Table 1:
Baseline patient and disease characteristics
| Characteristic | All Patients | Randomized Sunitinib | Randomized to Dasatinib | P valuea,b |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluable patients, n (%) | 179 (100) | 64 (48) | 68 (52) | |
|
| ||||
| Median age (range), years | 66 (48–87) | 67 (48–85) | 68 (52–80) | 0.044a |
|
| ||||
| Race, n (%) | ||||
| White | 146 (81) | 44 (69) | 58 (85) | 0.093b |
| Black/African American | 20 (11) | 13 (20) | 5 (7) | |
| Hispanic | 10 (6) | 4 (6) | 5 (7) | |
| Asian | 3 (2) | 3 (5) | 0 (0) | |
|
| ||||
| Median ECOG PS (range) | 1 (0–3) | 1 (0–1) | 1 (0–1) | 0.726a |
|
| ||||
| Median PSA (range), ng/mL | 20.6 (0.5 – 2427.5) | 28.45 (0.8 – 1195.6) | 19.35 (0.8 – 627.8) | 0.107a |
|
| ||||
| Gleason score at diagnosis, n (%) | ||||
| ≤ 7 | 41 (23) | 13 (20) | 18 (26) | 0.551b |
| ≥ 8 | 110 (61) | 40 (63) | 43 (63) | |
| Not Available | 28 (16) | 11 (17) | 7 (10) | |
|
| ||||
| >20 Bone Metastases, n (%) | ||||
| Yes | 54 (30) | 22 (34) | 17 (25) | 0.238b |
| No | 125 (70) | 42 (66) | 51 (75) | |
|
| ||||
| Visceral Metastases, n (%) | ||||
| Yes | 25 (14) | 8 (14) | 11 (16) | 0.655b |
| No | 154 (86) | 51 (86) | 56 (84) | |
|
| ||||
| Prior prostate cancer related treatments | ||||
| Median hormonal treatment lines (range) | 2 (1–3) | 2 (1–3) | 3 (1–3) | 0.562a |
| Anti-androgens, n (%) | 123 (69) | 45 (70) | 51 (75) | 0.546b |
| Chemotherapy, n (%) | 41 (23) | 20 (31) | 13 (19) | 0.108b |
| EBRT, n (%) | 58 (32) | 21 (33) | 23 (34) | 0.902b |
| Brachytherapy, n (%) | 7 (4) | 3 (5) | 3 (4) | 0.939b |
| Surgery, n (%) | 77 (43) | 30 (47) | 29 (43) | 0.625b |
| Cryoablation, n (%) | 4 (2) | 1 (2) | 2 (3) | 0.595b |
EBRT= External Beam Radiation Therapy, ECOG PS = Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, PSA= Prostate specific antigen
a
P value from Mann-Whitney U test comparing patients randomized to sunitinib versus dasatinib
b
P value from Chi square test comparing patients randomized to sunitinib versus dasatinib