Santhanam Sundar

Ipilimumab versus placebo after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy (CA184-043): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUNDnIpilimumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 to enhance antitumour immunity. Our aim was to assess the use of ipilimumab after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy.nnnMETHODSnWe did a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in which men with at least one bone metastasis from castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel treatment were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive bone-directed radiotherapy (8 Gy in one fraction) followed by either ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to four doses. Non-progressing patients could continue to receive ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg or placebo as maintenance therapy every 3 months until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effect, or death. Patients were randomly assigned to either treatment group via a minimisation algorithm, and stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, alkaline phosphatase concentration, haemoglobin concentration, and investigator site. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00861614.nnnFINDINGSnFrom May 26, 2009, to Feb 15, 2012, 799 patients were randomly assigned (399 to ipilimumab and 400 to placebo), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Median overall survival was 11·2 months (95% CI 9·5-12·7) with ipilimumab and 10·0 months (8·3-11·0) with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·85, 0·72-1·00; p=0·053). However, the assessment of the proportional hazards assumption showed that it was violated (p=0·0031). A piecewise hazard model showed that the HR changed over time: the HR for 0-5 months was 1·46 (95% CI 1·10-1·95), for 5-12 months was 0·65 (0·50-0·85), and beyond 12 months was 0·60 (0·43-0·86). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were immune-related, occurring in 101 (26%) patients in the ipilimumab group and 11 (3%) of patients in the placebo group. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events included diarrhoea (64 [16%] of 393 patients in the ipilimumab group vs seven [2%] of 396 in the placebo group), fatigue (40 [11%] vs 35 [9%]), anaemia (40 [10%] vs 43 [11%]), and colitis (18 [5%] vs 0). Four (1%) deaths occurred because of toxic effects of the study drug, all in the ipilimumab group.nnnINTERPRETATIONnAlthough there was no significant difference between the ipilimumab group and the placebo group in terms of overall survival in the primary analysis, there were signs of activity with the drug that warrant further investigation.nnnFUNDINGnBristol-Myers Squibb.

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

Summary 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 (SOCu2008+u2008ZA), standard of care plus docetaxel (SOCu2008+u2008Doc), or standard of care with both zoledronic acid and docetaxel (SOCu2008+u2008ZAu2008+u2008Doc). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) was given for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly until 2 years, and docetaxel (75 mg/m2) 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 SOCu2008+u2008ZA (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·79–1·11; p=0·450), 81 months (41 to not reached) for SOCu2008+u2008Doc (0·78, 0·66–0·93; p=0·006), and 76 months (39 to not reached) for SOCu2008+u2008ZAu2008+u2008Doc (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 SOCu2008+u2008ZA, 288 (52%) receiving SOCu2008+u2008Doc, and 269 (52%) receiving SOCu2008+u2008ZAu2008+u2008Doc. 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.

Immediate versus deferred chemotherapy after radical cystectomy in patients with pT3?pT4 or N+ M0 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (EORTC 30994): an intergroup, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUNDnPatients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder have poor survival after cystectomy. The EORTC 30994 trial aimed to compare immediate versus deferred cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy after radical cystectomy in patients with pT3-pT4 or N+ M0 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder.nnnMETHODSnThis intergroup, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial recruited patients from hospitals across Europe and Canada. Eligible patients had histologically proven urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, pT3-pT4 disease or node positive (pN1-3) M0 disease after radical cystectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy, with no evidence of any microscopic residual disease. Within 90 days of cystectomy, patients were centrally randomly assigned (1:1) by minimisation to either immediate adjuvant chemotherapy (four cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin, high-dose methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin [high-dose MVAC], or MVAC) or six cycles of deferred chemotherapy at relapse, with stratification for institution, pT category, and lymph node status according to the number of nodes dissected. Neither patients nor investigators were masked. Overall survival was the primary endpoint; all analyses were by intention to treat. The trial was closed after recruitment of 284 of the planned 660 patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00028756.nnnFINDINGSnFrom April 29, 2002, to Aug 14, 2008, 284 patients were randomly assigned (141 to immediate treatment and 143 to deferred treatment), and followed up until the data cutoff of Aug 21, 2013. After a median follow-up of 7.0 years (IQR 5.2-8.7), 66 (47%) of 141 patients in the immediate treatment group had died compared with 82 (57%) of 143 in the deferred treatment group. No significant improvement in overall survival was noted with immediate treatment when compared with deferred treatment (adjusted HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.56-1.08; p=0.13). Immediate treatment significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with deferred treatment (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.4-0.73, p<0.0001), with 5-year progression-free survival of 47.6% (95% CI 38.8-55.9) in the immediate treatment group and 31.8% (24.2-39.6) in the deferred treatment group. Grade 3-4 myelosuppression was reported in 33 (26%) of 128 patients who received treatment in the immediate chemotherapy group versus 24 (35%) of 68 patients who received treatment in the deferred chemotherapy group, neutropenia occurred in 49 (38%) versus 36 (53%) patients, respectively, and thrombocytopenia in 36 (28%) versus 26 (38%). Two patients died due to toxicity, one in each group.nnnINTERPRETATIONnOur data did not show a significant improvement in overall survival with immediate versus deferred chemotherapy after radical cystectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy for patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. However, the trial is limited in power, and it is possible that some subgroups of patients might still benefit from immediate chemotherapy. An updated individual patient data meta-analysis and biomarker research are needed to further elucidate the potential for survival benefit in subgroups of patients.nnnFUNDINGnLilly, Canadian Cancer Society Research.

