Addition of docetaxel to hormonal therapy in low- and high-burden metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer : long-term survival results from the STAMPEDE trial

Background STAMPEDE has previously reported that the use of upfront docetaxel improved overall survival (OS) for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report on long-term outcomes stratified by metastatic burden for M1 patients. Methods We randomly allocated patients in 2 : 1 ratio to standard-of-care (SOC; control group) or SOC + docetaxel. Metastatic disease burden was categorised using retrospectively-collected baseline staging scans where available. Analysis used Cox regression models, adjusted for stratification factors, with emphasis on restricted mean survival time where hazards were non-proportional. Results Between 05 October 2005 and 31 March 2013, 1086 M1 patients were randomised to receive SOC (n = 724) or SOC + docetaxel (n = 362). Metastatic burden was assessable for 830/1086 (76%) patients; 362 (44%) had low and 468 (56%) high metastatic burden. Median follow-up was 78.2 months. There were 494 deaths on SOC (41% more than the previous report). There was good evidence of benefit of docetaxel over SOC on OS (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69–0.95, P = 0.009) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P = 0.827). Analysis of other outcomes found evidence of benefit for docetaxel over SOC in failure-free survival (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.57–0.76, P  0.5 in each case). There was no evidence that docetaxel resulted in late toxicity compared with SOC: after 1 year, G3-5 toxicity was reported for 28% SOC and 27% docetaxel (in patients still on follow-up at 1 year without prior progression). Conclusions The clinically significant benefit in survival for upfront docetaxel persists at longer follow-up, with no evidence that benefit differed by metastatic burden. We advocate that upfront docetaxel is considered for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients regardless of metastatic burden

Radiotherapy to the prostate for men with metastatic prostate cancer in the UK and Switzerland: Long-term results from the STAMPEDE randomised controlled trial

Background STAMPEDE has previously reported that radiotherapy (RT) to the prostate improved overall survival (OS) for patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer with low metastatic burden, but not those with high-burden disease. In this final analysis, we report long-term findings on the primary outcome measure of OS and on the secondary outcome measures of symptomatic local events, RT toxicity events, and quality of life (QoL). Methods and findings Patients were randomised at secondary care sites in the United Kingdom and Switzerland between January 2013 and September 2016, with 1:1 stratified allocation: 1,029 to standard of care (SOC) and 1,032 to SOC+RT. No masking of the treatment allocation was employed. A total of 1,939 had metastatic burden classifiable, with 42% low burden and 58% high burden, balanced by treatment allocation. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses used Cox regression and flexible parametric models (FPMs), adjusted for stratification factors age, nodal involvement, the World Health Organization (WHO) performance status, regular aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use, and planned docetaxel use. QoL in the first 2 years on trial was assessed using prospectively collected patient responses to QLQ-30 questionnaire. Patients were followed for a median of 61.3 months. Prostate RT improved OS in patients with low, but not high, metastatic burden (respectively: 202 deaths in SOC versus 156 in SOC+RT, hazard ratio (HR) = 0·64, 95% CI 0.52, 0.79, p < 0.001; 375 SOC versus 386 SOC+RT, HR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.96, 1.28, p = 0·164; interaction p < 0.001). No evidence of difference in time to symptomatic local events was found. There was no evidence of difference in Global QoL or QLQ-30 Summary Score. Long-term urinary toxicity of grade 3 or worse was reported for 10 SOC and 10 SOC+RT; long-term bowel toxicity of grade 3 or worse was reported for 15 and 11, respectively. Conclusions Prostate RT improves OS, without detriment in QoL, in men with low-burden, newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer, indicating that it should be recommended as a SOC. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00268476, ISRCTN.com ISRCTN78818544

Timing of Radiotherapy (RT) after Radical Prostatectomy (RP): Long-term outcomes in the RADICALS-RT trial [NCT00541047]

