Capivasertib in combination with enzalutamide for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer after docetaxel and abiraterone: Results from the randomized phase II RE-AKT trial.

BACKGROUND: PTEN loss and aberrations in PI3K/AKT signaling kinases associate with poorer response to abiraterone acetate (AA) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). In this study, we assessed antitumor activity of the AKT inhibitor capivasertib combined with enzalutamide in mCRPC with prior progression on AA and docetaxel. METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase 2 trial, recruited men ≥ 18 years with progressing mCRPC and performance status 0-2 from 15 UK centers. Randomized participants (1:1) received enzalutamide (160 mg orally, once daily) with capivasertib (400 mg)/ placebo orally, twice daily on an intermittent (4 days on, 3 days off) schedule. Primary endpoint was composite response rate (RR): RECIST 1.1 objective response, ≥ 50 % PSA decrease from baseline, or circulating tumor cell count conversion (from ≥ 5 at baseline to < 5 cells/7.5 mL). Subgroup analyses by PTENIHC status were pre-planned. RESULTS: Overall, 100 participants were randomized (50:50); 95 were evaluable for primary endpoint (47:48); median follow-up was 43 months. RR were 9/47 (19.1 %) enzalutamide/capivasertib and 9/48 (18.8 %) enzalutamide/placebo (absolute difference 0.4 % 90 %CI -12.8 to 13.6, p = 0.58), with similar results in the PTENIHC loss subgroup. Irrespective of treatment, OS was significantly worse for PTENIHC loss (10.1 months [95 %CI: 4.6-13.9] vs 14.8 months [95 %CI: 10.8-18]; p = 0.02). Most common treatment-emergent grade ≥ 3 adverse events for the combination were diarrhea (13 % vs 2 %) and fatigue (10 % vs 6 %). CONCLUSIONS: Combined capivasertib/enzalutamide was well tolerated but didn't significantly improve outcomes from abiraterone pre-treated mCRPC.

Improved Disease-Free Survival With Adjuvant Chemotherapy After Nephroureterectomy for Upper Tract Urothelial Cancer: Final Results of the POUT Trial.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.POUT was a phase III, randomized, open-label trial, including 261 patients with muscle-invasive or lymph node-positive, nonmetastatic upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC) randomly assigned after radical nephroureterectomy to platinum-based chemotherapy (132) or surveillance (129). Primary outcome analysis demonstrated that chemotherapy improved disease-free survival (DFS). At that time, the planned secondary outcome analysis of overall survival (OS) was immature. By February 2022, 50 and 67 DFS events had occurred in the chemotherapy and surveillance groups, respectively, at a median follow-up of 65 months. The 5-year DFS was 62% versus 45%, univariable hazard ratio (HR), 0.55 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.80, P = .001). The restricted mean survival time (RMST) was 18 months longer (95% CI, 6 to 30) in the chemotherapy arm. There were 46 and 60 deaths in the chemotherapy and control arms, respectively. The 5-year OS was 66% versus 57%, with univariable HR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.46 to 1.00, P = .049) and RMST difference 11 months (95% CI, 1 to 21). Treatment effects were consistent across chemotherapy regimens (carboplatin or cisplatin) and disease stage. Toxicities were similar to those previously reported, and there were no clinically relevant differences in quality of life between arms. In summary, although OS was not the primary outcome measure, the updated results add further support for the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with UTUC, suggesting long-term benefits.

Systemic anticancer therapy for urothelial carcinoma: UK oncologists' perspective.

Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is a common cancer associated with a poor prognosis in patients with advanced disease. Platinum-based chemotherapy has remained the cornerstone of systemic anticancer treatment for many years, and recent developments in the treatment landscape have improved outcomes. In this review, we provide an overview of systemic treatment for UC, including clinical data supporting the current standard of care at each point in the treatment pathway and author interpretations from a UK perspective. Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy is recommended for eligible patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer and is preferable to adjuvant treatment. For first-line treatment of advanced UC, platinum-eligible patients should receive cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy, followed by avelumab maintenance in those without disease progression. Among patients unable to receive platinum-based chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment is an option for those with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumours. Second-line or later treatment options depend on prior treatment, and enfortumab vedotin is preferred after prior ICI and chemotherapy, although availability varies between countries. Additional options include rechallenge with platinum-based chemotherapy, an ICI, or non-platinum-based chemotherapy. Areas of uncertainty include the optimal number of first-line chemotherapy cycles for advanced UC and the value of PD-L1 testing for UC.

