Adjuvant chemotherapy in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (the POUT trial): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background: Urothelial carcinomas of the upper urinary tract (UTUCs) are rare, with poorer stage-for-stage prognosis than urothelial carcinomas of the urinary bladder. No international consensus exists on the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with UTUCs after nephroureterectomy with curative intent. The POUT (Peri-Operative chemotherapy versus sUrveillance in upper Tract urothelial cancer) trial aimed to assess the efficacy of systemic platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with UTUCs. Methods: We did a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial at 71 hospitals in the UK. We recruited patients with UTUC after nephroureterectomy staged as either pT2–T4 pN0–N3 M0 or pTany N1–3 M0. We randomly allocated participants centrally (1:1) to either surveillance or four 21-day cycles of chemotherapy, using a minimisation algorithm with a random element. Chemotherapy was either cisplatin (70 mg/m²) or carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC]4·5/AUC5, for glomerular filtration rate <50 mL/min only) administered intravenously on day 1 and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m²) administered intravenously on days 1 and 8; chemotherapy was initiated within 90 days of surgery. Follow-up included standard cystoscopic, radiological, and clinical assessments. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival analysed by intention to treat with a Peto-Haybittle stopping rule for (in)efficacy. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01993979. A preplanned interim analysis met the efficacy criterion for early closure after recruitment of 261 participants. Findings: Between June 19, 2012, and Nov 8, 2017, we enrolled 261 participants from 57 of 71 open study sites. 132 patients were assigned chemotherapy and 129 surveillance. One participant allocated chemotherapy withdrew consent for data use after randomisation and was excluded from analyses. Adjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved disease-free survival (hazard ratio 0·45, 95% CI 0·30–0·68; p=0·0001) at a median follow-up of 30·3 months (IQR 18·0–47·5). 3-year event-free estimates were 71% (95% CI 61–78) and 46% (36–56) for chemotherapy and surveillance, respectively. 55 (44%) of 126 participants who started chemotherapy had acute grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events, which accorded with frequently reported events for the chemotherapy regimen. Five (4%) of 129 patients managed by surveillance had acute grade 3 or worse emergent adverse events. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Interpretation: Gemcitabine–platinum combination chemotherapy initiated within 90 days after nephroureterectomy significantly improved disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced UTUC. Adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy should be considered a new standard of care after nephroureterectomy for this patient population. Funding: Cancer Research UK

A core outcome set for localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials

Objective: To develop a core outcome set (COS) applicable for effectiveness trials of all interventions for localised prostate cancer. Background: Many treatments exist for localised prostate cancer, although it is unclear which offers the optimal therapeutic ratio. This is confounded by inconsistencies in the selection, definition, measurement and reporting of outcomes in clinical trials. Subjects and methods: A list of 79 outcomes was derived from a systematic review of published localised prostate cancer effectiveness studies and semi-structured interviews with 15 prostate cancer patients. A two-stage consensus process involving 118 patients and 56 international healthcare professionals (HCPs) (cancer specialist nurses, urological surgeons and oncologists) was undertaken, consisting of a three-round Delphi survey followed by a face-to-face consensus panel meeting of 13 HCPs and 8 patients. Results: The final COS included 19 outcomes. Twelve apply to all interventions: death from prostate cancer, death from any cause, local disease recurrence, distant disease recurrence/metastases, disease progression, need for salvage therapy, overall quality of life, stress urinary incontinence, urinary function, bowel function, faecal incontinence, sexual function. Seven were intervention-specific: perioperative deaths (surgery), positive surgical margin (surgery), thromboembolic disease (surgery), bothersome or symptomatic urethral or anastomotic stricture (surgery), need for curative treatment (active surveillance), treatment failure (ablative therapy), and side effects of hormonal therapy (hormone therapy). The UK-centric participants may limit the generalisability to other countries, but trialists should reason why the COS would not be applicable. The default position should not be that a COS developed in one country will automatically not be applicable elsewhere. Conclusion: We have established a COS for trials of effectiveness in localised prostate cancer, applicable across all interventions which should be measured in all localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials

Healthcare systems data in the context of clinical trials - A comparison of cardiovascular data from a clinical trial dataset with routinely collected data

