Outcomes of First Subsequent Taxane Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Who Previously Received Docetaxel Intensification for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

Background: The management of advanced prostate cancer continues to evolve rapidly, particularly with the earlier use of survival-prolonging therapies in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Though approved prior to the use of intensification therapy in mCSPC, taxane-based chemotherapies remain a relevant option for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, there is little evidence determining the outcomes of taxane chemotherapies as the first subsequent taxane (FST) in mCRPC pts who received docetaxel intensification (DI) in mCSPC. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes between the survival-prolonging taxanes, docetaxel and cabazitaxel as FST after DI. Methods: New patient consults seen at the Cross Cancer Institute from 1 July 2014 to 31 December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Pts were considered eligible if they received DI for mCSPC and then received either docetaxel or cabazitaxel in mCRPC. Variables of interest were collected from electronic medical records. The primary endpoint was >= 50% PSA response at 12 weeks relative to baseline for FST. Secondary endpoints included OS from mCSPC diagnosis, as well as PFS and OS from the FST start date. PSA responses were compared using the chi-squared test, and time-based endpoints were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: In total, 34 pts were identified: docetaxel = 22 and cabazitaxel = 12 as FST. 91.2% of pts (docetaxel 95.5% vs. cabazitaxel 83.3%) received FST in 2nd line mCRPC. The median age at diagnosis (63.1 vs. 67.1 yrs, p = 0.236) and the median time to CRPC (18.6 vs. 14.2 mos, p = 0.079) were similar for docetaxel and cabazitaxel, respectively. The median time to FST (24.1 vs. 34.6 mos, p = 0.036) and OS from mCSPC diagnosis (30.9 vs. 52.7 mos, p = 0.002) were significantly shorter for pts receiving cabazitaxel vs. docetaxel. PSA responses occurred in 40.9% of pts treated with docetaxel compared to 25.0% treated with cabazitaxel (p = 0.645). There was no significant difference in median PFS (2.7 vs. 3.5 mos, p = 0.727) or median OS (11.4 vs. 8.1 mos, p = 0.132) from the time of FST for pts treated with docetaxel vs. cabazitaxel, respectively. Conclusions: Both docetaxel and cabazitaxel demonstrated activity as FST after DI in mCSPC. Pts who received cabazitaxel had a shorter time to FST and OS from mCSPC. The reasons for this may reflect clinician preference for cabazitaxel in pts with aggressive or rapidly progressing disease. No difference was found in PSA response, PFS, or OS from FST with docetaxel compared to cabazitaxel. While limited by its retrospective nature and small sample size, this study suggests that docetaxel is active as FST despite treatment with DI in mCSPC.