Evaluating atezolizumab in patients with urinary tract squamous cell carcinoma (AURORA): study protocol for a single arm, open-label, multicentre, phase II clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Bladder and urinary tract cancers account for approximately 21,000 new diagnoses and 5,000 deaths annually in the UK. Approximately 90% are transitional cell carcinomas where advanced disease is treated with platinum based chemotherapy and PD-1/PD-L1 directed immunotherapy. Urinary tract squamous cell carcinoma (UTSCC) accounts for about 5% of urinary tract cancers overall making this a rare disease. We have yet to establish definitive systemic treatment options for advanced UTSCC. Preliminary translational data, from UTSCC patient tumour samples, indicate high PD-L1 expression and tumour infiltrating lymphocytes in a proportion of cases. Both of these features are associated with differential gene expression consistent with a tumour/immune microenvironment predicted to be susceptible to immune checkpoint directed immunotherapy which we will evaluate in the AURORA trial. METHODS: AURORA is a single arm, open-label, multicentre,UK phase II clinical trial. 33 patients will be recruited from UK secondary care sites. Patients with UTSCC, suitable for treatment with palliative intent, will receive atezolizumab PD-L1 directed immunotherapy (IV infusion, 1680 mg, every 28 days) for one year if tolerated. Response assessment, by cross sectional imaging will occur every 12 weeks. AURORA uses a Simon's 2-stage optimal design with best overall objective response rate (ORR, by RECIST v1.1) at a minimum of 12 weeks from commencing treatment as the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints will include overall survival, progression-free survival, duration of response, magnitude of response using waterfall plots of target lesion measurements, quality of life using the EORTC QLQ-C30 tool, safety and tolerability (CTCAE v5) and evaluation of potential biomarkers of treatment response including PD-L1 expression. Archival tumour samples and blood samples will be collected for translational analyses. DISCUSSION: If this trial shows atezolizumab to be safe and effective it may lead to a future late phase randomised controlled trial in UTSCC. Ultimately, we hope to provide a new option for treatment for such patients. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: EudraCT Number: 2021-001995-32 (issued 8th September 2021); ISRCTN83474167 (registered 11 May 2022); NCT05038657 (issued 9th September 2021).

Bladder-Sparing Treatment With Radical Dose Radiotherapy Is an Effective Alternative to Radical Cystectomy in Patients With Clinically Node-Positive Nonmetastatic Bladder Cancer.

PURPOSE: Bladder-sparing trimodal therapy (TMT) is an alternative to radical cystectomy (RC) according to international guidelines. However, there are limited data to guide management of nonmetastatic clinically node-positive bladder cancer (cN+ M0 BCa). We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis of survival outcomes in node-positive patients to inform practice. METHODS: Data from patients diagnosed with cN+ M0 BCa were collected from participating UK Oncology centers offering both TMT and RC. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes were collected with details of treatment and clinical factors. RESULTS: A total of 287 patients with cN+ M0 BCa were included in the survival analysis. Median OS across all patients was 1.55 years (95% CI, 1.35 to 1.82 years). Receiving radical treatments was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.32; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.44; P < .001) compared with receiving palliative treatment. Radically treated patients (n = 163) received RC (n = 76) or radical dose radiotherapy (RT, n = 87); choice of radical treatment showed no association with OS (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.41; P = .76) or PFS (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.08; P = .12) on multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: Patient cohorts with cN+ M0 BCa had equivalent survival outcomes whether treated with surgery or radical RT. Given the known morbidities of RC-in a patient group with poor survival-this study confirms that bladder-sparing TMT treatment should be a treatment option available to all patients with cN+ M0 BCa.

