Detection rates of recurrent prostate cancer : 68Gallium (Ga)-labelled prostate-specific membrane antigen versus choline PET/CT scans. A systematic review

Background: The aim of this work was to assess the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-labelled radiotracers in detecting the recurrence of prostate cancer. PSMA is thought to have higher detection rates when utilized in positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scans, particularly at lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, compared with choline-based scans. Methods: A systematic review was conducted comparing choline and PSMA PET/CT scans in patients with recurrent prostate cancer following an initial curative attempt. The primary outcomes were overall detection rates, detection rates at low PSA thresholds, difference in detection rates and exclusive detection rates on a per-person analysis. Secondary outcome measures were total number of lesions, exclusive detection by each scan on a per-lesion basis and adverse side effects. Results: Overall detection rates were 79.8% for PSMA and 66.7% for choline. There was a statistically significant difference in detection rates favouring PSMA [OR (M–H, random, 95% confidence interval (CI)) 2.27 (1.06, 4.85), p = 0.04]. Direct comparison was limited to PSA < 2 ng/ml in two studies, with no statistically significant difference in detection rates between the scans [OR (M–H, random, 95% CI) 2.37 (0.61, 9.17) p = 0.21]. The difference in detection on the per-patient analysis was significantly higher in the PSMA scans (p < 0.00001). All three studies reported higher lymph node, bone metastasis and locoregional recurrence rates in PSMA. Conclusions: PSMA PET/CT has a better performance compared with choline PET/CT in detecting recurrent disease both on per-patient and per-lesion analysis and should be the imaging modality of choice while deciding on salvage and nonsystematic metastasis-directed therapy strategies.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

An international expert survey on the indications and practice of radical thoracic reirradiation for non-small cell lung cancer

Purpose: Thoracic re-irradiation for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with curative intent is potentially associated with severe toxicity. There are limited prospective data on the best method to deliver this treatment. We sought to develop expert consensus guidance on the safe practice of treating NSCLC with radiotherapy in the setting of prior thoracic irradiation. Methods and materials: Twenty-one thoracic radiation oncologists were invited to participate in an international Delphi consensus process. Guideline statements were developed and refined over four rounds on the definition of re-irradiation, appropriate patients and pre-treatment assessments, planning of radiotherapy, and cumulative dose constraints. Consensus was achieved once ≥75% of respondents agreed with a statement. Statements that did not reach consensus in the initial survey rounds were revised based on respondents’ comments and re-presented in subsequent rounds. Results: Fifteen radiation oncologists participated in the four surveys between September 2019 and March 2020. The first three rounds had a 100% response rate, and the final round was completed by 93% of participants. 33 out of 77 statements across all rounds achieved consensus. Key recommendations are: (1) appropriate patients should have a good performance status, can have locally relapsed disease or second primary cancers, and there are no absolute lung function values that preclude re-irradiation; (2) a full diagnostic work-up should be performed in patients with suspected local recurrence and; (3) any re-irradiation should be delivered using optimal image-guidance and highly conformal techniques. In addition, consensus cumulative dose for the organs at risk in the thorax are described. Conclusion: These consensus statements provide practical guidance on appropriate patient selection for re-irradiation, appropriate radiotherapy techniques, and cumulative dose constraints

Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): Survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Long-term hormone therapy has been the standard of care for advanced prostate cancer since the 1940s. STAMPEDE is a randomised controlled trial using a multiarm, multistage platform design. It recruits men with high-risk, locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent prostate cancer who are starting first-line long-term hormone therapy. We report primary survival results for three research comparisons testing the addition of zoledronic acid, docetaxel, or their combination to standard of care versus standard of care alone. METHODS Standard of care was hormone therapy for at least 2 years; radiotherapy was encouraged for men with N0M0 disease to November, 2011, then mandated; radiotherapy was optional for men with node-positive non-metastatic (N+M0) disease. Stratified randomisation (via minimisation) allocated men 2:1:1:1 to standard of care only (SOC-only; control), standard of care plus zoledronic acid (SOC + ZA), standard of care plus docetaxel (SOC + Doc), or standard of care with both zoledronic acid and docetaxel (SOC + ZA + Doc). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) was given for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly until 2 years, and docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) for six 3-weekly cycles with prednisolone 10 mg daily. There was no blinding to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Pairwise comparisons of research versus control had 90% power at 2·5% one-sided α for hazard ratio (HR) 0·75, requiring roughly 400 control arm deaths. Statistical analyses were undertaken with standard log-rank-type methods for time-to-event data, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ControlledTrials.com (ISRCTN78818544). FINDINGS 2962 men were randomly assigned to four groups between Oct 5, 2005, and March 31, 2013. Median age was 65 years (IQR 60-71). 1817 (61%) men had M+ disease, 448 (15%) had N+/X M0, and 697 (24%) had N0M0. 165 (6%) men were previously treated with local therapy, and median prostate-specific antigen was 65 ng/mL (IQR 23-184). Median follow-up was 43 months (IQR 30-60). There were 415 deaths in the control group (347 [84%] prostate cancer). Median overall survival was 71 months (IQR 32 to not reached) for SOC-only, not reached (32 to not reached) for SOC + ZA (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·79-1·11; p=0·450), 81 months (41 to not reached) for SOC + Doc (0·78, 0·66-0·93; p=0·006), and 76 months (39 to not reached) for SOC + ZA + Doc (0·82, 0·69-0·97; p=0·022). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect (for any of the treatments) across prespecified subsets. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported for 399 (32%) patients receiving SOC, 197 (32%) receiving SOC + ZA, 288 (52%) receiving SOC + Doc, and 269 (52%) receiving SOC + ZA + Doc. INTERPRETATION Zoledronic acid showed no evidence of survival improvement and should not be part of standard of care for this population. Docetaxel chemotherapy, given at the time of long-term hormone therapy initiation, showed evidence of improved survival accompanied by an increase in adverse events. Docetaxel treatment should become part of standard of care for adequately fit men commencing long-term hormone therapy. FUNDING Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen, Astellas, NIHR Clinical Research Network, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research

Addition of Docetaxel to First-line Long-term Hormone Therapy in Prostate Cancer (STAMPEDE) : Modelling to Estimate Long-term Survival, Quality-adjusted Survival, and Cost-effectiveness

Background Results from large randomised controlled trials have shown that adding docetaxel to the standard of care (SOC) for men initiating hormone therapy for prostate cancer (PC) prolongs survival for those with metastatic disease and prolongs failure-free survival for those without. To date there has been no formal assessment of whether funding docetaxel in this setting represents an appropriate use of UK National Health Service (NHS) resources. Objective To assess whether administering docetaxel to men with PC starting long-term hormone therapy is cost-effective in a UK setting. Design, setting, and participants We modelled health outcomes and costs in the UK NHS using data collected within the STAMPEDE trial, which enrolled men with high-risk, locally advanced metastatic or recurrent PC starting first-line hormone therapy. Intervention SOC was hormone therapy for ≥2 yr and radiotherapy in some patients. Docetaxel (75 mg/m2) was administered alongside SOC for six three-weekly cycles. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The model generated lifetime predictions of costs, changes in survival duration, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results and limitations The model predicted that docetaxel would extend survival (discounted quality-adjusted survival) by 0.89 yr (0.51) for metastatic PC and 0.78 yr (0.39) for nonmetastatic PC, and would be cost-effective in metastatic PC (ICER £5514/QALY vs SOC) and nonmetastatic PC (higher QALYs, lower costs vs SOC). Docetaxel remained cost-effective in nonmetastatic PC when the assumption of no survival advantage was modelled. Conclusions Docetaxel is cost-effective among patients with nonmetastatic and metastatic PC in a UK setting. Clinicians should consider whether the evidence is now sufficiently compelling to support docetaxel use in patients with nonmetastatic PC, as the opportunity to offer docetaxel at hormone therapy initiation will be missed for some patients by the time more mature survival data are available. Patient summary Starting docetaxel chemotherapy alongside hormone therapy represents a good use of UK National Health Service resources for patients with prostate cancer that is high risk or has spread to other parts of the body.This study was supported by the UK Medical Research Council (delegation to Swiss Group for Cancer Clinical Research [SAKK] in Switzerland) grant number MRC_MC_UU_12023/25 and the following funders: Cancer Research UK (grant number CRUK_A12459), Medical Research Council, Astellas, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis. The sponsors played no direct role in the study

