Best time to assess complete clinical response after chemoradiotherapy in squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (ACT II): a post-hoc analysis of randomised controlled phase 3 trial

Background: Guidelines for anal cancer recommend assessment of response at 6–12 weeks after starting treatment. Using data from the ACT II trial, we determined the optimum timepoint to assess clinical tumour response after chemoradiotherapy. Methods: The previously reported ACT II trial was a phase 3 randomised trial of patients of any age with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed, squamous cell carcinoma of the anus without metastatic disease from 59 centres in the UK. We randomly assigned patients (by minimisation) to receive either intravenous mitomycin (one dose of 12 mg/m2 on day 1) or intravenous cisplatin (one dose of 60 mg/m2 on days 1 and 29), with intravenous fluorouracil (one dose of 1000 mg/m2 per day on days 1–4 and 29–32) and radiotherapy (50·4 Gy in 28 daily fractions); and also did a second randomisation after initial therapy to maintenance chemotherapy (fluorouracil and cisplatin) or no maintenance chemotherapy. The primary outcome was complete clinical response (the absence of primary and nodal tumour by clinical examination), in addition to overall survival and progression-free survival from time of randomisation. In this post-hoc analysis, we analysed complete clinical response at three timepoints: 11 weeks from the start of chemoradiotherapy (assessment 1), 18 weeks from the start of chemoradiotherapy (assessment 2), and 26 weeks from the start of chemoradiotherapy (assessment 3) as well as the overall and progression-free survival estimates of patients with complete clinical response or without complete clinical response at each assessment. We analysed both the overall trial population and a subgroup of patients who had attended each of the three assessments by modified intention-to-treat. This study is registered at controlled-trials.com, ISRCTN 26715889. Findings: We enrolled 940 patients from June 4, 2001, until Dec 16, 2008. Complete clinical response was achieved in 492 (52%) of 940 patients at assessment 1 (11 weeks), 665 (71%) of patients at assessment 2 (18 weeks), and 730 (78%) of patients at assessment 3 (26 weeks). 691 patients attended all three assessments and in this subgroup, complete clinical response was reported in 441 (64%) patients at assessment 1, 556 (80%) at assessment 2, and 590 (85%) at assessments 3. 151 (72%) of the 209 patients who had not had a complete clinical response at assessment 1 had a complete clinical response by assessment 3. In the overall trial population of 940 patients, 5 year overall survival in patients who had a clinical response at assessments 1, 2, 3 was 83% (95% CI 79–86), 84% (81–87), and 87% (84–89), respectively and was 72% (66–78), 59% (49–67), and 46% (37–55) for patients who did not have a complete clinical response at assessments 1, 2, 3, respectively. In the subgroup of 691 patients, 5 year overall survival in patients who had a clinical response at assessment 1, 2, 3 was 85% (81–88), 86% (82–88), and 87% (84–90), respectively, and was 75% (68–80), 61% (50–70), and 48% (36–58) for patients who did not have a complete clinical response at assessment 1, 2, 3, respectively. Similarly, progression-free survival in both the overall trial population and the subgroup was longer in patients who had a complete clinical response, compared with patients who did not have a complete clinical response, at all three assessments. Interpretation: Many patients who do not have a complete clinical response when assessed at 11 weeks after commencing chemoradiotherapy do in fact respond by 26 weeks, and the earlier assessment could lead to some patients having unnecessary surgery. Our data suggests that the optimum time for assessment of complete clinical response after chemoradiotherapy for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anus is 26 weeks from starting chemoradiotherapy. We suggest that guidelines should be revised to indicate that later assessment is acceptable. Funding: Cancer Research UK

