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

Surface integrity in metal machining - Part II: Functional performance

Material removal operations play a pivotal role in the manufacture of key components, required for engineering systems to operate safely and efficiently under ever more advanced functional requirements and over extended life cycles. To further step up the loading capability of machined parts, fundamental understanding of how of machining-induced features can influence the performance of advanced materials under complex service conditions is necessary over finer temporal and spatial scales. As discussed in Part I of this review, when engineering surfaces are generated by material removal processes, a wide range of physical mechanisms (e.g. mechanical, thermal, chemical and their combinations) drive the characteristics of workpiece surface integrity. In Part II of this review, the interplay between the metallurgical and micro-mechanical condition induced by material removal processes and their in-service response will be thoroughly explored, by a critical analysis of the state-of-the-art in the field. Specifically, attention is focused on recent advances made towards the understanding of the mechanisms determining the resistance of machined surface to fatigue crack nucleation (Section 2), corrosion and stress-corrosion cracking (Section 3), and wear (Section 4). Furthermore, the impact of relevant post-machining treatments on the in-service behaviour of machined surfaces is analysed, and the possible strategies for the enhancement of the functional performance of machined surfaces are presented (Section 5). Finally, the current research gaps and the prospective challenges in understanding the in-service behaviour of machined surfaces are critically discussed, providing an interpretation of the possible directions of future scientific development of this field

Niraparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DNA repair gene defects (GALAHAD): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial

Background Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers are enriched for DNA repair gene defects (DRDs) that can be susceptible to synthetic lethality through inhibition of PARP proteins. We evaluated the anti-tumour activity and safety of the PARP inhibitor niraparib in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers and DRDs who progressed on previous treatment with an androgen signalling inhibitor and a taxane. Methods In this multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study, patients aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mixed histology accepted, with the exception of the small cell pure phenotype) and DRDs (assessed in blood, tumour tissue, or saliva), with progression on a previous next-generation androgen signalling inhibitor and a taxane per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 or Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 criteria and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, were eligible. Enrolled patients received niraparib 300 mg orally once daily until treatment discontinuation, death, or study termination. For the final study analysis, all patients who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analysis population; patients with germline pathogenic or somatic biallelic pathogenic alterations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA cohort) or biallelic alterations in other prespecified DRDs (non-BRCA cohort) were included in the efficacy analysis population. The primary endpoint was objective response rate in patients with BRCA alterations and measurable disease (measurable BRCA cohort). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02854436. Findings Between Sept 28, 2016, and June 26, 2020, 289 patients were enrolled, of whom 182 (63%) had received three or more systemic therapies for prostate cancer. 223 (77%) of 289 patients were included in the overall efficacy analysis population, which included BRCA (n=142) and non-BRCA (n=81) cohorts. At final analysis, with a median follow-up of 10·0 months (IQR 6·6–13·3), the objective response rate in the measurable BRCA cohort (n=76) was 34·2% (95% CI 23·7–46·0). In the safety analysis population, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were nausea (169 [58%] of 289), anaemia (156 [54%]), and vomiting (111 [38%]); the most common grade 3 or worse events were haematological (anaemia in 95 [33%] of 289; thrombocytopenia in 47 [16%]; and neutropenia in 28 [10%]). Of 134 (46%) of 289 patients with at least one serious treatment-emergent adverse event, the most common were also haematological (thrombocytopenia in 17 [6%] and anaemia in 13 [4%]). Two adverse events with fatal outcome (one patient with urosepsis in the BRCA cohort and one patient with sepsis in the non-BRCA cohort) were deemed possibly related to niraparib treatment. Interpretation Niraparib is tolerable and shows anti-tumour activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and DRDs, particularly in those with BRCA alterations