Andrew Stockdale

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial

Summary Background Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up. Methods CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b–T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3–6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923. Findings Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9–77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0–90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5–92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4–88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68–1·03], pNI=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99–1·46], pNI=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Interpretation Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer. Funding Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

A 10‐year retrospective audit of penile cancer management in the UK

To audit the penile cancer workload, management and outcome within a regional cancer network serving a population of ≈ 1 million in the West Midlands (UK), comparing these data to that published by the British Association of Urological Surgeons National Cancer Registry, the UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence and the European Associations of Urology guidelines.

Phase III, Double-Blind, Randomized Trial That Compared Maintenance Lapatinib Versus Placebo After First-Line Chemotherapy in Patients With Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 1/2–Positive Metastatic Bladder Cancer

Purpose To establish whether maintenance lapatinib after first-line chemotherapy is beneficial in human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) 1/HER2-positive metastatic urothelial bladder cancer (UBC). Methods Patients with metastatic UBC were screened centrally for HER1/HER2 overexpression. Patients who screened positive for HER1/2 and who did not have progressive disease during chemotherapy (four to eight cycles) were randomly assigned one to one to lapatinib or placebo after completion of first-line/initial chemotherapy for metastatic disease. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results Between 2007 and 2013, 446 patients with UBC were screened, and 232 with HER1- or HER2-positive disease were randomly assigned. The median PFS for lapatinib and placebo was 4.5 (95% CI, 2.8 to 5.4) and 5.1 (95% CI, 3.0 to 5.8) months, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.43; P = .63). The overall survival for lapatinib and placebo was 12.6 (95% CI, 9.0 to 16.2) and 12.0 (95% CI, 10.5 to 14.9) months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.31; P = .80). Discontinuation due to adverse events were similar in both arms (6% lapatinib and 5% placebo). The rate of grade 3 to 4 adverse events for lapatinib and placebo was 8.6% versus 8.1% ( P = .82). Preplanned subset analysis of patients strongly positive for HER1/HER2 (3+ on immunohistochemistry; n = 111), patients positive for only HER1 (n = 102), and patients positive for only HER2 (n = 42) showed no significant benefit with lapatinib in terms of PFS and overall survival ( P > .05 for each). Conclusion This trial did not find significant improvements in outcome by the addition of maintenance lapatinib to standard of care.

A Randomised Phase 2 Study of AZD2014 Versus Everolimus in Patients with VEGF-Refractory Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cancer

BACKGROUND Everolimus is a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor used in vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). It acts on only part of the mTOR complex (TORC1 alone). In vitro data support the use of mTOR inhibitors with broader activity (TORC1 and TORC2). OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to determine whether combined TORC1 and TORC2 inhibition with AZD2014 has superior activity to everolimus in VEGF-refractory clear cell mRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Patients with measurable mRCC and VEGF-refractory disease were eligible for this trial. INTERVENTION Starting in February 2013, patients were randomised (1:1) to AZD2014 (50 mg twice daily) or everolimus (10 mg once daily) until progression of disease at 10 centres across the United Kingdom. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point and was compared using the stratified log-rank test. Secondary end points included tolerability, response rates, overall survival (OS), and pharmacokinetics (PK) analysis. The study was planned to recruit 120 patients. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Recruitment into the trial was stopped early (June 2014) due to lack of efficacy of AZD2014. At that point, 49 patients were randomised (26 to AZD2014 and 23 to everolimus). The PFS for AZD2014 and everolimus was 1.8 and 4.6 mo, respectively (hazard ratio: 2.8 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2-6.5]; p=0.01). Progression of disease as the best response to therapy was 69% for AZD2014 and 13% for everolimus (p<0.001). Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 35% of AZD2014 and 48% of everolimus patients (p=0.3). Only 4% of patients stopped AZD2014 due to AEs. PK analysis suggested concentrations of AZD2014 were compatible with the therapeutic range. Final stratified OS hazard ratio at the time of trial closure (January 2015) was 3.1 (95% CI, 1.1-8.4; p<0.02). CONCLUSIONS The PFS and OS of AZD2014 were inferior to everolimus in this setting despite acceptable AE and PK profiles. PATIENT SUMMARY There is a strong rationale for testing mTOR inhibitors with a broader spectrum of activity than everolimus in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. AZD2014 is such an agent, but in this study, it was inferior to everolimus despite its attractive toxicity profile.

Safety and Efficacy of Pazopanib Therapy Prior to Planned Nephrectomy in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cancer

