Which patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer benefit from docetaxel: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials

BACKGROUND: Adding docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, but uncertainty remains about who benefits most. We therefore aimed to obtain up-to-date estimates of the overall effects of docetaxel and to assess whether these effects varied according to prespecified characteristics of the patients or their tumours. METHODS: The STOPCAP M1 collaboration conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. We searched MEDLINE (from database inception to March 31, 2022), Embase (from database inception to March 31, 2022), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from database inception to March 31, 2022), proceedings of relevant conferences (from Jan 1, 1990, to Dec 31, 2022), and ClinicalTrials.gov (from database inception to March 28, 2023) to identify eligible randomised trials that assessed docetaxel plus ADT compared with ADT alone in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Detailed and updated individual participant data were requested directly from study investigators or through relevant repositories. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival and failure-free survival. Overall pooled effects were estimated using an adjusted, intention-to-treat, two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis, with one-stage and random-effects sensitivity analyses. Missing covariate values were imputed. Differences in effect by participant characteristics were estimated using adjusted two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis of within-trial interactions on the basis of progression-free survival to maximise power. Identified effect modifiers were also assessed on the basis of overall survival. To explore multiple subgroup interactions and derive subgroup-specific absolute treatment effects we used one-stage flexible parametric modelling and regression standardisation. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019140591. FINDINGS: We obtained individual participant data from 2261 patients (98% of those randomised) from three eligible trials (GETUG-AFU15, CHAARTED, and STAMPEDE trials), with a median follow-up of 72 months (IQR 55-85). Individual participant data were not obtained from two additional small trials. Based on all included trials and patients, there were clear benefits of docetaxel on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·70 to 0·88; p<0·0001), progression-free survival (0·70, 0·63 to 0·77; p<0·0001), and failure-free survival (0·64, 0·58 to 0·71; p<0·0001), representing 5-year absolute improvements of around 9-11%. The overall risk of bias was assessed to be low, and there was no strong evidence of differences in effect between trials for all three main outcomes. The relative effect of docetaxel on progression-free survival appeared to be greater with increasing clinical T stage (pinteraction=0·0019), higher volume of metastases (pinteraction=0·020), and, to a lesser extent, synchronous diagnosis of metastatic disease (pinteraction=0·077). Taking into account the other interactions, the effect of docetaxel was independently modified by volume and clinical T stage, but not timing. There was no strong evidence that docetaxel improved absolute effects at 5 years for patients with low-volume, metachronous disease (-1%, 95% CI -15 to 12, for progression-free survival; 0%, -10 to 12, for overall survival). The largest absolute improvement at 5 years was observed for those with high-volume, clinical T stage 4 disease (27%, 95% CI 17 to 37, for progression-free survival; 35%, 24 to 47, for overall survival). INTERPRETATION: The addition of docetaxel to hormone therapy is best suited to patients with poorer prognosis for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer based on a high volume of disease and potentially the bulkiness of the primary tumour. There is no evidence of meaningful benefit for patients with metachronous, low-volume disease who should therefore be managed differently. These results will better characterise patients most and, importantly, least likely to gain benefit from docetaxel, potentially changing international practice, guiding clinical decision making, better informing treatment policy, and improving patient outcomes. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Prostate Cancer UK

Which patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer benefit from docetaxel: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials

© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00230-9Background Adding docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, but uncertainty remains about who benefits most. We therefore aimed to obtain up-to-date estimates of the overall effects of docetaxel and to assess whether these effects varied according to prespecified characteristics of the patients or their tumours. Methods The STOPCAP M1 collaboration conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. We searched MEDLINE (from database inception to March 31, 2022), Embase (from database inception to March 31, 2022), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from database inception to March 31, 2022), proceedings of relevant conferences (from Jan 1, 1990, to Dec 31, 2022), and ClinicalTrials.gov (from database inception to March 28, 2023) to identify eligible randomised trials that assessed docetaxel plus ADT compared with ADT alone in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Detailed and updated individual participant data were requested directly from study investigators or through relevant repositories. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival and failure-free survival. Overall pooled effects were estimated using an adjusted, intention-to-treat, two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis, with one-stage and random-effects sensitivity analyses. Missing covariate values were imputed. Differences in effect by participant characteristics were estimated using adjusted two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis of within-trial interactions on the basis of progression-free survival to maximise power. Identified effect modifiers were also assessed on the basis of overall survival. To explore multiple subgroup interactions and derive subgroup-specific absolute treatment effects we used one-stage flexible parametric modelling and regression standardisation. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019140591. Findings We obtained individual participant data from 2261 patients (98% of those randomised) from three eligible trials (GETUG-AFU15, CHAARTED, and STAMPEDE trials), with a median follow-up of 72 months (IQR 55–85). Individual participant data were not obtained from two additional small trials. Based on all included trials and patients, there were clear benefits of docetaxel on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·70 to 0·88; p<0·0001), progression-free survival (0·70, 0·63 to 0·77; p<0·0001), and failure-free survival (0·64, 0·58 to 0·71; p<0·0001), representing 5-year absolute improvements of around 9–11%. The overall risk of bias was assessed to be low, and there was no strong evidence of differences in effect between trials for all three main outcomes. The relative effect of docetaxel on progression-free survival appeared to be greater with increasing clinical T stage (pinteraction=0·0019), higher volume of metastases (pinteraction=0·020), and, to a lesser extent, synchronous diagnosis of metastatic disease (pinteraction=0·077). Taking into account the other interactions, the effect of docetaxel was independently modified by volume and clinical T stage, but not timing. There was no strong evidence that docetaxel improved absolute effects at 5 years for patients with low-volume, metachronous disease (–1%, 95% CI –15 to 12, for progression-free survival; 0%, –10 to 12, for overall survival). The largest absolute improvement at 5 years was observed for those with high-volume, clinical T stage 4 disease (27%, 95% CI 17 to 37, for progression-free survival; 35%, 24 to 47, for overall survival). Interpretation The addition of docetaxel to hormone therapy is best suited to patients with poorer prognosis for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer based on a high volume of disease and potentially the bulkiness of the primary tumour. There is no evidence of meaningful benefit for patients with metachronous, low-volume disease who should therefore be managed differently. These results will better characterise patients most and, importantly, least likely to gain benefit from docetaxel, potentially changing international practice, guiding clinical decision making, better informing treatment policy, and improving patient outcomes.This study was funded by the UK Research and Innovation Medical Research Council (grant number MC_UU_00004/06, to support CLV, DJF, LHR, ER, SB, JFT, IRW, and MKBP) and by Prostate Cancer UK (grant number RIA 16-ST2-020, awarded to JFT, to support DJF, LHR, PJG, and ER). PJG is partly supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research and Care's Development and Skills Enhancement Award (NIHR301653).Published versio

A stratified adaptive two-stage design with co-primary endpoints for phase II clinical oncology trials

Background: Given the inherent challenges of conducting randomized phase III trials in older cancer patients, single-arm phase II trials which assess the feasibility of a treatment that has already been shown to be effective in a younger population may provide a compelling alternative. Such an approach would need to evaluate treatment feasibility based on a composite endpoint that combines multiple clinical dimensions and to stratify older patients as fit or frail to account for the heterogeneity of the study population to recommend an appropriate treatment approach. In this context, stratified adaptive two-stage designs for binary or composite endpoints, initially developed for biomarker studies, allow to include two subgroups whilst maintaining competitive statistical performances. In practice, heterogeneity may indeed affect more than one dimension and incorporating co-primary endpoints, which independently assess each individual clinical dimension, would therefore appear quite pertinent. The current paper presents a novel phase II design for co-primary endpoints which takes into account the heterogeneity of a population. Methods: We developed a stratified adaptive Bryant & Day design based on the Jones et al. and Parashar et al. algorithm. This two-stage design allows to jointly assess two dimensions (e.g. activity and toxicity) in two different subgroups. The operating characteristics of this new design were evaluated using examples and simulation comparisons with the Bryant & Day design in the context where the study population is stratified according to a pre-defined criterion. Results: Simulation results demonstrated that the new design minimized the expected and maximum sample sizes as compared to parallel Bryant & Day designs (one in each subgroup), whilst controlling type I error rates and maintaining a competitive statistical power as well as a high probability of detecting heterogeneity. Conclusions: In a heterogeneous population, this two-stage stratified adaptive phase II design provides a useful alternative to classical one and allows to identify a subgroup of interest without dramatically increasing sample size. As heterogeneity is not limited to older populations, this new design may also be relevant to other study populations such as children or adolescents and young adults or the development of targeted therapies based on a biomarker