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for patients with metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: final results from two randomised phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol

Background: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (herein referred to as abiraterone) or enzalutamide added at the start of androgen deprivation therapy improves outcomes for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes and test whether combining enzalutamide with abiraterone and androgen deprivation therapy improves survival. Methods: We analysed two open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol, with no overlapping controls, conducted at 117 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restriction) had metastatic, histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; a WHO performance status of 0–2; and adequate haematological, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computerised algorithm and a minimisation technique to either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy; docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously for six cycles with prednisolone 10 mg orally once per day allowed from Dec 17, 2015) or standard of care plus abiraterone acetate 1000 mg and prednisolone 5 mg (in the abiraterone trial) orally or abiraterone acetate and prednisolone plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once a day (in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial). Patients were stratified by centre, age, WHO performance status, type of androgen deprivation therapy, use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pelvic nodal status, planned radiotherapy, and planned docetaxel use. The primary outcome was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started treatment. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of individual patient data was used to compare differences in survival between the two trials. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN78818544). Findings: Between Nov 15, 2011, and Jan 17, 2014, 1003 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=502) or standard of care plus abiraterone (n=501) in the abiraterone trial. Between July 29, 2014, and March 31, 2016, 916 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=454) or standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide (n=462) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. Median follow-up was 96 months (IQR 86–107) in the abiraterone trial and 72 months (61–74) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. In the abiraterone trial, median overall survival was 76·6 months (95% CI 67·8–86·9) in the abiraterone group versus 45·7 months (41·6–52·0) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·53–0·73]; p&lt;0·0001). In the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, median overall survival was 73·1 months (61·9–81·3) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide group versus 51·8 months (45·3–59·0) in the standard of care group (HR 0·65 [0·55–0·77]; p&lt;0·0001). We found no difference in the treatment effect between these two trials (interaction HR 1·05 [0·83–1·32]; pinteraction=0·71) or between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·70). In the first 5 years of treatment, grade 3–5 toxic effects were higher when abiraterone was added to standard of care (271 [54%] of 498 vs 192 [38%] of 502 with standard of care) and the highest toxic effects were seen when abiraterone and enzalutamide were added to standard of care (302 [68%] of 445 vs 204 [45%] of 454 with standard of care). Cardiac causes were the most common cause of death due to adverse events (five [1%] with standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide [two attributed to treatment] and one (&lt;1%) with standard of care in the abiraterone trial). Interpretation: Enzalutamide and abiraterone should not be combined for patients with prostate cancer starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Clinically important improvements in survival from addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy are maintained for longer than 7 years. Funding: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas

Delphi study to identify consensus on patient selection for hydrogel rectal spacer use during radiation therapy for prostate cancer in the UK

Objectives To identify consensus on patient prioritisation for rectal hydrogel spacer use during radiation therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer in the UK.Design Delphi study consisting of two rounds of online questionnaires, two virtual advisory board meetings and a final online questionnaire.Setting Radical radiation therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate cancer in the UK.Participants Six leading clinical oncologists and one urologist from across the UK.Interventions Rectal hydrogel spacer.Primary and secondary outcome measures None reported.Results The panel reached consensus on the importance of minimising toxicity for treatments with curative intent and that even low-grade toxicity-related adverse events can significantly impact quality of life. There was agreement that despite meeting rectal dose constraints, too many patients experience rectal toxicity and that rectal hydrogel spacers in eligible patients significantly reduces toxicity-related adverse events. However, as a consequence of funding limitations, patients need to be prioritised for spacer use. A higher benefit of spacers can be expected in patients on anticoagulation and in patients with diabetes or inflammatory bowel disease, but consensus could not be reached regarding patient groups expected to benefit less. While radiation therapy regimen is not a main factor determining prioritisation, higher benefit is expected in ultrahypofractionated regimens.Conclusion There is a strong and general agreement that all patients with prostate cancer undergoing radical radiation therapy have the potential to benefit from hydrogel spacers. Currently, not all patients who could potentially benefit can access hydrogel spacers, and access is unequal. Implementation of the consensus recommendations would likely help prioritise and equalise access to rectal spacers for patients in the UK