Definition and Diagnosis of Oligometastatic Bladder Cancer: A Delphi Consensus Study Endorsed by the European Association of Urology, European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology, and European Society of Medical Oncology Genitourinary Faculty.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to other cancers, the concept of oligometastatic disease (OMD) has not been investigated in bladder cancer (BC). OBJECTIVE: To develop an acceptable definition, classification, and staging recommendations for oligometastatic BC (OMBC) spanning the issues of patient selection and the roles of systemic therapy and ablative local therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A European consensus group of 29 experts, led by the European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and including members from all other relevant European societies, was established. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: A modified Delphi method was used. A systematic review was used to build consensus questions. Consensus statements were extracted from two consecutive surveys. The statements were formulated during two consensus meetings. Agreement levels were measured to determine if consensus was achieved (≥75% agreement). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The first survey included 14 questions and the second survey had 12. Owing to a considerable lack of evidence, which was the major limitation, definition was limited in the context of de novo OMBC, which was further classified as synchronous OMD, oligorecurrence, and oligoprogression. A maximum of three metastatic sites, all resectable or amenable to stereotactic therapy, was proposed as the definition of OMBC. Pelvic lymph nodes represented the only "organ" not included in the definition of OMBC. For staging, no consensus on the role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography was reached. A favourable response to systemic treatment was proposed as the criterion for selection of patients for metastasis-directed therapy. CONCLUSIONS: A consensus statement on the definition and staging of OMBC has been formulated. This statement will help to standardise inclusion criteria in future trials, potentiate research on aspects of OMBC for which consensus was not achieved, and hopefully will lead to the development of guidelines on optimal management of OMBC. PATIENT SUMMARY: As an intermediate state between localised cancer and disease with extensive metastasis, oligometastatic bladder cancer (OMBC) might benefit from a combination of systemic treatment and local therapy. We report the first consensus statements on OMBC drawn up by an international expert group. These statements can provide a basis for standardisation of future research, which will lead to high-quality evidence in the field.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for patients with metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: final results from two randomised phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (herein referred to as abiraterone) or enzalutamide added at the start of androgen deprivation therapy improves outcomes for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes and test whether combining enzalutamide with abiraterone and androgen deprivation therapy improves survival. METHODS: We analysed two open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol, with no overlapping controls, conducted at 117 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restriction) had metastatic, histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; a WHO performance status of 0-2; and adequate haematological, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computerised algorithm and a minimisation technique to either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy; docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously for six cycles with prednisolone 10 mg orally once per day allowed from Dec 17, 2015) or standard of care plus abiraterone acetate 1000 mg and prednisolone 5 mg (in the abiraterone trial) orally or abiraterone acetate and prednisolone plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once a day (in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial). Patients were stratified by centre, age, WHO performance status, type of androgen deprivation therapy, use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pelvic nodal status, planned radiotherapy, and planned docetaxel use. The primary outcome was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started treatment. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of individual patient data was used to compare differences in survival between the two trials. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN78818544). FINDINGS: Between Nov 15, 2011, and Jan 17, 2014, 1003 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=502) or standard of care plus abiraterone (n=501) in the abiraterone trial. Between July 29, 2014, and March 31, 2016, 916 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=454) or standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide (n=462) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. Median follow-up was 96 months (IQR 86-107) in the abiraterone trial and 72 months (61-74) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. In the abiraterone trial, median overall survival was 76·6 months (95% CI 67·8-86·9) in the abiraterone group versus 45·7 months (41·6-52·0) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·53-0·73]; p<0·0001). In the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, median overall survival was 73·1 months (61·9-81·3) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide group versus 51·8 months (45·3-59·0) in the standard of care group (HR 0·65 [0·55-0·77]; p<0·0001). We found no difference in the treatment effect between these two trials (interaction HR 1·05 [0·83-1·32]; pinteraction=0·71) or between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·70). In the first 5 years of treatment, grade 3-5 toxic effects were higher when abiraterone was added to standard of care (271 [54%] of 498 vs 192 [38%] of 502 with standard of care) and the highest toxic effects were seen when abiraterone and enzalutamide were added to standard of care (302 [68%] of 445 vs 204 [45%] of 454 with standard of care). Cardiac causes were the most common cause of death due to adverse events (five [1%] with standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide [two attributed to treatment] and one (<1%) with standard of care in the abiraterone trial). INTERPRETATION: Enzalutamide and abiraterone should not be combined for patients with prostate cancer starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Clinically important improvements in survival from addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy are maintained for longer than 7 years. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.

European Association of Urology Guidelines on Upper Urinary Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: 2023 Update.