Designing phase II clinical trials to target subgroup of interest in a heterogeneous population: A case study using an R package

International audiencePhase II trials that evaluate target therapies based on a biomarker must be well designed in order to assess anti-tumor activity as well as clinical utility of the biomarker. Classical phase II designs do not deal with this molecular heterogeneity and can lead to an erroneous conclusion in the whole population, whereas a subgroup of patients may well benefit from the new therapy. Moreover, the target population to be evaluated in a phase III trial may be incorrectly specified. Alternative approaches are proposed in the literature that make it possible to include two subgroups according to biomarker status (negative/positive) in the same study. Jones, Parashar and Tournoux et al. propose different stratified adaptive two-stage designs to identify a subgroup of interest in a heterogeneous population that could possibly benefit from the experimental treatment at the end of the first or second stage. Nevertheless, these designs are rarely used in oncology research. After introducing these stratified adaptive designs, we present an R package (ph2hetero) implementing these methods. A case study is provided to illustrate both the designs and the use of the R package. These stratified adaptive designs provide a useful alternative to classical two-stage designs and may also provide options in contexts other than biomarker studies

Circulating Tumor Cells and Bevacizumab Pharmacokinetics during Neoadjuvant Treatment Combining Chemotherapy and Bevacizumab for Early Breast Cancer: Ancillary Analysis of the AVASTEM Trial

International audienceThe phase II AVASTEM trial explored the impact of chemotherapy-bevacizumab combination on breast cancer stem cells in the neoadjuvant setting. We aimed to identify biological features associated with preoperative chemotherapy efficacy and prognosis by analyses of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and bevacizumab pharmacokinetics (PK). The main objective was to assess the prognostic (relapse-free survival and overall survival) and predictive (pathological complete response, pCR) values of CTCs (CellSearch technology) and bevacizumab PK (ELISA). Seventy-five patients were included. Out of them 50 received bevacizumab-chemotherapy and 25 received chemotherapy alone. CTC results were available for 60 patients and PK data for 29 patients in the experimental arm. The absence of CTC at inclusion was correlated to better outcome. Five-years overall survival (OS) was 91% for CTC-negative patients vs. 54% for CTC-positive cases (HR = 6.21; 95%CI (1.75–22.06), p = 0.001, log-rank test). Similar results were observed for RFS with 5 y-RFS of 78% vs. 44% (HR = 3.51; 95%CI (1.17–10.52), p = 0.017, log-rank test). However, CTC status at baseline was not predictive of pCR (p = 0.74). CTC status after one cycle was not a significant prognostic factor (HR = 1.56; 95%CI (0.19–12.67); p = 0.68 for OS and HR = 2.76; 95%CI (0.60–12.61); p = 0.17 for RFS, log-rank test). Bevacizumab serum levels could not predict pCR and survival. PK values were not associated with treatment-related toxicities. In conclusion, CTCs detection at baseline is a prognostic marker for breast cancer receiving a neoadjuvant chemotherapy-bevacizumab combination independently of tumor response

Addressing heterogeneity in the design of phase II clinical trials in geriatric oncology