BACKGROUND: Routinely-collected healthcare systems data (HSD) are proposed to improve the efficiency of clinical trials. A comparison was undertaken between cardiovascular (CVS) data from a clinical trial database with two HSD resources. METHODS: Protocol-defined and clinically reviewed CVS events (heart failure (HF), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), thromboembolic stroke, venous and arterial thromboembolism) were identified within the trial data. Data (using pre-specified codes) was obtained from NHS Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) HF and myocardial ischaemia audits for trial participants recruited in England between 2010 and 2018 who had provided consent. The primary comparison was trial data versus HES inpatient (APC) main diagnosis (Box-1). Correlations are presented with descriptive statistics and Venn diagrams. Reasons for non-correlation were explored. RESULTS: From 1200 eligible participants, 71 protocol-defined clinically reviewed CVS events were recorded in the trial database. 45 resulted in a hospital admission and therefore could have been recorded by either HES APC/ NICOR. Of these, 27/45 (60%) were recorded by HES inpatient (Box-1) with an additional 30 potential events also identified. HF and ACS were potentially recorded in all 3 datasets; trial data recorded 18, HES APC 29 and NICOR 24 events respectively. 12/18 (67%) of the HF/ACS events in the trial dataset were recorded by NICOR. CONCLUSION: Concordance between datasets was lower than anticipated and the HSD used could not straightforwardly replace current trial practices, nor directly identify protocol-defined CVS events. Further work is required to improve the quality of HSD and consider event definitions when designing clinical trials incorporating HSD

A Repurposing Programme Evaluating Repurposing Transdermal Oestradiol Patches for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer Within the PATCH and STAMPEDE Trials: Current Results and Adapting Trial Design

AIMS: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), usually achieved with luteinising hormone releasing hormone analogues (LHRHa), is central to prostate cancer management. LHRHa reduce both testosterone and oestrogen and are associated with significant long-term toxicity. Previous use of oral oestrogens as ADT was curtailed because of cardiovascular toxicity. Transdermal oestrogen (tE2) patches are a potential alternative ADT, supressing testosterone without the associated oestrogen-depletion toxicities (osteoporosis, hot flushes, metabolic abnormalities) and avoiding cardiovascular toxicity, and we here describe their evaluation in men with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PATCH (NCT00303784) adaptive trials programme (incorporating recruitment through the STAMPEDE [NCT00268476] platform) is evaluating the safety and efficacy of tE2 patches as ADT for men with prostate cancer. An initial randomised (LHRHa versus tE2) phase II study (n = 251) with cardiovascular toxicity as the primary outcome measure has expanded into a phase III evaluation. Those with locally advanced (M0) or metastatic (M1) prostate cancer are eligible. To reflect changes in both management and prognosis, the PATCH programme is now evaluating these cohorts separately. RESULTS: to date: Recruitment is complete, with 1362 and 1128 in the M0 and M1 cohorts, respectively. Rates of androgen suppression with tE2 were equivalent to LHRHa, with improved metabolic parameters, quality of life and bone health indices (mean absolute change in lumbar spine bone mineral density of -3.0% for LHRHa and +7.9% for tE2 with an estimated difference between arms of 9.3% (95% confidence interval 5.3-13.4). Importantly, rates of cardiovascular events were not significantly different between the two arms and the time to first cardiovascular event did not differ between treatment groups (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.53; P = 0.54). Oncological outcomes are awaited. FUTURE: Efficacy results for the M0 cohort (primary outcome measure metastases-free survival) are expected in the final quarter of 2023. For M1 patients (primary outcome measure - overall survival), analysis using restricted mean survival time is being explored. Allied translational work on longitudinal samples is underway

The Prostate Care Questionnaire for Carers (PCQ-C): reliability, validity and acceptability

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patient experience is commonly monitored in evaluating and improving health care, but the experience of carers (partners/relatives/friends) is rarely monitored even though the role of carers can often be substantial. For carers to fulfil their role it is necessary to address their needs. This paper describes an evaluation of the reliability, validity and acceptability of the PCQ-C, a newly developed instrument designed to measure the experiences of carers of men with prostate cancer.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The reliability, acceptability and validity of the PCQ-C were tested through a postal survey and interviews with carers. The PCQ-C was posted to 1087 prostate cancer patients and patients were asked to pass the questionnaire on to their carer. Non-responders received one reminder. To assess test-retest reliability, 210 carers who had responded to the questionnaire were resent it a second time three weeks later. A subsample of nine carers from patients attending one hospital took part in qualitative interviews to assess validity and acceptability of the PCQ-C. Acceptability to service providers was evaluated based on four hospitals' experiences of running a survey using the PCQ-C.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Questionnaires were returned by 514 carers (47.3%), and the majority of questions showed less than 10% missing data. Across the sections of the questionnaire internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.80 to 0.89), and test-retest stability showed moderate to high stability (intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.52 to 0.83). Interviews of carers indicated that the PCQ-C was valid and acceptable. Feedback from hospitals indicated that they found the questionnaire useful, and highlighted important considerations for its future use as part of quality improvement initiatives.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The PCQ-C has been found to be acceptable to carers and service providers having been used successfully in hospitals in England. It is ready for use to measure the aspects of care that need to be addressed to improve the quality of prostate cancer care, and for research.</p