CONTEXT: The European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines panel on upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) has updated the guidelines to aid clinicians in evidence-based management of UTUC. OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of the EAU guidelines on UTUC as an aid to clinicians. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The recommendations provided in these guidelines are based on a review of the literature via a systematic search of the PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Data were searched using the following keywords: urinary tract cancer, urothelial carcinomas, renal pelvis, ureter, bladder cancer, chemotherapy, ureteroscopy, nephroureterectomy, neoplasm, (neo)adjuvant treatment, instillation, recurrence, risk factors, metastatic, immunotherapy, and survival. The results were assessed by a panel of experts. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Even though data are accruing, for many areas there is still insufficient high-level evidence to provide strong recommendations. Patient stratification on the basis of histology and clinical examination (including imaging) and assessment of patients at risk of Lynch syndrome will aid management. Kidney-sparing management should be offered as a primary treatment option to patients with low-risk UTUC and two functional kidneys. In particular, for patients with high-risk or metastatic UTUC, new treatment options have become available. In high-risk UTUC, platinum-based chemotherapy after radical nephroureterectomy, and adjuvant nivolumab for unfit or patients who decline chemotherapy, are options. For metastatic disease, gemcitabine/carboplatin chemotherapy is recommended as first-line treatment for cisplatin-ineligible patients. Patients with PD-1/PD-L1-positive tumours should be offered a checkpoint inhibitor (pembrolizumab or atezolizumab). CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines contain information on the management of individual patients according to the current best evidence. Urologists should take into account the specific clinical characteristics of each patient when determining the optimal treatment regimen according to the risk stratification of these tumours. PATIENT SUMMARY: Cancer of the upper urinary tract is rare, but because 60% of these tumours are invasive at diagnosis, timely and appropriate diagnosis is most important. A number of known risk factors exist.

Diagnosis, treatment and survival from bladder, upper urinary tract, and urethral cancers: real-world findings from NHS England between 2013 and 2019.

OBJECTIVE: We report NHS England data for patients with bladder cancer (BC), upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC: renal pelvic and ureteric), and urethral cancers from 2013 to 2019. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Hospital episode statistics, waiting times, and cancer registrations were extracted from NHS Digital. RESULTS: Registrations included 128 823 individuals with BC, 16 018 with UTUC, and 2533 with urethral cancer. In 2019, 150 816 persons were living with a diagnosis of BC, of whom 113 067 (75.0%) were men, 85 117 (56.5%) were aged >75 years, and 95 553 (91.7%) were Caucasian. Incidence rates were stable (32.7-34.3 for BC, 3.9-4.2 for UTUC and 0.6-0.7 for urethral cancer per 100 000 population). Most patients 52 097 (mean [range] 41.3% [40.7-42.0%]) were referred outside the 2-week-wait pathway and 15 340 (mean [range] 12.2% [11.7-12.6%]) presented as emergencies. Surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or multimodal treatment use varied with disease stage, patient factors and Cancer Alliance. Between 27% and 29% (n = 6616) of muscle-invasive BCs did not receive radical treatment. Survival rates reflected stage, grade, location, and tumour histology. Overall survival rates did not improve over time (relative change: 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.97-0.97) at 2 years in contrast to other cancers. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic pathway for BC needs improvement. Increases in survival might be delivered through greater use of radical treatment. NHS Digital data offers a population-wide picture of this disease but does not allow individual outcomes to be matched with disease or patient features and key parameters can be missing or incomplete.

Bladder Preservation for Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer With Variant Histology.

