Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Display session 3

5331 - Pain evaluation in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with radium-223 (Ra-223) in the PARABO observation study


30 Sep 2019


Poster Display session 3


Tumour Site

Prostate Cancer


Holger Palmedo


Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v325-v355. 10.1093/annonc/mdz248


H. Palmedo1, S. Eschmann2, A. Werner3, I. Selinski4, M. Möllers5, J. Kalinovsky6, A. Benson7, T. Poeppel8

Author affiliations

  • 1 Department Of Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Center Johanniter Hospital, 53113 - Bonn/DE
  • 2 Nuclear Medicine, Marien Hospital, Stuttgart/DE
  • 3 Radiology, Radiology Schwetzingen, Schwetzingen/DE
  • 4 Centre For Radiology, Goethe-University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt/DE
  • 5 Nuclear Medicine, Klinikum Westfalen, Dortmund/DE
  • 6 Global Medical Affairs, Bayer Consumer Care Switzerland, 4052 - Basel/CH
  • 7 Statistics, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Whippany/US
  • 8 Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen/DE


Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 5331


Ra-223 demonstrated a significant overall survival benefit and favourable safety profile in mCRPC in the ALSYMPCA study (Parker C et al. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:213–223). PARABO (NCT02398526) is an ongoing, prospective, observational, non-interventional, single-arm study with a primary objective to evaluate pain response in mCRPC pts treated with Ra-223 in a real-world setting.


The aim of this interim analysis was to assess the impact of Ra-223 on pain response, with and without the use of opioids. Pain response was determined by the worst pain item on the Brief Pain Inventory–Short Form (BPI-SF) questionnaire. A clinically meaningful pain response was defined as an improvement of ≥ 2 points; a 95% exact (Clopper–Pearson) confidence interval was reported.


Of the 346 pts enrolled, 311 were included in the interim safety analysis set, 49% of whom used opioids at any time in the study. At baseline (BL), 185/311 (59.5%) had an ECOG performance status of 1 and 222/304 (73.0%) had ≥6 metastatic lesions (but not a superscan). Lumbar vertebrae, pelvis and thigh were amongst the most frequently reported areas of most pain at BL. During the observation period after Ra-223 treatment, 126/211 (59.7%) pts had a clinically meaningful pain response. Of the pts who used opioids vs those who did not, 62/113 (54.9%) vs 64/98 (65.3%) had a clinically meaningful pain response, and 28/110 (25.5%) vs 19/127 (15.0%) achieved almost complete relief after the third dose of Ra-223, respectively.Table:


Ra-223 without opioid use (n = 160)Ra-233 with opioid use (n = 151)All pts (N = 311)
BPI-SF change ≥2 at observation,* % (95% CI)(n = 98) 65.3 (55.0–74.6)(n = 113) 54.9 (45.2–64.3)(n = 211) 59.7 (52.8–66.4)
Pain relief due to pain medications** at third Ra-223 dose, % 0%–20% (no relief) 30%–70% (some relief) 80%–100% (almost complete relief) Missing data(n = 127) 31.5 25.2 15.0 28.417.3 47.3 25.5 10.024.9 35.4 19.8 19.8

QoL-Set-Pain-Response (n = 211);


QoL-Set-BPI-SF (n = 269); This time point was chosen due to limited study numbers at later doses;

According to patients’ answer to the question “In the last 24 hours, how much relief have pain treatments or medications provided?” in the BPI-SF questionnaire.


In this study, reflective of real clinical practice, the majority (73.0%) of pts had multiple lesions at BL and almost half (49%) used opioids. Over half (59.7%) of pts reported a decrease in worst pain after Ra-223 treatment, irrespective of opioid use. Of pts who used vs did not use opioids, 54.9% vs 65.3% achieved a clinically meaningful pain response. Overall, a fifth (19.8%) of pts achieved almost complete relief after the third dose of Ra-223.

Clinical trial identification


Editorial acknowledgement

Jenny Feehan of OPEN Health Medical Communications (London, UK), with financial support from Bayer.

Legal entity responsible for the study

Bayer Pharma AG.


Bayer Pharma AG.


H. Palmedo: Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bayer Pharmaceuticals. S. Eschmann: Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bayer Pharmaceuticals. A. Werner: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bayer Pharmaceuticals; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis. I. Selinski: Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bayer Pharmaceuticals. M. Möllers: Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bayer Pharmaceuticals. J. Kalinovsky: Full / Part-time employment: Bayer Pharmaceuticals. A. Benson: Full / Part-time employment: Bayer Pharmaceuticals. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.