The Heterogeneity of Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate Is Associated With Different Efficacy of Standard First-Line Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer
Background
To explore whether patients with distinct intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) subtypes respond differently to standard first-line therapy among patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
Methods
We retrospectively analyzed data of 170 mCRPC patients receiving abiraterone (ABI) or docetaxel (DOC) as first-line therapy between 2014 and 2019. PSA response, PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed and compared based on the presence of IDC-P and its sub-patterns.
Results
Totally, IDC-P was confirmed in 91/170 (53.5%) patients. Among them, 36/91 (39.6%) and 55/91 (60.4%) harbored IDC-P pattern 1 and pattern 2, respectively. The presence of IDC-P was confirmed to be associated with poor prognosis in the whole cohort. Patients with IDC-P pattern 1 shared similar clinical outcomes to those without IDC-P in both ABI and DOC treatment. However, compared to patients with IDC-P pattern 1 and without IDC-P, IDC-P pattern 2 had markedly poorer prognosis in either ABI (PSA-PFS: P<0.001; rPFS: P<0.001) or DOC (PSA-PFS: P<0.001; rPFS: P<0.001) treatment. For patients without IDC-P, DOC had comparable therapeutic efficacy with ABI. In contrast, the therapeutic efficacy of DOC in patients with either IDCP pattern 1 (PSA-PFS: P=0.021; rPFS: P=0.027) or pattern 2 (PSA-PFS: P=0.003; rPFS: P=0.007) was significantly inferior to ABI.
Conclusion
Compared to DOC, ABI exhibited better efficacy in patients with IDC-P of either pattern. However, IDC-P pattern 2 still responded unsatisfactorily to either ABI or DOC therapy. Novel therapeutic strategies appropriate for IDC-P pattern 2 need to be further investigated in the future.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Posted 28 Dec, 2020
The Heterogeneity of Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate Is Associated With Different Efficacy of Standard First-Line Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer
Posted 28 Dec, 2020
Background
To explore whether patients with distinct intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) subtypes respond differently to standard first-line therapy among patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
Methods
We retrospectively analyzed data of 170 mCRPC patients receiving abiraterone (ABI) or docetaxel (DOC) as first-line therapy between 2014 and 2019. PSA response, PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed and compared based on the presence of IDC-P and its sub-patterns.
Results
Totally, IDC-P was confirmed in 91/170 (53.5%) patients. Among them, 36/91 (39.6%) and 55/91 (60.4%) harbored IDC-P pattern 1 and pattern 2, respectively. The presence of IDC-P was confirmed to be associated with poor prognosis in the whole cohort. Patients with IDC-P pattern 1 shared similar clinical outcomes to those without IDC-P in both ABI and DOC treatment. However, compared to patients with IDC-P pattern 1 and without IDC-P, IDC-P pattern 2 had markedly poorer prognosis in either ABI (PSA-PFS: P<0.001; rPFS: P<0.001) or DOC (PSA-PFS: P<0.001; rPFS: P<0.001) treatment. For patients without IDC-P, DOC had comparable therapeutic efficacy with ABI. In contrast, the therapeutic efficacy of DOC in patients with either IDCP pattern 1 (PSA-PFS: P=0.021; rPFS: P=0.027) or pattern 2 (PSA-PFS: P=0.003; rPFS: P=0.007) was significantly inferior to ABI.
Conclusion
Compared to DOC, ABI exhibited better efficacy in patients with IDC-P of either pattern. However, IDC-P pattern 2 still responded unsatisfactorily to either ABI or DOC therapy. Novel therapeutic strategies appropriate for IDC-P pattern 2 need to be further investigated in the future.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4