Importance The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal cancer in the era of targeted therapy is uncertain. Objective To establish the safety and efficacy of upfront pazopanib therapy prior to cytoreductive nephrectomy in previously untreated patients with metastatic clear cell renal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants Single-arm phase 2 study of 104 previously untreated patients with metastatic clear cell renal cancer recruited between June 2008 and October 2012 at cancer treatment centers with access to nephrectomy services. The minimum follow-up was 30 months. Interventions Patients received 12 to 14 weeks of preoperative pazopanib therapy prior to planned cytoreductive nephrectomy and continued pazopanib therapy after surgery. Treatment was stopped at disease progression. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was clinical benefit (using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1) prior to surgery (at 12-14 weeks). Secondary end points included surgical complications, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and biomarker analysis. Results Of 104 patients recruited, 100 patients were assessable for clinical benefit prior to planned nephrectomy; 80 of 104 (76.9%) were men; median [interquartile range] age, 64 [56-71] years). Overall, 84 of 100 (84% [95% CI, 75%-91%]) gained clinical benefit before planned nephrectomy. The median reduction in the size of the primary tumor was 14.4% (interquartile range, 1.4%-21.1%). No patients were unable to undergo surgery as a result of local progression of disease. Nephrectomy was performed in 63 (61%) of patients; 14 (22%) reported surgical complications. The 2 most common reasons for not undergoing surgery were progression of disease (n = 13) and patient choice (n = 9). There was 1 postoperative surgical death. The median PFS and OS for the whole cohort were 7.1 (95% CI, 6.0-9.2) and 22.7 (95% CI, 14.3-not estimable) months, respectively. Patients with MSKCC poor-risk disease or progressive disease prior to surgery had a poor outcome (median OS, 5.7 [95% CI, 2.6-10.8] and 3.9 [95% CI, 0.5-9.1] months, respectively). Surgical complications were observed in 14 (22%) of the nephrectomies. Biomarker analysis from sequential tissue samples revealed a decrease in CD8 expression (20.00 vs 13.75; P = .05) and significant reduction in expression of von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor (100 vs 40; P < .001) and C-MET (300 vs 100; P < .001) and increased programmed cell death ligand 1 expression (0 vs 1.5; P < .001) in the immune component. No on-treatment biomarker correlated with response. Conclusions and Relevance Nephrectomy after upfront pazopanib therapy could be performed safely and was associated with good outcomes in patients with intermediate-risk metastatic clear cell renal cancer.

An indirect comparison of the toxicity of sunitinib and pazopanib in metastatic clear cell renal cancer

BACKGROUND Both sunitinib and pazopanib are widely used as first line therapy in metastatic renal cancer (mRCC). The efficacy of these agents appears similar but they may have distinct toxicity profiles. In this study we compare the severity of symptomatic and asymptomatic toxicity associated with sunitinib and pazopanib. METHODS Two sequential prospective single arm phase II studies investigated either 12 weeks of sunitinib (n=43) or pazopanib (n=34) prior to nephrectomy in untreated mRCC. Toxicity was defined as either symptomatic (hand and foot syndrome, mucositis, nausea, fatigue, diarrhoea, oedema, headache, pain, anorexia and change in taste) or asymptomatic (liver toxicity or haematological toxicity). Pazopanib (800 mg once daily (OD)) and sunitinib (50 mg 4/2) were given. Regular Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) toxicity assessment was performed during the first 12 weeks of therapy. RESULTS There was no significant difference in the overall number of toxic events (grade 1-4) for sunitinib and pazopanib (mean number of toxic events/patients: 1.97 versus 1.96: p>0.05). Increased grade 2-4 symptomatic toxicity events occurred with sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.67 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-2.56] p<0.03). Sunitinib was associated with an increased grade 2-4 mucositis (16% versus 0% p=0.02) and fatigue (42% versus 15% p=0.01). Pazopanib was associated with more frequent grade 1 diarrhoea (39% versus 12%: p=0.03). Dose reductions for symptomatic toxicity occurred more frequently with sunitinib (26% versus 6% p<0.05). There was no difference in the occurrence of asymptomatic toxicity. CONCLUSION This indirect analysis suggests sunitinib and pazopanib have distinct toxicity profiles which may help guide patients choice. Further comparative data from randomised trials are awaited.

Randomized Phase II Study Investigating Pazopanib Versus Weekly Paclitaxel in Relapsed or Progressive Urothelial Cancer.

Purpose Two previous single-arm trials have drawn conflicting conclusions regarding the activity of pazopanib in urothelial cancers after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients and Methods This randomized (1:1) open-label phase II trial compared the efficacy of pazopanib 800 mg orally with paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days) in the second-line setting. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results Between August 2012 and October 2014, 131 patients, out of 140 planned, were randomly assigned. The study was terminated early on the recommendation of the independent data monitoring committee because of futility. Final analysis after the preplanned number of deaths (n = 110) occurred after a median follow-up of 18 months. One hundred fifteen deaths had occurred at the final data extract presented here. Median OS was 8.0 months for paclitaxel (80% CI, 6.9 to 9.7 months) and 4.7 months for pazopanib (80% CI, 4.2 to 6.4 months). The hazard ratio (HR) adjusted for baseline stratification factors was 1.28 (80% CI, 0.99 to 1.67; one-sided P = .89). Median progression-free survival was 4.1 months for paclitaxel (80% CI, 3.0 to 5.6 months) and 3.1 months for pazopanib (80% CI, 2.7 to 4.6 months; HR, 1.09; 80% CI, 0.85 to 1.40; one-sided P = .67). Discontinuations for toxicity occurred in 7.8% and 23.1% for paclitaxel and pazopanib, respectively. Conclusion Pazopanib did not have greater efficacy than paclitaxel in the second-line treatment of urothelial cancers. There was a trend toward superior OS for paclitaxel.

The hazards of cross comparing the drug toxicity results from different trials in metastatic renal cancer: In response to a letter from Dr. Catalá-López

Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK Department of Medical Oncology, The Beatson Hospital, Glasgow, UK Department of Medical Oncology, The Royal Free Hospital, London, UK Department of Medical Oncology, John Radcliffe Hospital, London, UK Department of Medical Oncology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK Department of Oncology, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, UK Department of Oncology, Mount Vernon Hospital, London, UK Guys and St Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK