Article Figures & Data
Figures
- FIGURE 1.
Kaplan–Meier curves depicting PFS in mCRPC patients stratified according to cabazitaxel vs. 177Lu-PSMA therapy (A) and OS additionally stratified according to cabazitaxel plus Lu-PSMA therapy (B). Cab = cabazitaxel.
- FIGURE 2.
Kaplan–Meier curves depicting PFS in mCRPC patients stratified according to cabazitaxel vs. 177Lu-PSMA therapy (A) and OS additionally stratified according to cabazitaxel plus 177Lu-PSMA therapy in second- to fourth-line mCRPC treatment (B).
Tables
- TABLE 1.
Characteristics of 296 mCRPC Patients Stratified According to Cabazitaxel vs. 177Lu-PSMA Therapy
Characteristic n Overall (n = 296) Cabazitaxel (n = 52 [18%]) 177Lu-PSMA (n = 244 [82%]) P Age at mCRPC (y) 192 71 (64–76) 66 (58–71) 72 (66–78) <0.001 PSA at mCRPC (ng/mL) 141 18 (6–72) 63 (12–144) 15 (6–64) 0.044 Number of treatment lines 296 3 (2–4) 4 (3–5) 3 (2–4) <0.001 Cycles of systemic treatment 229 3 (2–6) 5 (3–6) 3 (2–6) 0.031 PSA response (%) 39 20 (0–66) 15 (0–23) 25 (0–68) 0.3 PSA decline of ≥50% 39 11 (28%) 0 (0%) 11 (32%) 0.3 PSA decline of ≥90% 39 5 (13%) 0 (0%) 5 (15%) 0.9 ECOG status at mCRPC 109 0.10 0 52 (48%) 14 (70%) 38 (43%) 1 45 (41%) 5 (25%) 40 (45%) ≥2 12 (11%) 1 (5%) 11 (12%) Cardiovascular disease 183 66 (36%) 13 (35%) 53 (36%) 0.9 Gleason score of 8–10 259 181 (70%) 39 (80%) 142 (68%) 0.10 De novo mHSPC 290 161 (56%) 33 (63%) 128 (54%) 0.2 High-volume mHSPC 146 99 (68%) 24 (73%) 75 (66%) 0.5 Metastatic sites at mCRPC 130 0.8 M1a 14 (11%) 3 (13%) 11 (10%) M1b 104 (80%) 20 (83%) 84 (79%) M1c 12 (9%) 1 (4%) 11 (10%) Treatment mHSPC 126 0.034 ADT mono 25 (20%) 4 (20%) 21 (20%) ARSI 58 (46%) 4 (20%) 54 (51%) Docetaxel 34 (27%) 10 (50%) 24 (23%) Triplet 3 (2%) 1 (5%) 2 (2%) Other 6 (5%) 1 (5%) 5 (5%) First-line mCRPC treatment 296 <0.001 ADT monotherapy 29 (10%) 6 (12%) 23 (9%) Chemotherapy 53 (18%) 19 (37%) 34 (14%) 177Lu-PSMA 28 (10%) 0 (0%) 28 (11%) ARSI 163 (55%) 26 (50%) 137 (56%) PARPi with or without ARSI 1 (0.3%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.4%) Radium 20 (7%) 0 (0%) 20 (8%) None/other/NA 2 (1%) 1 (2%) 1 (0.4%) Second-line mCRPC treatment 296 <0.001 Chemotherapy 69 (23%) 27 (52%) 42 (17%) 177Lu-PSMA 73 (25%) 0 (0%) 73 (30%) ARSI 114 (39%) 25 (48%) 89 (36%) PARPi with or without ARSI 5 (2%) 0 (0%) 5 (2%) Radium 13 (4%) 0 (0%) 13 (5%) None/other/NA 22 (7%) 0 (0%) 22 (9%) mHSPC = metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, ADT = androgen deprivation therapy, ARSI = androgen receptor signaling inhibitor, PARPi = poly-(adenosine diphosphate ribose)-polymerase inhibitors, NA = unknown.
Qualitative data are number and percentage; continuous data are median and IQR. P values were obtained with Wilcoxon rank sum test, Fisher exact test, or Pearson χ2 test.
- TABLE 2.
Univariable und Multivariable Cox Regression Models Predicting PFS and OS in mCRPC According to Received Treatment
Univariable Multivariable Parameter HR CI P HR CI P PFS* Cabazitaxel Reference — — Reference — — Lu-PSMA 0.44 0.30–0.61 <0.001 0.38 0.22–0.79 <0.001 Cabazitaxel second–fourth lines Reference — — Reference — — 177Lu-PSMA second–fourth lines 0.50 0.34–0.75 <0.001 0.62 0.30–1.27 0.18 OS† Cabazitaxel Reference — — Reference — — 177Lu-PSMA 0.80 0.54–1.19 0.3 0.98 0.46–2.11 0.9 177Lu-PSMA plus cabazitaxel 0.47 0.29–0.76 <0.01 0.84 0.39–1.83 0.7 Cabazitaxel second–fourth lines Reference — — Reference — — 177Lu-PSMA second–fourth lines 0.79 0.50–1.23 0.3 0.87 0.40–1.92 0.7 177Lu-PSMA plus cabazitaxel second–fourth lines 0.41 0.24–0.72 <0.01 0.57 0.22–1.49 0.3 ↵* Adjustment in multivariable Cox regression models was made for age at mCRPC, PSA at mCRPC, metastatic sites at mCRPC, ECOG status at mCRPC, and Gleason score.
↵† Adjustment in multivariable Cox regression models was made for age at mCRPC, PSA at mCRPC, metastatic sites at mCRPC, ECOG status at mCRPC, Gleason score, and number of received systemic treatment lines.
Supplemental Data
Files in this Data Supplement:
