Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Background The first approvals of novel systemic therapies within recent years for metastatic hormone‐sensitive (mHSPC) were mainly based on improved overall survival (OS) and time to castration resistance (ttCRPC) in mHSPC patients stratified according to CHAARTED low (LV) versus high volume (HV) and LATITUDE low (LR) versus high‐risk (HR) disease. Methods Relying on our institutional tertiary‐care database we identified all mHSPC stratified according to CHAARTED LV versus HV, LATITUDE LR versus HR and the location of the metastatic spread (lymph nodes (M1a) versus bone (M1b) versus visceral/others (M1c) metastases. OS and ttCRPC analyses, as well as Cox regression models were performed according to different metastatic categories. Results Of 451 mHSPC, 14% versus 27% versus 48% versus 12% were classified as M1a LV versus M1b LV versus M1b HV versus M1c HV with significant differences in median OS: 95 versus 64 versus 50 versus 46 months ( p < 0.001). In multivariable Cox regression models HV M1b (Hazard Ratio: 2.4, p = 0.03) and HV M1c (Hazard Ratio: 3.3, p < 0.01) harbored significant worse than M1a LV mHSPC. After stratification according to LATITUDE criteria, also significant differences between M1a LR versus M1b LR versus M1b HR versus M1c HR mHSPC patients were observed ( p < 0.01) with M1b HR (Hazard Ratio: 2.7, p = 0.03) and M1c HR (Hazard Ratio: 3.5, p < 0.01), as predictor for worse OS. In comparison between HV M1b and HV M1c, as well as HR M1b versus HR M1c no differences in ttCRPC or OS were observed. Conclusions Significant differences exist between different metastatic patterns of HV and LV and HR and LR criteria. Best prognosis is observed within M1a LV and LR mHSPC patients.
Wenzel et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: