Radium-223: Sequence or Overlay in Advanced Prostate Cancer (mCRPC)?

Steven Eric Finkelstein, MD
Published: Friday, May 23, 2014
Additionally, there are important questions to be answered, such as the appropriate sequencing of agents for mCRPC in the larger context of magnitude of response/survival benefit and risk/safety profile of various approved agents (hormonal agents, bone-targeted agents, immunotherapy agents) in the CRPC space. There are now 10 agents of potential use for mCRPC: 1) Xofigo (radium-223 dichloride)—an alpha particle-emitting radioactive therapeutic agent; 2) Provenge (sipuleucel-T)—an autologous cellular immunotherapy; 3) Zytiga (abiraterone acetate)—a CYP17 inhibitor used with prednisone; 4) Xtandi (enzalutamide)—an androgen receptor inhibitor; 5) Taxotere (docetaxel)—a microtubule inhibitor; 6) Jevtana (cabazitaxel)—a microtubule inhibitor; 7) Xgeva (denosumab)—a RANK ligand inhibitor; 8) Zometa (zoledronic acid)—a bisphosphonate; 9) Metastron (strontium-89)—a beta particle-emitting radioactive isotope; and 10) Quadramet (samarium-153)—a beta/gamma particle-emitting radioactive isotope. The Table shows selected phase III trials in mCRPC demonstrating an improvement in OS, with the understanding that differences in inclusion and exclusion criteria make it difficult to directly compare clinical trials. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network supports the use of radium-223 as first-line therapy for patients with symptomatic mCRPC with a Category 1 recommendation.

For the future, it may not be an ultimate question of sequence— it may be a question of overlay. In a few years, clinicians may overlay multiple synergistic agents with greatly different mechanisms of action against mCRPC. As is the case in the management of other diseases, the confluence of combinations of agents may need to be the rule and not the exception.

For now, as patients progress with bone-predominant disease on newer agents, single agent radium-223 (with OS benefit supported by delay in time-to-first symptomatic skeletal event) seems a logical choice for community physicians.1

Thus, radium-223 is uniquely positioned to be a first-line option for a large number of patients, as >90% of men with symptomatic mCRPC have bone metastases. In the phase III AFFIRM study evaluating enzalutamide versus placebo in patients with mCRPC previously treated with chemotherapy, 91.5% to 92.2% of patients had bone metastases at enrollment.3 With respect to the phase III COU-AA-301 study evaluating abiraterone acetate plus prednisone versus placebo plus prednisone in patients with mCRPC previously treated with docetaxel, up to 90% of patients had bone metastases at enrollment.4 Lastly, the phase III TAX 327 study evaluating weekly docetaxel plus prednisone, versus every 3 week docetaxel plus prednisone versus mitoxantrone plus prednisone in patients with mCRPC, 90% to 91% of patients had bone metastases at initial enrollment.5 With respect to the lack of PSA changes and response evaluation with radium-223, how to fit this agent into clinical practice seems to be an area of contention between different practitioners.

Signs of disease progression may include rising PSA, radiographic progression, or progression of clinically measurable disease. Use of standard of care radiologic evidence of metastasis to bone on sodium fluoride PET/CT bone scan at baseline and post therapy may help to better define the disease burden and outcome of patients.

Knowing the truth with respect to anatomic sites of prostate cancer disease burden and developing more anatomically targeted treatment strategies makes sense for community physicians. The coupling of advancements in prostate cancer imaging with targeted novel therapy such as radium-223 and/or other directed therapy against bone sites may elicit badly needed gamechanging strides in bone-predominant mCRPC. Taken together, this is an extremely exciting time for patients and doctors battling advanced prostate cancer; future studies will further optimize the confluence of agents in the mCRPC space.

Table. Selected Phase III Trials in mCRPC Demonstrating an Improvement in Overall Survival

Study Control vs experimental arm Patient population Mean change OS (mo) OS (mo) Toxicity
TAX3275 Mitoxantrone/ prednisone vs docetaxel/prednisone Advanced CRPC (n = 1006) 2.9 16.3 vs 19.2 (HR = 0.79; P = .004) AEs greater in docetaxel arm
TROPIC6 Mitoxantrone/ prednisone vs cabazitaxel/prednisone After docetaxel mCRPC (n = 755) 2.4 12.7 vs 15.1 (HR = 0.70; P <.0001) Grade 3 neutropenia (82 vs 58%) Grade 3 diarrhea (6% vs 1%), cabazitaxel vs control arm
COU-AA-3014 Placebo/prednisone vs abiraterone acetate/prednisone After docetaxel mCRPC (n = 1195) 4.6 11.2 vs 15.8 (HR = 0.74; P <.0001) Grade 3-4 fatigue (9% vs 10%), anemia (8% vs 8%), back pain (7% vs 10%), bone pain (6% vs 8%), abiraterone acetate vs placebo groups
AFFIRM3 Placebo vs enzalutamide After docetaxel mCRPC (n = 1199) 4.8 13.6 vs 18.4 (HR = 0.63; P <.001) AEs greater in enzalutamide group (fatigue, diarrhea, hot flashes with seizures were reported in 5 patients, 0.6%)
COU-AA-3027 Placebo/prednisone vs abiraterone acetate/prednisone A symptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC (n = 1088) NA 27.2 vs median not reached (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61- 0.93; P = .01) However, the prespecified boundary for significance (P ≤.001) was not reached at the observed number of events Grade 3-4 mineralocorticoidrelated AEs and abnormalities on liver-function testing were more common with abiraterone/prednisone
PREVAIL8 Placebo vs enzalutamide Chemotherapynaïve patients with mCRPC (n = 1717) NA Estimated median OS was 32.4 mo (95% CI, 31.5– upper limit not yet reached) in the enzalutamide arm vs 30.2 mo (95% CI, 28–upper limit not yet reached) in the placebo arm Grade 3 or higher cardiac AEs were reported in 2.8% of enzalutamide vs 2.1% of placebo-treated patients
IMPACT9 Control vs sipuleucel-T A symptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC (n = 512) 4.1 21.7 vs 25.8 (HR = 0.775; P = .032) Grade 3 acute infusion reactions were reported in 3.5% and included chills, fever, fatigue, asthenia, dyspnea, hypoxia, bronchospasm, dizziness, headache, hypertension, muscle ache, nausea, and vomiting. No Grade 4 or 5 acute infusion reactions were reported
ALSYMPCA1,2 Placebo + standard care versus radium-223 dichloride + standard care Symptomatic mCRPC with bone metastases; 50% were chemotherapynaïve (n = 921) 3.6 11.3 vs 14.9 (HR = 0.70; P = .00007) Grade 3-4 neutropenia in 2.2% vs 0.7% Grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia in 6.3% vs 2%, radium-223 dichloride vs placebo

AEs, adverse events; CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; mCRPC, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; mo, months; NA, not applicable; OS, overall survival.



ABOUT THE AUTHOR


View Conference Coverage
Online CME Activities
TitleExpiration DateCME Credits
Community Practice Connections™: 1st Annual International Congress of Oncology Pathology™: Towards Harmonization of Pathology and Oncology StandardsAug 30, 20182.0
Clinical Interchange™: Translating Research to Inform Changing Paradigms: Assessment of Emerging Immuno-Oncology Strategies and Combinations across Lung, Head and Neck, and Bladder CancersOct 31, 20182.0
Publication Bottom Border
Border Publication
x