A growing body of evidence has shown bladder-preservation with chemo-radiotherapy achieves comparable survival to Radical Cystectomy (5-year OS 50%-70%) and superior quality of life outcomes for patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UC). However, up to 55% of patients harbor variant histology and in this review we aim to clarify the role of bladder-preservation for this group. We first draw the distinction between urothelial carcinoma with divergent differentiation (UCDD) and non-urothelial carcinoma (NUC). UCDD is common, increasing in prevalence, and whilst each subtype may have its own characteristics current evidence suggests comparable outcomes with radical cystectomy and bladder-preservation. Non-urothelial carcinoma is a collection of distinct pathologies each deserving of its own management strategy. However, these tumors are rare, and evidence is generated from retrospective studies with significant inherent bias. Small cell carcinoma of the bladder has good evidence for bladder-preservation; however, other pathologies such as Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Adenocarcinoma are not well supported. We recommend careful multidisciplinary appraisal of the evidence for each subtype and honest patient discussion about the limited evidence before reaching management decisions. As we look to the future molecular-profiling may help better characterize these tumors and aid in treatment selection.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Biomarker-Selected, Phase II Clinical Trial of Maintenance Poly ADP-Ribose Polymerase Inhibition With Rucaparib Following Chemotherapy for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: A DNA repair deficiency (DRD) phenotype exists within a subset of metastatic urothelial carcinomas (mUC) predicting benefit from platinum-based chemotherapy. We tested switch maintenance therapy with the poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor rucaparib, following chemotherapy, for DRD biomarker-positive mUC. METHODS: DRD biomarker-positive mUC patients, within 10 weeks of chemotherapy, and without cancer progression, were randomly assigned (1:1) to maintenance rucaparib 600 mg twice a day orally, or placebo, until disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Statistical analysis targeted a hazard ratio of 0.5 with a 20% one-sided α for this signal-seeking trial. PFS (RECIST 1.1) was compared between trial arms, by intention to treat, within a Cox model. RESULTS: Out of 248 patients, 74 (29.8%) were DRD biomarker-positive and 40 were randomly assigned. A total of 12 (60%) and 20 (100%) PFS events occurred in the rucaparib and placebo arms, respectively (median follow-up was 94.6 weeks in those still alive). Median PFS was 35.3 weeks (80% CI, 11.7 to 35.6) with rucaparib and 15.1 weeks (80% CI, 11.9 to 22.6) with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.53; 80% CI, 0.30 to 0.92; one-sided P = .07). In the safety population (n = 39) treatment-related adverse events were mostly low grade. Patients received a median duration of 10 rucaparib or six placebo cycles on treatment. Treatment-related adverse events (all grades) of fatigue (63.2% v 30.0%), nausea (36.8% v 5.0%), rash (21.1% v 0%), and raised alanine aminotransferase (57.9% v 10%) were more common with rucaparib. CONCLUSION: Maintenance rucaparib, following platinum-based chemotherapy, extended PFS in DRD biomarker-selected patients with mUC and was tolerable. Further investigation of poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibition in selected patients with mUC is warranted.

Docetaxel for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Survival Outcomes in the STAMPEDE Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: STAMPEDE previously reported adding upfront docetaxel improved overall survival for prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report long-term results for non-metastatic patients using, as primary outcome, metastatic progression-free survival (mPFS), an externally demonstrated surrogate for overall survival. METHODS: Standard of care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy with or without radical prostate radiotherapy. A total of 460 SOC and 230 SOC plus docetaxel were randomly assigned 2:1. Standard survival methods and intention to treat were used. Treatment effect estimates were summarized from adjusted Cox regression models, switching to restricted mean survival time if non-proportional hazards. mPFS (new metastases, skeletal-related events, or prostate cancer death) had 70% power (α = 0.05) for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.70. Secondary outcome measures included overall survival, failure-free survival (FFS), and progression-free survival (PFS: mPFS, locoregional progression). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 6.5 years with 142 mPFS events on SOC (3 year and 54% increases over previous report). There was no good evidence of an advantage to SOC plus docetaxel on mPFS (HR = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 1.19; P = .43); with 5-year mPFS 82% (95% CI = 78% to 87%) SOC plus docetaxel vs 77% (95% CI = 73% to 81%) SOC. Secondary outcomes showed evidence SOC plus docetaxel improved FFS (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.88; P = .002) and PFS (nonproportional P = .03, restricted mean survival time difference = 5.8 months, 95% CI = 0.5 to 11.2; P = .03) but no good evidence of overall survival benefit (125 SOC deaths; HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.21; P = .44). There was no evidence SOC plus docetaxel increased late toxicity: post 1 year, 29% SOC and 30% SOC plus docetaxel grade 3-5 toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: There is robust evidence that SOC plus docetaxel improved FFS and PFS (previously shown to increase quality-adjusted life-years), without excess late toxicity, which did not translate into benefit for longer-term outcomes. This may influence patient management in individual cases.

Overall Survival Update for Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Treated with Capivasertib and Docetaxel in the Phase 2 ProCAID Clinical Trial.

The PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway is frequently deregulated in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). ProCAID was a phase 2 trial assessing addition of the AKT1/2/3 inhibitor capivasertib to docetaxel for patients with mCRPC. We previously reported that capivasertib did not extend a composite progression-free survival primary endpoint but did significantly improve the secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS). Here we present OS data after 66% of events had occurred in the intent-to-treat population (n = 150). Median OS was 25.3 mo for capivasertib plus docetaxel versus 20.3 mo for placebo plus docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-1.05; nominal p = 0.09). Receipt of subsequent life-extending treatments was balanced between the treatment arms. The OS benefit associated with capivasertib was maintained in a subset of patients previously treated with abiraterone and/or enzalutamide (median OS 25.0 vs 17.6 mo; HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36-0.91; nominal p = 0.02) but not in abiraterone/enzalutamide-naïve patients (median OS 31.1 mo vs not reached; HR 1.43, 95% CI 0.63-3.23). We conclude that OS may be extended by addition of capivasertib to docetaxel. Exploratory analysis revealed that the OS benefit was maintained in a subset of patients previously exposed to androgen receptor-targeted agents, which should be evaluated in prospective trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The ProCAID study examined whether adding the AKT inhibitor drug capivasertib to docetaxel chemotherapy improves outcomes for patients with advanced prostate cancer. Initial analysis of the ProCAID results suggested that capivasertib improved overall survival benefit. This follow-up analysis suggests that capivasertib addition may be particularly beneficial for patients whose cancer was previously treated with drugs that target the androgen receptor.

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.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone for metastatic patients starting hormone therapy: 5-year follow-up results from the STAMPEDE randomised trial (NCT00268476).

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (AAP) previously demonstrated improved survival in STAMPEDE, a multiarm, multistage platform trial in men starting long-term hormone therapy for prostate cancer. This long-term analysis in metastatic patients was planned for 3 years after the first results. Standard-of-care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy. The comparison randomised patients 1:1 to SOC-alone with or without daily abiraterone acetate 1000 mg + prednisolone 5 mg (SOC + AAP), continued until disease progression. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Metastatic disease risk group was classified retrospectively using baseline CT and bone scans by central radiological review and pathology reports. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, accounting for baseline stratification factors. One thousand and three patients were contemporaneously randomised (November 2011 to January 2014): median age 67 years; 94% newly-diagnosed; metastatic disease risk group: 48% high, 44% low, 8% unassessable; median PSA 97 ng/mL. At 6.1 years median follow-up, 329 SOC-alone deaths (118 low-risk, 178 high-risk) and 244 SOC + AAP deaths (75 low-risk, 145 high-risk) were reported. Adjusted HR = 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50-0.71; P = 0.31 × 10-9 ) favoured SOC + AAP, with 5-years survival improved from 41% SOC-alone to 60% SOC + AAP. This was similar in low-risk (HR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41-0.76) and high-risk (HR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.43-0.69) patients. Median and current maximum time on SOC + AAP was 2.4 and 8.1 years. Toxicity at 4 years postrandomisation was similar, with 16% patients in each group reporting grade 3 or higher toxicity. A sustained and substantial improvement in overall survival of all metastatic prostate cancer patients was achieved with SOC + abiraterone acetate + prednisolone, irrespective of metastatic disease risk group.