Introduction: Cancer in the elderly is a major public issue. However, older patients have long been debarred from clinical trials. There is a high unmet medical need for specific trials addressing oncology strategies adapted to older patients' conditions. While randomised phase III trials remain the gold standard, they usually require large numbers of patients. In this perspective, late single-arm phase II trials assessing treatment feasibility might prove a good alternative. However, it is essential to take into account the heterogeneity in an ageing population characterised by frailty. Standard parallel phase II studies in defined frail and non-frail populations also require a high number of patients. Used in molecular subtyping and treatment effect heterogeneity, stratified adaptive designs can improve statistical performance, but they have never been used in geriatric oncology. This report describes their potential benefits and useful applications as compared with standard designs. Methods: In a heterogeneous population, stratified adaptive designs allowed us to select subgroups of interest in two stages. Operational characteristics were evaluated through simulations of clinical trials under different scenarios. Results: Simulations showed that the use of stratified adaptive designs can efficiently minimise both the number of patients to be included and accrual duration with competitive statistical power and high heterogeneity detection rate at interim analysis. Conclusion: Compared with classical phase II designs, stratified adaptive phase II trial methodology offers a promising approach to improve clinical research in geriatric oncology. These designs may also be efficient in other populations such as children or adolescents and young adults. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with decreased survival in patients with acute myeloid leukemia

Erratum inCorrigendum to "Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with decreased survival in patients with acute myeloid leukemia" [Cancer Epidemiol. 66 (2020) 101699].Le Floch AC, Eisinger F, D'Incan E, Rey J, Charbonnier A, Caymaris L, Stoler M, Mancini J, Boher JM, Sfumato P, Vey N.Cancer Epidemiol. 2020 Dec;69:101832. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2020.101832. Epub 2020 Oct 14.PMID: 33067156 No abstract available.International audienceBackground: Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with poor prognosis in patients with solid tumors. However, few studies have assessed the association between socioeconomic parameters and prognosis in Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML), and these report conflicting results. Our monocentric study assessed the impact of socioeconomic deprivation using the validated EPICES (Evaluation of Deprivation and Inequalities in Health Examination Centers) score in a prospective cohort of intensively treated AML patients.Methods: EPICES questionnaires were given to patients receiving intensive chemotherapy for newly diagnosed AML at the Paoli Calmettes Institute between July 2012 and December 2014. Study participants were categorized as non-deprived (score <30.17), deprived (score 30.17-48.51), or very-deprived (score ≥ 48.52). The primary endpoint was Overall Survival (OS). The independence of EPICES score effects was analyzed via Cox regression with adjustment for confounding factors.Results: 209 AML patients received the questionnaire, 149 (71.3 %) patients responded. The median EPICES score was 23.6; 26.8 % and 10.1 % of patients were deprived and very deprived, respectively. OS was 23.16 months (95 %CI [17.15-33.31]). According to multivariate analysis, a very-deprived EPICES score, European Leukemia Net categories, age, smoking, and the absence of allogeneic stem cell transplantation were independent factors associated with decreased OS.Conclusion: Our results underscore the importance of integrating nonbiological factors in the prognostic stratification of AML patients. The very deprived population exhibited worse OS, confirming that socioeconomic parameters play a role in patient outcomes in AML. Very deprived patients with AML should receive specific attention and adapted clinical management

Analysis of a large single institution cohort of related donors fails to detect a relation between SDF1/CXCR4 or VCAM/VLA4 genetic polymorphisms and the level of hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization in response to G-CSF

International audienceWe studied a cohort of 367 healthy related donors who volunteered to donate their hematopoietic stem cells for allogeneic transplantation. All donors were homogeneously cared for at a single institution, and received rhG-CSF as a mobilization treatment prior to undergoing apheresis. Peripheral blood CD34+ cell counts were used as the main surrogate marker for rhG-CSF induced mobilization. We searched whether inter-individual variations in known genetic polymorphisms located in genes whose products are functionally important for mobilization, could affect the extent of CD34+ mobilization, either individually or in combination. We found little or no influence of individual SNPs or haplotypes for the SDF1, CXCR4, VCAM and VLA4 genes, whether using CD34+ cell counts as a continuous or a categorical variable. Simple clinical characteristics describing donors such as body mass index, age and possibly sex are more potent predictors of stem cell mobilization. The size of our cohort remains relatively small for genetic analyses, however compares favorably with cohorts analyzed in previously published reports suggesting associations of genetic traits to response to rhG-CSF; notwithstanding this limitation, our data do not support the use of genetic analyses when the choice exists of several potential donors for a given patient