Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Clinical Research
  • Published:

Survival outcomes and risk group validation from SWOG S0925: a randomized phase II study of cixutumumab in new metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 23, pages 486–493 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background

Cixutumumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting insulin-like growth factor I receptor, did not improve undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) rate at 28 weeks when combined with androgen deprivation in the randomized phase II SWOG S0925 trial for patients with new metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. We now present mature survival analyses, along with pre-specified secondary and exploratory endpoints.

Methods

We randomized 210 patients to androgen deprivation with or without cixutumumab, 105 per treatment arm. We used Kaplan–Meier curves to analyze overall survival, radiographic progression-free survival, and castration resistance-free survival by treatment arm, disease volume, and risk group. We explored differences in survival by treatment arm via covariate-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for disease volume and risk.

Results

No difference was seen between treatment arms in overall survival (HR 1.01 [0.70–1.45]; p = 0.97), radiographic progression-free survival (HR 1.17 [0.85–1.60]; p = 0.35), or castration resistance-free survival (HR 1.02 [0.75–1.41]; p = 0.88). At baseline, 105/198 (53.0%) patients had high-risk features and 119/210 (56.7%) had high-volume disease; 16.7% of patients had discordant classifications of high or low category for risk and volume. Adjusting for risk or volume yielded no differences in overall survival between arms. Inferior survival was observed in high-risk (HR 1.89 [1.29–2.80]; p = 0.001) and high-volume (HR 2.75 [1.84–4.10]; p < 0.0001) disease. Disease volume was a better fit to survival data than risk group (AIC 878.3 vs. 889.2). Compared to patients achieving undetectable PSA at 28 weeks, inferior survival was observed in patients whose PSA was >0.2 to ≤4.0 ng/mL (HR 3.72 [1.99–6.95]; p < 0.0001) or >4.0 ng/mL (HR 7.13 [4.24–11.9]; p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

In new metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, addition of cixutumumab to androgen deprivation did not improve survival. Baseline risk and disease volume carried prognostic value for this distinct trial population, although disease volume added more prognostic information. PSA treatment response was a strong intermediate endpoint for survival.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wu JD, Haugk K, Woodke L, Nelson P, Coleman I, Plymate SR. Interaction of IGF signaling and the androgen receptor in prostate cancer progression. J Cell Biochem. 2006;99:392–401.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wu JD, Odman A, Higgins LM, Haugk K, Vessella R, Ludwig DL, et al. In vivo effects of the human type I insulin-like growth factor receptor antibody A12 on androgen-dependent and androgen-independent xenograft human prostate tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:3065–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Higano CS, Alumkal J, Ryan CJ, Yu EY, Beer TM, Chandrawansa K, et al. A phase II study evaluating the efficacy and safety of single agent IMC A12, a monoclonal antibody, against the insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor, as monotherapy in patients with metastatic, asymptomatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:269s. suppl; abstr 5142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Higano CS, Alumkal J, Ryan CJ, Yu EY, Beer TM, Fox FE et al. A phase II study of cixutumumab (IMC-A12), a monoclonal antibody against the insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF-IR), monotherapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: feasibility of every 3-week dosing and updated results. Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, 2010; San Francisco, CA, USA. Abstr 189.

  5. Dean JP, Sprenger CC, Wan J, Haugk K, Ellis WJ, Lin DW, et al. Response of the insulin-like growth factor (IGF) system to IGF-IR inhibition and androgen deprivation in a neoadjuvant prostate cancer trial: effects of obesity and androgen deprivation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013;98:E820–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chi KN, Gleave ME, Fazli L, Goldenberg SL, So A, Kollsmannsberger C, et al. A phase II pharmacodynamic study of preoperative figitumumab in patients with localized prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:3407–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Yu EY, Li H, Higano CS, Agarwal N, Pal SK, Alva A, et al. SWOG S0925: a randomized phase II study of androgen deprivation combined with cixutumumab versus androgen deprivation alone in patients with new metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:1601–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hussain M, Tangen CM, Higano C, Schelhammer PF, Faulkner J, Crawford ED, et al. Absolute prostate-specific antigen value after androgen deprivation is a strong independent predictor of survival in new metastatic prostate cancer: data from Southwest Oncology Group Trial 9346 (INT-0162). J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3984–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sweeney CJ, Chen YH, Carducci M, Liu G, Jarrard DF, Eisenberger M, et al. Chemohormonal therapy in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. N. Engl J Med. 2015;373:737–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kyriakopoulos CE, Chen YH, Carducci MA, Liu G, Jarrard DF, Hahn NM, et al. Chemohormonal therapy in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: long-term survival analysis of the randomized phase III E3805 CHAARTED trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:1080–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. James ND, Sydes MR, Clarke NW, Mason MD, Dearnaley DP, Spears MR, et al. Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387:1163–77.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gravis G, Boher JM, Chen YH, Liu G, Fizazi K, Carducci MA, et al. Burden of metastatic castrate naive prostate cancer patients, to identify men more likely to benefit from early docetaxel: further analyses of CHAARTED and GETUG-AFU15 studies. Eur Urol. 2018;73:847–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Harshman LC, Chen YH, Liu G, Carducci MA, Jarrard D, Dreicer R, et al. Seven-month prostate-specific antigen is prognostic in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation with or without docetaxel. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:376–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Fizazi K, Tran N, Fein L, Matsubara N, Rodriguez-Antolin A, Alekseev BY, et al. Abiraterone plus prednisone in metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:352–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Fizazi K, Tran N, Fein L, Matsubara N, Rodriguez-Antolin A, Alekseev BY, et al. Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in patients with newly diagnosed high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (LATITUDE): final overall survival analysis of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:686–700.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. James ND, de Bono JS, Spears MR, Clarke NW, Mason MD, Dearnaley DP, et al. Abiraterone for prostate cancer not previously treated with hormone therapy. N. Engl J Med. 2017;377:338–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hoyle AP, Ali SA, James ND, Parker CC, Cook AD, Attard G. et al. Effects of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone/prednisolone in high and low risk metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer. In: ESMO 2018 Congress, Munich, Germany, 21 October, 2018.