Abiraterone for Prostate Cancer Not Previously Treated with Hormone Therapy

BACKGROUND Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone improves survival in men with relapsed prostate cancer. We assessed the effect of this combination in men starting long-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), using a multigroup, multistage trial design. METHODS We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive ADT alone or ADT plus abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and prednisolone (5 mg daily) (combination therapy). Local radiotherapy was mandated for patients with node-negative, nonmetastatic disease and encouraged for those with positive nodes. For patients with nonmetastatic disease with no radiotherapy planned and for patients with metastatic disease, treatment continued until radiologic, clinical, or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression; otherwise, treatment was to continue for 2 years or until any type of progression, whichever came first. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. The intermediate primary outcome was failure-free survival (treatment failure was defined as radiologic, clinical, or PSA progression or death from prostate cancer). RESULTS A total of 1917 patients underwent randomization from November 2011 through January 2014. The median age was 67 years, and the median PSA level was 53 ng per milliliter. A total of 52% of the patients had metastatic disease, 20% had node-positive or node-indeterminate nonmetastatic disease, and 28% had node-negative, nonmetastatic disease; 95% had newly diagnosed disease. The median follow-up was 40 months. There were 184 deaths in the combination group as compared with 262 in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.76; P<0.001); the hazard ratio was 0.75 in patients with nonmetastatic disease and 0.61 in those with metastatic disease. There were 248 treatment-failure events in the combination group as compared with 535 in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.34; P<0.001); the hazard ratio was 0.21 in patients with nonmetastatic disease and 0.31 in those with metastatic disease. Grade 3 to 5 adverse events occurred in 47% of the patients in the combination group (with nine grade 5 events) and in 33% of the patients in the ADT-alone group (with three grade 5 events). CONCLUSIONS Among men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer, ADT plus abiraterone and prednisolone was associated with significantly higher rates of overall and failure-free survival than ADT alone. (Funded by Cancer Research U.K. and others; STAMPEDE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00268476, and Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN78818544.

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

Phase III randomized comparison of gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus capecitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

Purpose Both gemcitabine (GEM) and fluoropyrimidines are valuable treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. This open-label study was designed to compare the overall survival (OS) of patients randomly assigned to GEM alone or GEM plus capecitabine (GEM-CAP). Patients and Methods Patients with previously untreated histologically or cytologically proven locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas with a performance status ≤ 2 were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to GEM or GEM-CAP. The primary outcome measure was survival. Meta-analysis of published studies was also conducted. Results Between May 2002 and January 2005, 533 patients were randomly assigned to GEM (n = 266) and GEM-CAP (n = 267) arms. GEM-CAP significantly improved objective response rate (19.1% v 12.4%; P = .034) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93; P = .004) and was associated with a trend toward improved OS (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .08) compared with GEM alone. This trend for OS benefit for GEM-CAP was consistent across different prognostic subgroups according to baseline stratification factors (stage and performance status) and remained after adjusting for these stratification factors (P = .077). Moreover, the meta-analysis of two additional studies involving 935 patients showed a significant survival benefit in favor of GEM-CAP (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.98; P = .02) with no intertrial heterogeneity. Conclusion On the basis of our trial and the meta-analysis, GEM-CAP should be considered as one of the standard first-line options in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer

Phase III randomized comparison of gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus capecitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE: Both gemcitabine (GEM) and fluoropyrimidines are valuable treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. This open-label study was designed to compare the overall survival (OS) of patients randomly assigned to GEM alone or GEM plus capecitabine (GEM-CAP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated histologically or cytologically proven locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas with a performance status >or= 2 were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to GEM or GEM-CAP. The primary outcome measure was survival. Meta-analysis of published studies was also conducted. RESULTS: Between May 2002 and January 2005, 533 patients were randomly assigned to GEM (n = 266) and GEM-CAP (n = 267) arms. GEM-CAP significantly improved objective response rate (19.1% v 12.4%; P = .034) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93; P = .004) and was associated with a trend toward improved OS (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .08) compared with GEM alone. This trend for OS benefit for GEM-CAP was consistent across different prognostic subgroups according to baseline stratification factors (stage and performance status) and remained after adjusting for these stratification factors (P = .077). Moreover, the meta-analysis of two additional studies involving 935 patients showed a significant survival benefit in favor of GEM-CAP (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.98; P = .02) with no intertrial heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: On the basis of our trial and the meta-analysis, GEM-CAP should be considered as one of the standard first-line options in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer

