Impact of time to metastatic disease onset and extent of disease volume across metastatic hormone-sensitive and castration-resistant prostate cancer

•Time to mCRPC and OS differences can be observed for De Novo vs. secondary mHSPC patients.•After stratification according to metastatic disease volume, patients with DNHV mHSPC harbored the worst outcomes, while patients with SecLV mHSPC harbored best prognosis.•These effects can also be observed a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Urologic oncology 2024-11, Vol.42 (11), p.371.e11-371.e18
Hauptverfasser: Wenzel, Mike, Hoeh, Benedikt, Kopf, Philipp, Siech, Carolin, Humke, Clara, Würnschimmel, Christoph, Steuber, Thomas, Graefen, Markus, Preisser, Felix, Traumann, Miriam, Banek, Séverine, Kluth, Luis A., Chun, Felix KH, Mandel, Philipp
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•Time to mCRPC and OS differences can be observed for De Novo vs. secondary mHSPC patients.•After stratification according to metastatic disease volume, patients with DNHV mHSPC harbored the worst outcomes, while patients with SecLV mHSPC harbored best prognosis.•These effects can also be observed after progression to mCRPC. In recently published phase III trials, overall survival (OS) differences were demonstrated in patients with secondary vs. De Novo and low vs. high volume metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). We hypothesized that these factors may also be attributable in real-world setting of new intensified combination therapies and in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. We relied on an institutional tertiary-care database to identify mHSPC and subsequent mCRPC patients. The main outcome consisted of time to mCRPC and OS. Patients were stratified according to De Novo vs. secondary and low vs. high volume mHSPC and mCRPC, respectively. Of 504 mHSPC patients, 371 (73.6%) were De Novo vs. 133 (26.4%) secondary mHSPC. Patients with De Novo and high volume mHSPC harbored shorter time to mCRPC and OS than secondary and low volume mHSPC patients (both P < 0.01). After stratification regarding disease volume, median time to mCRPC differed significantly between De Novo high volume (DNHV) vs. De Novo low volume (DNLV) vs. secondary high volume (SecHV) vs. secondary low volume mHSPC patients (SecLV, P < 0.001). Similarly in OS analyses, median OS was 44 vs. 53 vs. 88 vs. 120 months for respectively DNHV vs. SecHV vs. SecLV vs. DNLV mHSPC (P < 0.001). After progression to mCRPC, the effect of onset of metastatic disease and metastatic volume was still observed (all P < 0.01). Patients with DNHV mHSPC harbor worse prognosis in a real world setting and in the light of combination therapies. This effect is also discernible in the context of mCRPC.
ISSN:1078-1439
1873-2496
1873-2496
DOI:10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.06.016