Cabazitaxel in platinum pre-treated patients with locally advanced or metastatic transitional cell carcinoma who developed disease progression after platinum based chemotherapy : results of the phase II CAB-B1 trial

There is a paucity of chemotherapy options for patients with urothelial cancers who have relapsed following platinum based chemotherapy (CT). CAB-B1 was a single centre phase II randomised controlled trial of Cabazitaxel (CAB; 25mg/m2 q3 week for 6 cycles) versus best supportive care (BSC) in patients with histologically proven transitional cell carcinoma (TCC), locally advanced or metastatic, who had recurred after receiving platinum based treatment. Primary outcome was overall response rate (ORR) using RESIST. Secondary outcomes included Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS). Between January 2013 and October 2016, 20 patients were randomised (10 on each arm). BSC included paclitaxel CT for 9 patients and radiotherapy for 1 patient. 8 patients completed 6 cycles of CT (3 on CAB; 5 on BSC). 2 patients had an ORR on CAB and 1 patient on BSC. Median OS was 5.8 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.7-14.6) for CAB patients and 7.5 months (95% CI 1.0-10.8) for BSC patients. Median PFS was 4.8 months (95% CI 0.7-8.3) for CAB patients and 3.7 months (95% CI 1.0-7.0) for BSC patients. CAB-B1 successfully reached the efficacy target for 1st stage, showing that there could be a role for CAB in these patients

Multiple novel prostate cancer susceptibility signals identified by fine-mapping of known risk loci among Europeans

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified numerous common prostate cancer (PrCa) susceptibility loci. We have fine-mapped 64 GWAS regions known at the conclusion of the iCOGS study using large-scale genotyping and imputation in 25 723 PrCa cases and 26 274 controls of European ancestry. We detected evidence for multiple independent signals at 16 regions, 12 of which contained additional newly identified significant associations. A single signal comprising a spectrum of correlated variation was observed at 39 regions; 35 of which are now described by a novel more significantly associated lead SNP, while the originally reported variant remained as the lead SNP only in 4 regions. We also confirmed two association signals in Europeans that had been previously reported only in East-Asian GWAS. Based on statistical evidence and linkage disequilibrium (LD) structure, we have curated and narrowed down the list of the most likely candidate causal variants for each region. Functional annotation using data from ENCODE filtered for PrCa cell lines and eQTL analysis demonstrated significant enrichment for overlap with bio-features within this set. By incorporating the novel risk variants identified here alongside the refined data for existing association signals, we estimate that these loci now explain ∼38.9% of the familial relative risk of PrCa, an 8.9% improvement over the previously reported GWAS tag SNPs. This suggests that a significant fraction of the heritability of PrCa may have been hidden during the discovery phase of GWAS, in particular due to the presence of multiple independent signals within the same regio

Cabazitaxel versus docetaxel for treatment of metastatic castrate refractory prostate cancer

Objectives To assess cabazitaxel versus docetaxel re-challenge for the treatment of metastatic castrate refractory prostate cancer (CRPC) patients previously treated with docetaxel at inception of primary hormone therapy. Patients and Methods The CANTATA trial was a prospective, two-arm, open-label, phase II study conducted in eight UK centres. Patients over the age of 18, with histologically proven, metastatic prostate cancer who had been previously treated with up to 6 cycles of docetaxel as part of the STAMPEDE trial (or treated with the same drug outside of the trial at primary diagnosis) and had a performance status (PS) of 0–2, were eligible. Patients who progressed during primary treatment with docetaxel or had received prior systemic chemotherapy were excluded. Cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2) was administered via intravenous infusion every 3 weeks with oral prednisolone (10 mg) for up to 10 cycles, until disease progression, death or unacceptable toxicity. The primary outcome was clinical progression-free survival (PFS) as defined by either date of pain progression, date of a cancer-related skeletal-related event, or date of death from any cause. Analyses were by intention to treat. EudraCT number: 2012-003835-40 Results Between 7 March 2013 and 4 January 2016, 15 patients with a median age of 70 years (range 54–76) were recruited; seven received cabazitaxel, eight docetaxel. The study was halted due to slow accrual. The median clinical PFS time in the cabazitaxel group was 6.2 months compared with 8.4 for the docetaxel group (95% confidence intervals were not reached due to the small number of patients). A total of 13 serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion Due to the low number of patients recruited, meaningful comparisons could not be made. However, toxicity was in line with known outcomes for these agents, demonstrating it is feasible and safe to deliver chemotherapy to men relapsing with CRPC after upfront chemotherapy

TUXEDO: a phase I/II trial of cetuximab with chemoradiotherapy in muscle‐invasive bladder cancer.