Background The optimal timing of radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer has been uncertain. RADICALS-RT compared efficacy and safety of adjuvant RT versus an observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure. Methods RADICALS-RT was a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with ≥1 risk factor (pT3/4, Gleason 7-10, positive margins, pre-op PSA≥10ng/ml) for recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Patients were randomised 1:1 to adjuvant RT (“Adjuvant-RT”) or an observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure (“Salvage-RT”) defined as PSA≥0.1ng/ml or 3 consecutive rises. Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned RT schedule (52.5Gy/20 fractions or 66Gy/33 fractions) and treatment centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom-from-distant metastasis, designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with Salvage-RT (control) to 95% at 10yr with Adjuvant-RT. Secondary outcome measures were bPFS, freedom-from-non-protocol hormone therapy, safety and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used; HR<1 favours Adjuvant-RT. Findings Between Oct-2007 and Dec-2016, 1396 participants from UK, Denmark, Canada and Ireland were randomised: 699 Salvage-RT, 697 Adjuvant-RT. Allocated groups were balanced with median age 65yr. 93% (649/697) Adjuvant-RT reported RT within 6m after randomisation; 39% (270/699) Salvage-RT reported RT during follow-up. Median follow-up was 7.8 years. With 80 distant metastasis events, 10yr FFDM was 93% for Adjuvant-RT and 90% for Salvage-RT: HR=0.68 (95%CI 0·43–1·07, p=0·095). Of 109 deaths, 17 were due to prostate cancer. Overall survival was not improved (HR=0.980, 95%CI 0.667–1.440, p=0.917). Adjuvant-RT reported worse urinary and faecal incontinence one year after randomisation (p=0.001); faecal incontinence remained significant after ten years (p=0.017). Interpretation Long-term results from RADICALS-RT confirm adjuvant RT after radical prostatectomy increases the risk of urinary and bowel morbidity, but does not meaningfully improve disease control. An observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy

Consolidation radiotherapy in patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma: survival data from the UKLG LY09 randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN97144519)

Purpose: this study analyzed the outcomes of nonrandomized consolidation radiotherapy (RT) given after chemotherapy in the initial treatment of advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL). The results were collected prospectively within a randomized controlled trial of induction chemotherapy.Patients and methods: patients were randomly assigned between doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine and one of two prespecified multidrug regimens. At least six cycles of chemotherapy were planned, with up to eight for patients showing slower response. Involved-field RT was recommended for incomplete response to chemotherapy or bulk disease at presentation. The primary outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS), landmarked from the end of chemotherapy.Results: among 807 patients randomly assigned, 702 achieved objective response. Postchemotherapy RT for consolidation was reported in 300 (43%). With median follow-up of 6.9 years, 161 PFS events and 83 deaths were reported. Baseline characteristics showed more patients with bulk disease having RT (190 [63%] v 111 [28%]) and only partial response after chemotherapy (150 [50%] v 36 [9%]). Other baseline characteristics were similar. PFS was superior for patients having RT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.60) with 5-year PFS 71% without RT, 86% with RT. A similar advantage was seen for overall survival (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.77). There was no evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effect across subgroups.Conclusion: patients who received consolidation RT apparently had better outcomes, consistently across all prognostic groups which persisted in multivariate analysis. This suggests that RT contributes significantly to the cure rate for advanced HL, although patient selection for combined modality treatment requires better definition in prospective trials

Causal inference with randomised clinical trials of chemotherapy: the importance of well-documented treatment side-effects

Development and application of statistical models for medical scientific researc

Method to measure the mismatch between target and achieved received dose intensity of chemotherapy in cancer trials: a retrospective analysis of the MRC BO06 trial in osteosarcoma

Experimentele farmacotherapi

Comparison of ABVD and alternating or hybrid multidrug regimens for the treatment of advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma: results of the United Kingdom Lymphoma Group LY09 Trial (ISRCTN97144519)

Purpose: To perform an open-label, randomized, controlled trial comparing treatment with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) with two multidrug regimens (MDRs) for advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL). Patients and Methods: Eight hundred seven patients with advanced HL (stage III to IV, or earlier stage with systemic symptoms or bulky disease) were randomly assigned between ABVD and MDR specified before randomization as alternating chlorambucil, vinblastine, procarbazine, and prednisolone (ChlVPP) with prednisolone, doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, and etoposide (PABIOE), or hybrid ChlVPP/etoposide, vincristine, and doxorubicin (EVA). Radiotherapy was planned for incomplete response or initial bulk disease. Results: At 52 months median follow-up, 212 event-free survival (EFS) events (disease progression or any death) were reported. In the primary comparison, at 3 years EFS was 75% (95% CI, 71% to 79%) for ABVD and 75% (95% CI, 70% to 79%) for MDRs (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.37; HR more than 1.0 favors ABVD). The 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 90% (95% CI, 87% to 93%) in patients allocated ABVD and 88% (95% CI, 84% to 91%) in patients allocated MDRs (HR = 1.22; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.77). Patients receiving MDRs experienced more grade 3/4 infection, mucositis, and neuropathy. One occurrence of myelodysplastic syndrome was reported, but no acute leukemia was reported. When the two MDRs are compared separately with ABVD, neither the alternating nor the hybrid regimen showed a statistically significant difference from ABVD for EFS or OS. Subgroup analysis suggested that MDRs may be associated with poorer outcomes in older patients (heterogeneity test of OS older or younger than 45 years, P = .020). Conclusion: There was no evidence of significant difference in EFS or OS between ABVD and MDRs in the trial overall or if the two MDR versus ABVD comparisons are considered separately. ABVD remains the standard for treatment of advanced HL