Acute toxicity of curative radiotherapy for intermediate- and high-risk localised prostate cancer in the EORTC trial 22991

INTRODUCTIONnThis trial randomly assessed short-term adjuvant hormonal therapy added to radiotherapy (RT) for intermediate- and high-risk (UICC 1997 cT2a or cT1b-c with high PSA or Gleason score) localised prostate cancer. We report acute toxicity (CTCAE v2) assessed weekly during RT in relation to radiation parameters.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnCentres selected the RT dose (70, 74 or 78Gy) and RT technique. Statistical significance is at 0.05.nnnRESULTSnOf 791 patients, 652 received 3D-CRT (70Gy: 195, 74Gy: 376, 78Gy: 81) and 139 received IMRT (74Gy: 28, 78Gy: 111). During RT, grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicities were reported by 7 (0.8%) and 50 (6.3%) patients, respectively. No grade 4 was reported. The risk of grade 2 GI toxicity increased significantly with increasing D50%-rectum (p=0.004) and that of grade 2 GU toxicity correlated only to Dmax-bladder (p=0.051). 3D-RT technique, increasing total dose and V95% >400 cc increased D50% and Dmax. One month after RT, only 14 patients (1.8%) reported grade 3 toxicity. AST did not seem to influence the risk of GU or GI acute toxicity.nnnCONCLUSIONnRT up to 78Gy was well tolerated. Dmax-bladder and D50%-rectum influenced the risk of grade 2 GU toxicity and GI toxicity, respectively. Both were lower with IMRT but remained high for an irradiated RT volume>400 cc for 3D-RT and for a dose of 78Gy. Hormonal treatment did not influence acute toxicity.

Short Androgen Suppression and Radiation Dose Escalation for Intermediate- and High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: Results of EORTC Trial 22991

PURPOSEnUp to 30% of patients who undergo radiation for intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer relapse biochemically within 5 years. We assessed if biochemical disease-free survival (DFS) is improved by adding 6 months of androgen suppression (AS; two injections of every-3-months depot of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist) to primary radiotherapy (RT) for intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnA total of 819 patients staged: (1) cT1b-c, with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥ 10 ng/mL or Gleason ≥ 7, or (2) cT2a (International Union Against Cancer TNM 1997), with no involvement of pelvic lymph nodes and no clinical evidence of metastatic spread, with PSA ≤ 50 ng/mL, were centrally randomized 1:1 to either RT or RT plus AS started on day 1 of RT. Centers opted for one dose (70, 74, or 78 Gy). Biochemical DFS, the primary end point, was defined from entry until PSA relapse (Phoenix criteria) and clinical relapse by imaging or death of any cause. The trial had 80% power to detect hazard ratio (HR), 0.714 by intent-to-treat analysis stratified by dose of RT at the two-sided α = 5%.nnnRESULTSnThe median patient age was 70 years. Among patients, 74.8% were intermediate risk and 24.8% were high risk. In the RT arm, 407 of 409 patients received RT; in the RT plus AS arm, 403 patients received RT plus AS and three patients received RT only. At 7.2 years median follow-up, RT plus AS significantly improved biochemical DFS (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.66; P < .001, with 319 events), as well as clinical progression-free survival (205 events, HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.84; P = .001). In exploratory analysis, no statistically significant interaction between treatment effect and dose of RT could be evidenced (heterogeneity P = .79 and P = .66, for biochemical DFS and progression-free survival, respectively). Overall survival data are not mature yet.nnnCONCLUSIONnSix months of concomitant and adjuvant AS improves biochemical and clinical DFS of intermediate- and high-risk cT1b-c to cT2a (with no involvement of pelvic lymph nodes and no clinical evidence of metastatic spread) prostatic carcinoma, treated by radiation.