Objective To assess the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of adding cetuximab to standard chemoradiotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Patients and Methods TUXEDO was a prospective, single-arm, open-label, phase I/II trial conducted in six UK hospitals. Cetuximab was administered with an initial loading dose of 400 mg/m2 on Day 1 of Week −1, and then seven weekly doses of 250 mg/m2. The radiotherapy schedule was 64 Gy/32F with Day 1 mitomycin C (12 g/m2) and 5-fluorouracil (500 mg/m2/day) over Days 1–5 and Days 22–26. Patients with T2-4aN0M0 urothelial cancer and a performance status of 0–1 were eligible. Prior neoadjuvant therapy was permitted. The Phase I primary outcome was impact on radiotherapy treatment completion and toxicity experienced during treatment. The Phase II primary outcome was local control at 3 months post treatment. Results Between September 2012 and October 2016, 33 patients were recruited; seven in Phase I, 26 in Phase II. Three patients in Phase II were subsequently deemed ineligible and received no trial therapy. Eight patients discontinued cetuximab due to adverse effects. The patients’ median (range) age was 70.1 (60.6–75.1) years, 20 had a performance status of 0, 27 were male and 26 had already received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In Phase I, all patients completed planned radiotherapy, with no delays or dose reductions. Of the 30 evaluable patients in Phase II, 25 had confirmed local control 3 months after treatment (77%, 95% confidence interval 58–90). During the trial there were 18 serious adverse events. The study was halted due to slow accrual. Conclusion Phase I data demonstrate it is feasible and safe to add cetuximab to chemoradiotherapy. Exploratory analysis of Phase II data provides evidence to consider further clinical evaluation of cetuximab in this setting

Feasibility randomised controlled trial of a guided workbook intervention to support work-related goals among cancer survivors in the UK

Objectives: Employment following illness is associated with better physical and psychological functioning. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a theoretically led workbook intervention designed to support patients with cancer returning to work. Design: Parallel-group randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative interviews. Setting: Oncology clinics within four English National Health Service Trusts. Participants: Patients who had received a diagnosis of breast, gynaecological, prostate or colorectal cancer and who had been receiving treatment for a minimum of two weeks. Intervention: A self-guided WorkPlan workbook designed to support patients with cancer to return to work with fortnightly telephone support calls to discuss progress. The control group received treatment as usual and was offered the workbook at the end of their 12-month follow-up. Outcome measures: We assessed aspects of feasibility including eligibility, recruitment, data collection, attrition, feasibility of the methodology, acceptability of the intervention and potential to calculate cost-effectiveness. Results: The recruitment rate of eligible patients was 44%; 68 participants consented and 58 (85%) completed baseline measures. Randomisation procedures were acceptable, data collection methods (including cost-effectiveness data) were feasible and the intervention was acceptable to participants. Retention rates at 6-month and 12-month follow-up were 72% and 69%, respectively. At 6-month follow-up, 30% of the usual care group had returned to full-time or part-time work (including phased return to work) compared with 43% of the intervention group. At 12 months, the percentages were 47% (usual care) and 68% (intervention). Conclusions: The findings confirm the feasibility of a definitive trial, although further consideration needs to be given to increasing the participation rates among men and black and ethnic minority patients diagnosed with cancer

A feasibility randomized controlled trial of a guided workbook intervention to support work-related goals among cancer survivors in the UK

