GHP July 2016

ghp July 2016 | 9 New Data Reveals That Presence of Metastases at Initial Prostate Cancer Diagnosis May Have a Critical Impact on Prognosis for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Patients Janssen-Cilag International NV announced that data from an interim analysis of The Prostate Cancer Registry, Europe’s first and largest prospective study of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), indicate that the presence of distant metastases (M1) at initial diagnosis may be a critical indicator of future treatment and prognosis for mCRPC patients. The data, presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2016 Congress, Chicago, USA, described characteristics at study entry of men with mCRPC who had distant metastases at primary diagnosis (M1) as compared to those whose cancer had not metastasised at primary diagnosis (M0). The data demonstrated higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, increased incidence of bone lesions and slightly worse level of functioning, in terms of their ability to care for themselves, daily activity, and physical ability (measured by ECOG Scale of Performance Status) for patients with M1 at initial diagnosis compared to patients with no metastases (M0) at initial diagnosis. • PSA levels were 34.4% higher (61.7 ng/mL vs 45.9 ng/mL) for M1 vs M0; • Incidence of bone lesions (>5) were 24% higher (51% vs 41%) for M1 vs M0; • ECOG Scale of Performance Status >2 were higher (17% vs 13%) for M1 vs M0; “These data can help to better inform the way we treat mCRPC patients. It demonstrates that patients who present with metastases at diagnosis require particularly close attention from healthcare professionals to tackle the disease head on with prompt and effective treatment for the best possible outcome,” said Dr Simon Chowdhury, Guy’s Hospital, London. “Real world data, such as these, provide us with valuable insight into the true patient journey. They include a wider population, such as men of a broader age range and with other existing health problems, than the more restricted and closely monitored populations seen in interventional clinical trials.”