Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorAnton, Angelyn-
dc.contributor.authorPillai, Sruti-
dc.contributor.authorSemira, Marie Christine-
dc.contributor.authorWong, Shirley-
dc.contributor.authorShapiro, Julia-
dc.contributor.authorWeickhardt, Andrew J-
dc.contributor.authorAzad, Arun-
dc.contributor.authorKwan, Edmond M-
dc.contributor.authorSpain, Lavinia-
dc.contributor.authorGunjur, Ashray-
dc.contributor.authorTorres, Javier-
dc.contributor.authorParente, Phillip-
dc.contributor.authorParnis, Francis-
dc.contributor.authorGoh, Jeffrey-
dc.contributor.authorBaenziger, Olivia-
dc.contributor.authorGibbs, Peter-
dc.contributor.authorTran, Ben-
dc.identifier.citationBJUI Compass 2022; 3(3): 205-213en
dc.description.abstractSeveral systemic therapies have demonstrated a survival advantage in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Access to these medications varies significantly worldwide. In Australia until recently, patients must have received docetaxel first, unless unsuitable for chemotherapy, despite no evidence suggesting superiority over androgen receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSIs). Our study investigated real-world systemic treatment patterns in Australian patients with mCRPC. The electronic CRPC Australian Database (ePAD) was interrogated to identify mCRPC patients. Clinicopathological features, treatment and outcome data, stratified by first-line systemic therapies, were extracted. Comparisons between groups utilised Kruskal-Wallis tests and Chi-Square analyses. Time-to-event data were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods and groups compared using log-rank tests. Factors influencing overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) were analysed through Cox proportional hazards regression models. We identified 578 patients who received first-line systemic therapy for mCRPC. Enzalutamide (ENZ) was most commonly prescribed (n = 240, 41%), followed by docetaxel (DOC, n = 164, 28%) and abiraterone (AA, n = 100, 17%). Patients receiving ENZ or AA were older (79, 78.5 years respectively) compared with DOC (71 years, p = 0.001) and less likely to have ECOG performance status 0 (45%, 44%, 59% in ENZ, AA and DOC groups respectively p < 0.0001). Median TTF was significantly higher in those receiving ENZ (12.4 months) and AA (11.9 months) compared to DOC (8.3 months, p < 0.001). PSA50 response rates and OS were not statistically different. Time to developing CRPC > 12 months was independently associated with longer TTF (HR 0.67, p < 0.001) and OS (HR 0.49, p = 0.002). In our real-world population, ENZ and AA were common first-line systemic therapy choices, particularly among older patients and those with poorer performance status. Patients receiving ENZ and AA demonstrated superior TTF compared to DOC, while OS was not statistically different. Our findings highlight the important role of ARSIs, given the variability of access worldwide.en
dc.subjectmetastatic castration‐resistant prostate canceren
dc.subjectreal‐world dataen
dc.subjectsystemic therapyen
dc.titleReal-world first-line systemic therapy patterns in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitleBJUI Compassen
dc.identifier.affiliationAlfred Health Melbourne, Victoria, Australia..en
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medical Oncology Western Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia..en
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medical Oncology Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia..en
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medical Oncology Goulburn Valley Health, Shepparton, Victoria, Australia..en
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medical Oncology Monash Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia..en
dc.identifier.affiliationOlivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness and Research Centreen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medical Oncology Eastern Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia..en
dc.identifier.affiliationFaculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences Monash University Melbourne, Victoria, Australia..en
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medical Oncology Adelaide Cancer Centre, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia..en
dc.identifier.affiliationFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia..en
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medical Oncology Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia..en
dc.identifier.affiliationDivision of Personalised Medicine Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia..en
dc.identifier.pubmedid35492221, Ashray
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairecristype Newton-John Cancer Research Institute- Oncology-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

checked on May 22, 2024

Google ScholarTM


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.