the comparator regimens were XELOX or FOLFIRI. Median age was 65 years (61–74). RR for XELIRI was 39% (34–56%) compared to 47% (27–61.8%) for the non XELIRI comparator arms. Median reported TTP was 8.2 mo (5.7–12.5 mo) for the XELIRI arms and 9.2 mo for the comparator arms. Conclusions: XELIRI is an effective and feasible regime in the first line management of mCRC. However the optimal role of this combination remains to be established. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

The prevalence of objectively measurable disease in phase III trials of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 215-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ankit Madan ◽  
Mary K Baker ◽  
Jori E May ◽  
Gurudatta Naik ◽  
Sejong Bae ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Bone Scan ◽  
Strong Association ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Disease Rate ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Measurable Disease ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

215 Background: Given the historical low prevalence of measurable disease in mCRPC, phase II trials have employed suboptimal endpoints accounting for prostate specific antigen (PSA) and bone scan changes. Changes in bone scan and PSA have not always translated to survival improvement. Improved computerized tomography technology may be increasing the proportion of men with measurable disease, suggesting that measurable changes need to be reconsidered. We analyzed phase III trials of mCRPC to systematically quantitate the proportion of mCRPC with measurable disease. Methods: Data from the both arms of published phase III trials of mCRPC were eligible for analysis. Baseline characteristics were required including the number enrolled, setting (pre-docetaxel [D], D-based, post-D), proportion of patients with measurable disease and the year of completion of trial accrual. General Linear Model was used to evaluate the difference in measurable disease rate based on setting and year of completion of accrual. Results: Seventeen phase III trials totaling 17,609 men with mCRPC were evaluable; 5160 were pre-D, 7573 were D-based and 4876 were post-D. The trials completed accrual between 2002 and 2012. Ten trials used RECIST 1.0, 5 trials used RECIST 1.1 and 2 trials used other criteria. The overall proportion of men with measurable disease was 47.8%. The measurable disease rate (range) in trials in the pre-D setting was 40.5% (30.5-57), in the D-based setting was 51.9% (29.1-87.5), and in the post-D setting was 48.9% (38.8-56.6). There was no statistical difference in the proportion of men with measurable disease based on setting or year of completion of accrual. Conclusions: The proportion of men with measurable disease in phase III trials of mCRPC completing accrual between 2002 and 2012 was 47.8%% with no significant difference based on setting or year of completing accrual. Given these higher measurable disease rates compared to historical rates and recent demonstration of strong association of RECIST changes with OS in mCRPC, RECIST changes need to be considered as a co-primary endpoint in phase II trials to obtain a firm signal of efficacy before launching phase III trials.

Personalized use of metronomic cyclophosphamide for DNA repair deficient castration-resistant prostate cancer: A phase II trial.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS346-TPS346
Author(s):  
Cameron Phillips ◽  
Giulio Francia ◽  
Robert S. Kerbel ◽  
Urban Emmenegger
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Type I ◽  
Similar Response ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Castration Resistant

TPS346 Background: There is a continued need to identify novel targets for the treatment of metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). DNA damage repair (DDR) aberrations are emerging as such a target: 20%-30% of mCRPCs harbor DDR gene aberrations, rendering tumors particularly sensitive to DNA damaging agents and poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapy. 88% of men with DDR deficient mCRPC responded to the PARPi olaparib in a phase II trial, whereas in unselected mCRPC patients the metronomic use of the DNA damaging agent cyclophosphamide (CPA) resulted in response rates of 25-60%. Intriguingly, in randomized phase II trials of unselected ovarian and triple-negative breast cancer (ie tumor types enriched for DDR defects), metronomic CPA alone was as active as metronomic CPA plus the PARPi veliparib. Based on this we hypothesize that DDR deficient mCRPC is particularly sensitive to metronomic CPA. To the best of our knowledge this is the first attempt to utilize metronomic CPA in a personalized manner. Our study has the potential to define metronomic CPA as an affordable and well-tolerated alternative to PARPi therapy in men with DDR deficient mCRPC. Methods: To study if metronomic CPA achieves a similar response rate (ie ≥85%) in DDR deficient mCRPC as seen with olaparib, men with mCRPC progressing after 1-2 lines of systemic therapy will undergo circulating tumor DNA based testing for BRCA1/2 or ATM aberrations. Patients with such aberrations will proceed with metronomic CPA (50 mg po daily). Primary endpoint: RECIST 1.1 and/or ≥50% PSA response rate at 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints include biochemical, radiological and clinical progression-free survival. Applying the Optimal Simon's Two-Stage design, and using a type I error rate of 0.05 and a power of 0.8, in the first stage we plan to enroll 14 patients. If there are ≤10 or fewer responses, the study will be stopped. Otherwise, another 19 patients will be accrued as part of the second stage.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document