Prospective clinical trial of disulfiram plus copper in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Tian Zhang, Julie Kephart, Elizabeth Bronson, Monika Anand, Christine Daly, Ivan Spasojevic, Subha Bakthavatsalam, Katherine Franz, Hannah Berg, Georgia S Karachaliou, Olga G James, Lauren Howard, Susan Halabi, Michael R Harrison, Andrew J Armstrong, Daniel J George

Journal: The Prostate 2022;82(7):858-866

PMID: 35286730

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In preclinical models of prostate cancer (PC), disulfiram (DSF) reduced tumor growth only when co-administered with copper (Cu), and Cu uptake in tumors is partially regulated by androgen-receptor signaling. However, prior trials of DSF in PC used DSF as monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of concurrent administration of DSF with Cu, we conducted a phase 1b clinical trial of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) receiving Cu with DSF.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients with mCRPC were treated in two cohorts: mCRPC with nonliver/peritoneal metastases (A), and mCRPC with liver and/or peritoneal metastases (B). Baseline Cu avidity was measured by CuCl PET scan. Intravenous (IV) CuCl was given weekly for three doses with oral daily DSF followed by daily oral Cu gluconate and DSF until disease progression. DSF and metabolite diethyldithiocarbamic acid methyl ester (Me-DDC) levels in plasma were measured. DSF and Me-DDC were then assessed for cytotoxicity in vitro.

RESULTS

We treated nine patients with mCRPC (six on cohort A and three on cohort B). Bone and nodal metastases showed differential and heterogeneous Cu uptake on CuCl PET scans. No confirmed PSA declines or radiographic responses were observed. Median PFS was 2.8 months and median OS was 8.3 months. Common adverse events included fatigue and psychomotor depression; no Grade 4/5 AEs were observed. Me-DDC was measurable in all samples (LOQ = 0.512 ng/ml), whereas DSF was not (LOQ = 0.032 ng/ml, LOD = 0.01 ng/ml); Me-DDC was not cytotoxic in vitro.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral DSF is not an effective treatment for mCRPC due to rapid metabolism into an inactive metabolite, Me-DDC. This trial has stopped enrollment and further work is needed to identify a stable DSF formulation for treatment of mCRPC.

© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Address: Duke Cancer Institute Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.; Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.; Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.; Department of Chemistry, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.; Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.; Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.; Department of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.