  18. Pocock SJ, Simon R. Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics. 1975;31:103–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Davis ID, Martin AJ, Stockler MR, Begbie S, Chi KN, Chowdhury S, et al. Enzalutamide with standard first-line therapy in metastatic prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:121–31.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Armstrong AJ, Szmulewitz RZ, Petrylak DP, Villers A, Azad A, Alcaraz A et al. Phase 3 study of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with enzalutamide (ENZA) or placebo (PBO) in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC): the ARCHES trial (abstract). J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(7_suppl):687.

  21. Chi KN, Agarwal N, Bjartell A, Chung BH, Pereira de Santana Gomes AJ, Given R, et al. Apalutamide for metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:13–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Flaig TW, Plets M, Hussain MHA, Agarwal N, Mitsiades N, Deshpande HA, et al. Abiraterone acetate for metastatic prostate cancer in patients with suboptimal biochemical response to hormone induction. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:e170231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Crawford ED, Eisenberger MA, McLeod DG, Spaulding JT, Benson R, Dorr FA, et al. A controlled trial of leuprolide with and without flutamide in prostatic carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1989;321:419–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Scher HI, Halabi S, Tannock I, Morris M, Sternberg CN, Carducci MA, et al. Design and end points of clinical trials for patients with progressive prostate cancer and castrate levels of testosterone: recommendations of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1148–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and in part by ImClone Systems (subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Funding

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers CA180888, CA180819, CA180818, CA180828, CA233328, CA46368, CA180801, CA180835, CA35421, CA180834, CA142559, CA35281, CA35090, CA37981, CA45807, CA46282, CA180846, CA180830, CA35431, CA58416, CA63848, CA63844, CA12644, CA11083, CA35178, CA67575, and CA45808, by the Clinical Research Division of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and in part by ImClone Systems (subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Risa L. Wong, Heather H. Cheng & Evan Y. Yu

  2. Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    Risa L. Wong, Mai T. Duong, Catherine M. Tangen, Heather H. Cheng & Evan Y. Yu

  3. Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

    Neeraj Agarwal

  4. US Oncology, Las Vegas, NV, USA

    Nicholas J. Vogelzang

  5. Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Maha Hussain

  6. CHRISTUS Santa Rosa Medical Center Hospital, San Antonio, TX, USA

    Ian M. Thompson Jr.

  7. Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    David I. Quinn

Authors
  1. Risa L. Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mai T. Duong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Catherine M. Tangen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Neeraj Agarwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Heather H. Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nicholas J. Vogelzang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Maha Hussain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ian M. Thompson Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. David I. Quinn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Evan Y. Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evan Y. Yu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

EY has received research support from Dendreon, Merck, and Seattle Genetics and consulted for Bayer, Clovis, Dendreon, Janssen, and Merck. NA has consulted for Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Bayer, Clovis, Eisai, Exelixis, EMD Serono, Eli Lilly, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Nektar, Pfizer, and Pharmacyclics. HC has received research support from Clovis, Janssen, Medivation, and Sanofi. MH has received honoraria from Aptitude Health, Astellas, Epics, Genentech, PER, Research to Practice, and Sanofi/Genzyme, consulted for AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Pfizer, received research support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Genentech, and Pfizer, and received travel and accommodation support from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Genentech, and Pfizer. DQ has consulted for Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wong, R.L., Duong, M.T., Tangen, C.M. et al. Survival outcomes and risk group validation from SWOG S0925: a randomized phase II study of cixutumumab in new metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 23, 486–493 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-020-0210-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-020-0210-x

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links