The Prostate Care Questionnaire for Patients (PCQ-P): Reliability, validity and acceptability

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In England, prostate cancer patients report worse experience of care than patients with other cancers. However, no standard measure of patient experience of prostate cancer care is currently available. This paper describes an evaluation of the reliability, validity and acceptability of the PCQ-P, a newly developed instrument designed to measure patient experience of prostate cancer care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The reliability, acceptability and validity of the PCQ-P were tested through a postal survey and interviews with patients. The PCQ-P was posted to 1087 prostate cancer patients varying in age, occupation, and overall health status, sampled from five hospitals in England. Nonresponders received one reminder. To assess criterion validity, 935 patients were also sent sections of the National Centre for Social Research Shortened Questionnaire; and to assess test-retest reliability, 296 patients who responded to the questionnaire were resent it a second time three weeks later. A subsample of 20 prostate cancer patients from one hospital took part in qualitative interviews to assess validity and acceptability of the PCQ-P. Acceptability to service providers was evaluated based on four hospitals' experiences of running a survey using the PCQ-P.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Questionnaires were returned by 865 patients (69.2%). Missing data was low across the sections, with the proportion of patients completing less than 50% of each section ranging from 4.5% to 6.9%. Across the sections of the questionnaire, internal consistency was moderate to high (Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.63 to 0.80), and test-retest stability was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.57 to 0.73). Findings on criterion validity were significant. Patient interviews indicated that the PCQ-P had high face validity and acceptability. Feedback from hospitals indicated that they found the questionnaire useful, and highlighted important considerations for its future use as part of quality improvement initiatives.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The PCQ-P has been found to be acceptable to patients and service providers, and is ready for use for the measurement of patient experience in routine practice, service improvement programmes, and research.</p

Transdermal oestradiol for androgen suppression in prostate cancer: long-term cardiovascular outcomes from the randomised Prostate Adenocarcinoma Transcutaneous Hormone (PATCH) trial programme

Background: Androgen suppression is a central component of prostate cancer management but causes substantial long-term toxicity. Transdermal administration of oestradiol (tE2) circumvents first-pass hepatic metabolism and, therefore, should avoid the cardiovascular toxicity seen with oral oestrogen and the oestrogen-depletion effects seen with luteinising hormone releasing hormone agonists (LHRHa). We present long-term cardiovascular follow-up data from the Prostate Adenocarcinoma Transcutaneous Hormone (PATCH) trial programme. Methods: PATCH is a seamless phase 2/3, randomised, multicentre trial programme at 52 study sites in the UK. Men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer were randomly allocated (1:2 from August, 2007 then 1:1 from February, 2011) to either LHRHa according to local practice or tE2 patches (four 100 μg patches per 24 h, changed twice weekly, reducing to three patches twice weekly if castrate at 4 weeks [defined as testosterone ≤1·7 nmol/L]). Randomisation was done using a computer-based minimisation algorithm and was stratified by several factors, including disease stage, age, smoking status, and family history of cardiac disease. The primary outcome of this analysis was cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Cardiovascular events, including heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, thromboembolic stroke, and other thromboembolic events, were confirmed using predefined criteria and source data. Sudden or unexpected deaths were attributed to a cardiovascular category if a confirmatory post-mortem report was available and as other relevant events if no post-mortem report was available. PATCH is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN70406718; the study is ongoing and adaptive. Findings: Between Aug 14, 2007, and July 30, 2019, 1694 men were randomly allocated either LHRHa (n=790) or tE2 patches (n=904). Overall, median follow-up was 3·9 (IQR 2·4–7·0) years. Respective castration rates at 1 month and 3 months were 65% and 93% among patients assigned LHRHa and 83% and 93% among those allocated tE2. 157 events from 145 men met predefined cardiovascular criteria, with a further ten sudden deaths with no post-mortem report (total 167 events in 153 men). 26 (2%) of 1694 patients had fatal cardiovascular events, 15 (2%) of 790 assigned LHRHa and 11 (1%) of 904 allocated tE2. The time to first cardiovascular event did not differ between treatments (hazard ratio 1·11, 95% CI 0·80–1·53; p=0·54 [including sudden deaths without post-mortem report]; 1·20, 0·86–1·68; p=0·29 [confirmed group only]). 30 (34%) of 89 cardiovascular events in patients assigned tE2 occurred more than 3 months after tE2 was stopped or changed to LHRHa. The most frequent adverse events were gynaecomastia (all grades), with 279 (38%) events in 730 patients who received LHRHa versus 690 (86%) in 807 patients who received tE2 (p<0·0001) and hot flushes (all grades) in 628 (86%) of those who received LHRHa versus 280 (35%) who received tE2 (p<0·0001). Interpretation: Long-term data comparing tE2 patches with LHRHa show no evidence of a difference between treatments in cardiovascular mortality or morbidity. Oestrogens administered transdermally should be reconsidered for androgen suppression in the management of prostate cancer. Funding: Cancer Research UK, and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London

Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy in PSA-detected clinically localised prostate cancer : the ProtecT three-arm RCT

Background Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the UK. Prostate-specific antigen testing followed by biopsy leads to overdetection, overtreatment as well as undertreatment of the disease. Evidence of treatment effectiveness has lacked because of the paucity of randomised controlled trials comparing conventional treatments. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of conventional treatments for localised prostate cancer (active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy) in men aged 50–69 years. Design A prospective, multicentre prostate-specific antigen testing programme followed by a randomised trial of treatment, with a comprehensive cohort follow-up. Setting Prostate-specific antigen testing in primary care and treatment in nine urology departments in the UK. Participants Between 2001 and 2009, 228,966 men aged 50–69 years received an invitation to attend an appointment for information about the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study and a prostate-specific antigen test; 82,429 men were tested, 2664 were diagnosed with localised prostate cancer, 1643 agreed to randomisation to active monitoring (n = 545), radical prostatectomy (n = 553) or radical radiotherapy (n = 545) and 997 chose a treatment. Interventions The interventions were active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy. Trial primary outcome measure Definite or probable disease-specific mortality at the 10-year median follow-up in randomised participants. Secondary outcome measures Overall mortality, metastases, disease progression, treatment complications, resource utilisation and patient-reported outcomes. Results There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for 17 prostate cancer-specific (p = 0.48) and 169 all-cause (p = 0.87) deaths. Eight men died of prostate cancer in the active monitoring group (1.5 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.0); five died of prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy group (0.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.2 per 1000 person years) and four died of prostate cancer in the radical radiotherapy group (0.7 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.0 per 1000 person years). More men developed metastases in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring, n = 33 (6.3 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 4.5 to 8.8); radical prostatectomy, n = 13 (2.4 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 4.2 per 1000 person years); and radical radiotherapy, n = 16 (3.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.9 to 4.9 per 1000 person-years; p = 0.004). There were higher rates of disease progression in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring (n = 112; 22.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 19.0 to 27.5 per 1000 person years); radical prostatectomy (n = 46; 8.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 11.9 per 1000 person-years); and radical radiotherapy (n = 46; 9.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 12.0 per 1000 person years; p < 0.001). Radical prostatectomy had the greatest impact on sexual function/urinary continence and remained worse than radical radiotherapy and active monitoring. Radical radiotherapy’s impact on sexual function was greatest at 6 months, but recovered somewhat in the majority of participants. Sexual and urinary function gradually declined in the active monitoring group. Bowel function was worse with radical radiotherapy at 6 months, but it recovered with the exception of bloody stools. Urinary voiding and nocturia worsened in the radical radiotherapy group at 6 months but recovered. Condition-specific quality-of-life effects mirrored functional changes. No differences in anxiety/depression or generic or cancer-related quality of life were found. At the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probabilities that each arm was the most cost-effective option were 58% (radical radiotherapy), 32% (active monitoring) and 10% (radical prostatectomy). Limitations A single prostate-specific antigen test and transrectal ultrasound biopsies were used. There were very few non-white men in the trial. The majority of men had low- and intermediate-risk disease. Longer follow-up is needed. Conclusions At a median follow-up point of 10 years, prostate cancer-specific mortality was low, irrespective of the assigned treatment. Radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy reduced disease progression and metastases, but with side effects. Further work is needed to follow up participants at a median of 15 years. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20141297

Interaction of Copper-Amine With Southern Pine: Retention and Migration

The retention and leachability of copper in copper-amine (Cu-EA)-treated southern pine (SP) are influenced by the formulation and the composition of copper-amine treating solutions. The sources of copper used, Cu(OH)2, CuCO3, CuSO4, and Cu(NO3)2, in the copper-amine complex formulation affect the leachability of copper. Data show that copper-amine from CuSO4- and Cu(NO3)2-treated wood has less copper loss during laboratory water leaching than that from Cu(OH)2- and CuCO3-treated wood. Increasing the amine-to-copper molar ratio increases the copper retention by wood, but reduces the leach resistance of copper. The nature of amine ligands, such as monoethanolamine (primary amine), 2-methylamino-ethanol (secondary amine), and N, N-dimethyl-ethanolamine (tertiary amine), has some effect on copper retention and copper leaching. As the molecular weight of amine ligands increases, copper loss during leaching decreases