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

Erratum to: Study protocol: differential effects of diet and physical activity based interventions in pregnancy on maternal and fetal outcomes: individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis and health economic evaluation.

Erratum to: Study protocol: differential effects of diet and physical activity based interventions in pregnancy on maternal and fetal outcomes: individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis and health economic evaluatio

Одноколейные тракторно-ледяные дороги: учебное пособие для лесотехнических вузов

Книга содержит описание конструкций однополозных тракторных саней, расчет основных деталей саней, краткие технические условия проектирования одноколейных тракторно-ледяных дорог, правила постройки и эксплуатации ледяных дорог и основы организации тракторного хозяйства на базе одноколейных ледяных дорог. Книга предназначена в качестве учебного пособия для лесотехнических вузов, но может также служить практическим пособием и для высшего технического персонала лесозаготовительных предприятий Наркомлеса СССР.0|7|Предисловие [c. 7]0|8|Введение [c. 8]0|11|Возникновение и развитие конструкции однополозных саней [c. 11]1|11|Первые опыты [c. 11]1|12|Принцип работы одноколейной ледяной дороги и теоретические основания проектирования однополозных саней [c. 12]1|17|Конструкция первых однополозных саней [c. 17]1|17|Однополозные сани Востокостальлеса [c. 17]1|19|Одкополозные сани ЦНИИМЭ, модель Б [c. 19]1|21|Однополозные сани на базе поковок тракторных двухполозных саней модели Д [c. 21]1|22|Однополозные сани Я. И. Гинзбурга модели 1939 г. [c. 22]1|33|Однополозные сани ГЗЯ-2 [c. 33]1|39|Варианты соединения коника с полозом [c. 39]1|39|Модернизированные однополозные сани на базе поковок саней модели Свердлеса и Востокостальлеса [c. 39]1|44|Бескониковые однополозные сани конструкции СибНИИЛХЭ [c. 44]1|46|Буферно-прицепные устройства трактора конструкции УЛТИ, Сотринского мехлесопункта и Стройлеспроекта [c. 46]1|48|Автоматическая сцепка тракторных саней [c. 48]1|49|Рама для перевозки коротья на однополозных санях [c. 49]1|51|Расчет саней [c. 51]1|51|Расчет полоза [c. 51]1|58|О форме подрезов [c. 58]0|61|Постройка одноколейных ледяных дорог [c. 61]1|61|Условия применения, сырьевая база и порядок оформления строительства [c. 61]1|62|Технические условия проектирования одноколейных ледяных дорог [c. 62]1|72|Изыскания трасс одноколейных ледяных дорог [c. 72]1|73|Строительные работы на одноколейных ледяных дорогах [c. 73]1|85|Дорожные орудия для строительства одноколейных ледяных дорог [c. 85]1|91|Цистерны для поливки ледяной дороги [c. 91]1|91|Насосные станции [c. 91]0|95|Эксплуатация ледяных дорог [c. 95]1|95|Техническая характеристика тяговых машин [c. 95]1|107|Эксплуатация газогенераторных тракторов на лесовывозке по ледяным дорогам [c. 107]1|115|Правила вождения поездов [c. 115]1|117|Формирование состава и маневры [c. 117]1|117|Содержание и ремонт пути ледяной дороги [c. 117]1|119|Техника безопасности при вывозке леса по тракторным ледяным дорогам [c. 119]1|121|Основные правила по технике безопасности для тракторного лесотранспорта [c. 121]0|123|Приложения [c. 123]1|123|Детали однополозных саней ГЗЯ-1 [c. 123]1|136|Детали модернизированных однополозных саней на базе поковок саней Свердллеса [c. 136]1|141|Краткая техническая характеристика гусеничных тракторов Челябинского тракторного завода [c. 141]0|143|Оглавление [c. 143

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

Protective Effector Memory CD4 T Cells Depend on ICOS for Survival

Memory CD4 T cells play a vital role in protection against re-infection by pathogens as diverse as helminthes or influenza viruses. Inducible costimulator (ICOS) is highly expressed on memory CD4 T cells and has been shown to augment proliferation and survival of activated CD4 T cells. However, the role of ICOS costimulation on the development and maintenance of memory CD4 T cells remains controversial. Herein, we describe a significant defect in the number of effector memory (EM) phenotype cells in ICOS−/− and ICOSL−/− mice that becomes progressively more dramatic as the mice age. This decrease was not due to a defect in the homeostatic proliferation of EM phenotype CD4 T cells in ICOS−/− or ICOSL−/− mice. To determine whether ICOS regulated the development or survival of EM CD4 T cells, we utilized an adoptive transfer model. We found no defect in development of EM CD4 T cells, but long-term survival of ICOS−/− EM CD4 T cells was significantly compromised compared to wild-type cells. The defect in survival was specific to EM cells as the central memory (CM) ICOS−/− CD4 T cells persisted as well as wild type cells. To determine the physiological consequences of a specific defect in EM CD4 T cells, wild-type and ICOS−/− mice were infected with influenza virus. ICOS−/− mice developed significantly fewer influenza-specific EM CD4 T cells and were more susceptible to re-infection than wild-type mice. Collectively, our findings demonstrate a role for ICOS costimulation in the maintenance of EM but not CM CD4 T cells