Objectives: Employment following illness is associated with better physical and psychological functioning. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a theoretically-led workbook intervention designed to support cancer patients returning to work. Design: Parallel-group randomized controlled trial with embedded qualitative interviews Setting: Oncology clinics within four English National Health Service Trusts Participants: Patients who had received a diagnosis of breast, gynecological, prostate or colorectal cancer and who were at least 2 weeks post-treatment initiation. Intervention: A self-guided WorkPlan workbook designed to support cancer patients to return to work with fortnightly telephone support calls to discuss progress. The control group received treatment as usual, and were offered the workbook at the end of their 12-month follow-up. Outcome measures: We assessed aspects of feasibility including eligibility, recruitment, data collection, attrition, feasibility of the methodology, acceptability of the intervention and potential to calculate cost-effectiveness. Results: The recruitment rate of eligible patients was 44%; 68 participants consented and 58 (85%) completed baseline measures. Randomization procedures were acceptable, data collection methods (including cost-effectiveness data) were feasible and the intervention was acceptable to participants. Retention rates at six and 12 months follow-up were 72% and 69% respectively. At 6-month follow-up 30% of the usual care group had returned to full or part-time work (including phased return to work) compared to 43% of the intervention group. At 12-months the percentages were 47% (usual care) and 68% (intervention). Conclusions: The findings confirm the feasibility of a definitive trial, although further consideration needs to be given to increasing the participation rates among men and Black and ethnic minority patients diagnosed with cancer

TUXEDO: a phase I/II trial of cetuximab with chemoradiotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer

Objective: To assess the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of adding cetuximab to standard chemoradiotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Patients and Methods: TUXEDO was a prospective, single-arm, open-label, phase I/II trial conducted in six UK hospitals. Cetuximab was administered with an initial loading dose of 400 mg/m2 on Day 1 of Week −1, and then seven weekly doses of 250 mg/m2. The radiotherapy schedule was 64 Gy/32F with Day 1 mitomycin C (12 g/m2) and 5-fluorouracil (500 mg/m2/day) over Days 1–5 and Days 22–26. Patients with T2-4aN0M0 urothelial cancer and a performance status of 0–1 were eligible. Prior neoadjuvant therapy was permitted. The Phase I primary outcome was impact on radiotherapy treatment completion and toxicity experienced during treatment. The Phase II primary outcome was local control at 3 months post treatment. Results: Between September 2012 and October 2016, 33 patients were recruited; seven in Phase I, 26 in Phase II. Three patients in Phase II were subsequently deemed ineligible and received no trial therapy. Eight patients discontinued cetuximab due to adverse effects. The patients’ median (range) age was 70.1 (60.6–75.1) years, 20 had a performance status of 0, 27 were male and 26 had already received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In Phase I, all patients completed planned radiotherapy, with no delays or dose reductions. Of the 30 evaluable patients in Phase II, 25 had confirmed local control 3 months after treatment (77%, 95% confidence interval 58–90). During the trial there were 18 serious adverse events. The study was halted due to slow accrual. Conclusion: Phase I data demonstrate it is feasible and safe to add cetuximab to chemoradiotherapy. Exploratory analysis of Phase II data provides evidence to consider further clinical evaluation of cetuximab in this setting

Addition of docetaxel to hormonal therapy in low- and high-burden metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer : long-term survival results from the STAMPEDE trial

Background STAMPEDE has previously reported that the use of upfront docetaxel improved overall survival (OS) for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report on long-term outcomes stratified by metastatic burden for M1 patients. Methods We randomly allocated patients in 2 : 1 ratio to standard-of-care (SOC; control group) or SOC + docetaxel. Metastatic disease burden was categorised using retrospectively-collected baseline staging scans where available. Analysis used Cox regression models, adjusted for stratification factors, with emphasis on restricted mean survival time where hazards were non-proportional. Results Between 05 October 2005 and 31 March 2013, 1086 M1 patients were randomised to receive SOC (n = 724) or SOC + docetaxel (n = 362). Metastatic burden was assessable for 830/1086 (76%) patients; 362 (44%) had low and 468 (56%) high metastatic burden. Median follow-up was 78.2 months. There were 494 deaths on SOC (41% more than the previous report). There was good evidence of benefit of docetaxel over SOC on OS (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69–0.95, P = 0.009) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P = 0.827). Analysis of other outcomes found evidence of benefit for docetaxel over SOC in failure-free survival (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.57–0.76, P  0.5 in each case). There was no evidence that docetaxel resulted in late toxicity compared with SOC: after 1 year, G3-5 toxicity was reported for 28% SOC and 27% docetaxel (in patients still on follow-up at 1 year without prior progression). Conclusions The clinically significant benefit in survival for upfront docetaxel persists at longer follow-up, with no evidence that benefit differed by metastatic burden. We advocate that upfront docetaxel is considered for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients regardless of metastatic burden

Timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT): a randomised, controlled phase 3 trial

Background: The optimal timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer is uncertain. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant radiotherapy versus an observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) biochemical progression. / Methods: We did a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with at least one risk factor (pathological T-stage 3 or 4, Gleason score of 7–10, positive margins, or preoperative PSA ≥10 ng/mL) for biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT). The study took place in trial-accredited centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to adjuvant radiotherapy or an observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for PSA biochemical progression (PSA ≥0·1 ng/mL or three consecutive rises). Masking was not deemed feasible. Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned radiotherapy schedule (52·5 Gy in 20 fractions or 66 Gy in 33 fractions), and centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom from distant metastases, designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with salvage radiotherapy (control) to 95% at 10 years with adjuvant radiotherapy. We report on biochemical progression-free survival, freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used. A hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1 favoured adjuvant radiotherapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. / Findings: Between Nov 22, 2007, and Dec 30, 2016, 1396 patients were randomly assigned, 699 (50%) to salvage radiotherapy and 697 (50%) to adjuvant radiotherapy. Allocated groups were balanced with a median age of 65 years (IQR 60–68). Median follow-up was 4·9 years (IQR 3·0–6·1). 649 (93%) of 697 participants in the adjuvant radiotherapy group reported radiotherapy within 6 months; 228 (33%) of 699 in the salvage radiotherapy group reported radiotherapy within 8 years after randomisation. With 169 events, 5-year biochemical progression-free survival was 85% for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 88% for those in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 1·10, 95% CI 0·81–1·49; p=0·56). Freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy at 5 years was 93% for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 92% for those in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·58–1·33; p=0·53). Self-reported urinary incontinence was worse at 1 year for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group (mean score 4·8 vs 4·0; p=0·0023). Grade 3–4 urethral stricture within 2 years was reported in 6% of individuals in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 4% in the salvage radiotherapy group (p=0·020). / Interpretation: These initial results do not support routine administration of adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adjuvant radiotherapy increases the risk of urinary morbidity. An observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for PSA biochemical progression should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy. / Funding: Cancer Research UK, MRC Clinical Trials Unit, and Canadian Cancer Society

Timing of radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy (RP): long-term outcomes in the RADICALS-RT trial (NCT00541047)

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer has been uncertain. RADICALS-RT compared efficacy and safety of adjuvant RT versus an observation policy with salvage RT for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: RADICALS-RT was a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with ≥1 risk factor (pT3/4, Gleason 7-10, positive margins, preoperative PSA≥10 ng/ml) for recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Patients were randomised 1:1 to adjuvant RT (‘Adjuvant-RT’) or an observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure (‘Salvage-RT’) defined as PSA≥0.1 ng/ml or three consecutive rises. Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned RT schedule (52.5 Gy/20 fractions or 66 Gy/33 fractions) and treatment centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom-from-distant-metastasis (FFDM), designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with Salvage-RT (control) to 95% at 10 years with Adjuvant-RT. Secondary outcome measures were biochemical progression-free survival, freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy, safety and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used; hazard ratio (HR)<1 favours Adjuvant-RT. RESULTS: Between October 2007 and December 2016, 1396 participants from UK, Denmark, Canada and Ireland were randomised: 699 Salvage-RT, 697 Adjuvant-RT. Allocated groups were balanced with a median age of 65 years. Ninety-three percent (649/697) Adjuvant-RT reported RT within 6 months after randomisation; 39% (270/699) Salvage-RT reported RT during follow-up. Median follow-up was 7.8 years. With 80 distant metastasis events, 10-year FFDM was 93% for Adjuvant-RT and 90% for Salvage-RT: HR=0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-1.07, P=0.095]. Of 109 deaths, 17 were due to prostate cancer. Overall survival was not improved (HR=0.980, 95% CI 0.667-1.440, P=0.917). Adjuvant-RT reported worse urinary and faecal incontinence 1 year after randomisation (P=0.001); faecal incontinence remained significant after 10 years (P=0.017). CONCLUSION: Long-term results from RADICALS-RT confirm adjuvant RT after radical prostatectomy increases the risk of urinary and bowel morbidity, but does not meaningfully improve disease control. An observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy. TRIAL IDENTIFICATION: RADICALS, RADICALS-RT, ISRCTN40814031, NCT00541047