A novel case based reasoning approach to radiotherapy planning

Radiotherapy planning is a complex problem which requires both expertise and experience of an oncologist. A case based reasoning (CBR) system is developed to generate dose plans for prostate cancer patients. The proposed approach captures the expertise and experience of oncologists in treating previous patients and recommends a dose in phase I and phase II of the treatment of a new patient considering also the success rate of the treatment. The proposed CBR system employs a modified Dempster-Shafer theory to fuse dose plans suggested by the most similar cases retrieved from the case base. In order to mimic the continuous learning characteristic of oncologists, the weights corresponding to each feature used in the retrieval process are updated automatically each time after generating a treatment plan for a new patient. The efficiency of the proposed methodology has been validated using real data sets collected from the Nottingham University Hospitals NHS, City Hospital Campus, UK. Experiments demonstrated that for most of the patients, the dose plan generated by our approach is coherent with the dose plan suggested by an experienced oncologist. This methodology can assist both new and experienced oncologists in the treatment planning.

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

BACKGROUNDnEverolimus 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).nnnOBJECTIVEnThe 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.nnnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSnPatients with measurable mRCC and VEGF-refractory disease were eligible for this trial.nnnINTERVENTIONnStarting 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.nnnOUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSISnProgression-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.nnnRESULTS AND LIMITATIONSnRecruitment 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).nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe PFS and OS of AZD2014 were inferior to everolimus in this setting despite acceptable AE and PK profiles.nnnPATIENT SUMMARYnThere 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.

Final quality of life and safety data for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with cabazitaxel in the UK Early Access Programme (EAP) (NCT01254279)

To compile the safety profile and quality of life (QoL) data for patients with metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with cabazitaxel in the UK Early Access Programme (UK EAP).

A self-adaptive case-based reasoning system for dose planning in prostate cancer radiotherapy.

PURPOSEnProstate cancer is the most common cancer in the male population. Radiotherapy is often used in the treatment for prostate cancer. In radiotherapy treatment, the oncologist makes a trade-off between the risk and benefit of the radiation, i.e., the task is to deliver a high dose to the prostate cancer cells and minimize side effects of the treatment. The aim of our research is to develop a software system that will assist the oncologist in planning new treatments.nnnMETHODSnA nonlinear case-based reasoning system is developed to capture the expertise and experience of oncologists in treating previous patients. Importance (weights) of different clinical parameters in the dose planning is determined by the oncologist based on their past experience, and is highly subjective. The weights are usually fixed in the system. In this research, the weights are updated automatically each time after generating a treatment plan for a new patient using a group based simulated annealing approach.nnnRESULTSnThe developed approach is analyzed on the real data set collected from the Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, City Hospital Campus, UK. Extensive experiments show that the dose plan suggested by the proposed method is coherent with the dose plan prescribed by an experienced oncologist or even better.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe developed case-based reasoning system enables the use of knowledge and experience gained by the oncologist in treating new patients. This system may play a vital role to assist the oncologist in making a better decision in less computational time; it utilizes the success rate of the previously treated patients and it can also be used in teaching and training processes.

Cabazitaxel for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): Interim safety and quality-of-life (QOL) data from the U.K. early access program (NCT01254279).

44 Background: Cabazitaxel, a tubulin-binding taxane, improved survival in mCRPC in the TROPIC trial. Notable toxicities were neutropenia and diarrhoea. We report interim safety and QOL data from a single arm multicentre open label study providing early access to cabazitaxel in the UK.nnnMETHODSnPatients recruited from 12 centres received cabazitaxel 25mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks and prednisolone 10mg daily. Safety assessments were performed before each cycle. Patients completed the EQ-5D questionnaire and health state visual analogue scale (VAS) at baseline and at alternate cycles. Patients recruited before March 31st 2011 are included in the safety analysis. QOL data collected before July 31st 2011 at baseline (n=62), cycle 2 (n=50) and cycle 4 (n=26) are included.nnnRESULTSnMedian age was 68 years; 24% were aged over 75 years. 93% had bone metastases. 50% had experienced disease progression during or within 3 months of docetaxel and the remaining 50% within 3-6 months. A median of 3 cycles of cabazitaxel were completed with 99% relative dose intensity. 83% continued cabazitaxel at the time of safety analysis. 7 patients stopped before completing the full course, 5 of these were due to disease progression. One treatment related death occurred within 30 days of the last cabazitaxel infusion (2.4%). 85% of patients received granulocyte-colony stimulating factor prophylaxis from cycle 1. The proportion of patients reporting no pain or discomfort increased between baseline, cycle 2 and cycle 4 (22.6% to 38% to 50%). Anxiety and depression, mobility and self-care scores from EQ-5D were stable. Median VAS health state increased from baseline (75%) to cycle 4 (79%).nnnCONCLUSIONSnImprovements in pain control and health states were reported during early stages of cabazitaxel treatment. Other EQ-5D QOL measures were stable. Severe toxicity was rare. Results will be updated from final analysis in late 2011. [Table: see text].