Influence of Resection Margins on Survival for Patients With Pancreatic Cancer Treated by Adjuvant Chemoradiation and/or Chemotherapy in the ESPAC-1 Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of resection margins on survival for patients with resected pancreatic cancer treated within the context of the adjuvant European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer-1 (ESPAC-1) study. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Pancreatic cancer is associated with a poor long-term survival rate of only 10% to 15% after resection. Patients with positive microscopic resection margins (R1) have a worse survival, but it is not known how they fare in adjuvant studies. METHODS: ESPAC-1, the largest randomized adjuvant study of resectable pancreatic cancer ever performed, set out to look at the roles of chemoradiation and chemotherapy. Randomization was stratified prospectively by resection margin status. RESULTS: Of 541 patients with a median follow-up of 10 months, 101 (19%) had R1 resections. Resection margin status was confirmed as an influential prognostic factor, with a median survival of 10.9 months for R1 versus 16.9 months months for patients with R0 margins. Resection margin status remained an independent factor in a Cox proportional hazards model only in the absence of tumor grade and nodal status. There was a survival benefit for chemotherapy but not chemoradiation, irrespective of R0/R1 status. The median survival was 19.7 months with chemotherapy versus 14.0 months without. For patients with R0 margins, chemotherapy produced longer survival compared with to no chemotherapy. This difference was less apparent for the smaller subgroup of R1 patients, but there was no significant heterogeneity between the R0 and R1 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Resection margin-positive pancreatic tumors represent a biologically more aggressive cancer; these patients benefit from resection and adjuvant chemotherapy but not chemoradiation. The magnitude of benefit for chemotherapy treatment is reduced for patients with R1 margins versus those with R0 margins. Patients with R1 tumors should be included in future trials of adjuvant treatments and randomization and analysis should be stratified by this significant prognostic factor

Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial

SummaryBackgroundXerostomia is the most common late side-effect of radiotherapy to the head and neck. Compared with conventional radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can reduce irradiation of the parotid glands. We assessed the hypothesis that parotid-sparing IMRT reduces the incidence of severe xerostomia.MethodsWe undertook a randomised controlled trial between Jan 21, 2003, and Dec 7, 2007, that compared conventional radiotherapy (control) with parotid-sparing IMRT. We randomly assigned patients with histologically confirmed pharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma (T1–4, N0–3, M0) at six UK radiotherapy centres between the two radiotherapy techniques (1:1 ratio). A dose of 60 or 65 Gy was prescribed in 30 daily fractions given Monday to Friday. Treatment was not masked. Randomisation was by computer-generated permuted blocks and was stratified by centre and tumour site. Our primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months, as assessed by the Late Effects of Normal Tissue (LENT SOMA) scale. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, with all patients who had assessments included. Long-term follow-up of patients is ongoing. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial register, number ISRCTN48243537.Findings47 patients were assigned to each treatment arm. Median follow-up was 44·0 months (IQR 30·0–59·7). Six patients from each group died before 12 months and seven patients from the conventional radiotherapy and two from the IMRT group were not assessed at 12 months. At 12 months xerostomia side-effects were reported in 73 of 82 alive patients; grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months was significantly lower in the IMRT group than in the conventional radiotherapy group (25 [74%; 95% CI 56–87] of 34 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 15 [38%; 23–55] of 39 given IMRT, p=0·0027). The only recorded acute adverse event of grade 2 or worse that differed significantly between the treatment groups was fatigue, which was more prevalent in the IMRT group (18 [41%; 99% CI 23–61] of 44 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 35 [74%; 55–89] of 47 given IMRT, p=0·0015). At 24 months, grade 2 or worse xerostomia was significantly less common with IMRT than with conventional radiotherapy (20 [83%; 95% CI 63–95] of 24 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs nine [29%; 14–48] of 31 given IMRT; p<0·0001). At 12 and 24 months, significant benefits were seen in recovery of saliva secretion with IMRT compared with conventional radiotherapy, as were clinically significant improvements in dry-mouth-specific and global quality of life scores. At 24 months, no significant differences were seen between randomised groups in non-xerostomia late toxicities, locoregional control, or overall survival.InterpretationSparing the parotid glands with IMRT significantly reduces the incidence of xerostomia and leads to recovery of saliva secretion and improvements in associated quality of life, and thus strongly supports a role for IMRT in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck.FundingCancer Research UK (CRUK/03/005)

Common variation near CDKN1A, POLD3 and SHROOM2 influences colorectal cancer risk

We performed a meta-analysis of five genome-wide association studies to identify common variants influencing colorectal cancer (CRC) risk comprising 8,682 cases and 9,649 controls. Replication analysis was performed in case-control sets totaling 21,096 cases and 19,555 controls. We identified three new CRC risk loci at 6p21 (rs1321311, near CDKN1A; P = 1.14 × 10 -10), 11q13.4 (rs3824999, intronic to POLD3; P = 3.65 × 10 -10) and Xp22.2 (rs5934683, near SHROOM2; P = 7.30 × 10 -10) This brings the number of independent loci associated with CRC risk to 20 and provides further insight into the genetic architecture of inherited susceptibility to CRC.</p