Addition of nintedanib or placebo to neoadjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin in locally advanced muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NEOBLADE): a double-blind, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence is common after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. We investigated the effect of adding nintedanib to neoadjuvant chemotherapy on response and survival in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. METHODS: NEOBLADE was a parallel-arm, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial of neoadjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy with nintedanib or placebo in locally advanced muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, were recruited from 15 hospitals in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to nintedanib or placebo using permuted blocks with random block sizes of two or four, stratified by centre and glomerular filtration rate. Treatments were allocated using an interactive web-based system, and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation throughout the study. Patients received oral nintedanib (150 mg or 200 mg twice daily for 12 weeks) or placebo, in addition to usual neoadjuvant chemotherapy with intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and intravenous cisplatin 70 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 3-weekly cycle. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response rate, assessed at cystectomy or at day 8 of cyclde 3 (plus or minus 7 days) if cystectomy did not occur. Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with EudraCT, 2012-004895-01, and ISRCTN, 56349930, and has completed planned recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Dec 4, 2014, and Sept 3, 2018, 120 patients were recruited and were randomly allocated to receive nintedanib (n=57) or placebo (n=63). The median follow-up for the study was 33·5 months (IQR 14·0-44·0). Pathological complete response in the intention-to-treat population was reached in 21 (37%) of 57 patients in the nintedanib group and 20 (32%) of 63 in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR] 1·25, 70% CI 0·84-1·87; p=0·28). Grade 3 or worse toxicities were observed in 53 (93%) of 57 participants who received nintedanib and 50 (79%) of 63 patients in the placebo group (OR 1·65, 95% CI 0·74-3·65; p=0·24). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were thromboembolic events (17 [30%] of 57 patients in the nintedanib group vs 13 [21%] of 63 patients in the placebo group [OR 1·63, 95% CI 0·71-3·76; p=0·29]) and decreased neutrophil count (22 [39%] in the nintedanib group vs seven [11%] in the placebo group [5·03, 1·95-13·00; p=0·0006]). 45 treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in the nintedanib group and 43 occurred in the placebo group. One treatment-related death occurred in the placebo group, which was due to myocardial infarction. INTERPRETATION: The addition of nintedanib to chemotherapy was safe but did not improve the rate of pathological complete response in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

A systematic review of disease related stigmatization in patients living with prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer has been shown to be susceptible to significant stigmatisation, because to a large extent it is concealable, it has potentially embarrassing sexual symptoms and has significant impact on the psychosocial functioning. METHODS: This review included studies that focused on qualitative and/or quantitative data, where the study outcome was prostate cancer and included a measure of stigmatization. Electronic databases (CINAHL, Medline, PubMed, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, and the Joanna Briggs Institute) and one database for grey literature Opengrey.eu, were screened. We used thematic analysis, with narrative synthesis to analyse these data. We assessed risk of bias in the included studies using the RoBANS. RESULTS: In total, 18 studies met review inclusion criteria, incorporating a total of 2295 participants. All studies recruited participants with prostate cancer, however four studies recruited participants with other cancers such as breast cancer and lung cancer. Of the 18 studies, 11 studies evaluated perceived or felt stigma; four studies evaluated internalised or self-stigma; three studies evaluated more than one stigma domain. DISCUSSION: We found that patients living with prostate cancer encounter stigmatisation that relate to perception, internalisation, and discrimination experiences. We also identified several significant gaps related to the understanding of prostate cancer stigmatization, which provides an opportunity for future research to address these important public health issues. REGISTRATION: This systematic review protocol is registered with PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews in health and social care. Registration number: CRD42020177312.

Nonrandomized Comparison of Efficacy and Side Effects of Bicalutamide Compared With Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone (LHRH) Analogs in Combination With Radiation Therapy in the CHHiP Trial.

PURPOSE: CHHiP is a randomized trial evaluating moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy for treatment of localized prostate cancer. Of all participants, 97% of them had concurrent short-course hormone therapy (HT), either luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone analog (LHRHa) or 150 mg of bicalutamide daily. This exploratory analysis compares efficacy and side effects in a nonrandomized comparison. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In our study, 2700 patients received LHRHa and 403 received bicalutamide. The primary endpoint was biochemical/clinical failure. Groups were compared with Cox regression adjusted for various prognostic factors and stratified by radiation therapy dose. A key secondary endpoint was erectile dysfunction (ED) assessed by clinicians (using scores from Late Effects on Normal Tissues: Subjective/Objective/Management [LENT-SOM] subjective erectile function for vaginal penetration) and patients (single items within the University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index [UCLA PCI] and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite [EPIC]-50 questionnaires) at 2 years and compared between HT regimens by χ2 trend test. RESULTS: Bicalutamide patients were significantly younger (median 67 vs 69 years LHRHa). Median follow-up was 9.3 years. There was no difference in biochemical or clinical failure with an adjusted hazard ratio or 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.23; P = .8). At 2 years, grade ≥2 LENT-SOM ED was reported in significantly more LHRHa patients (313 out of 590; 53%) versus bicalutamide (17 out of 68; 25%) (P < .0001). There were no differences in ED seen with UCLA-PCI and EPIC-50 questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: In this nonrandomized comparison, there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy according to type of HT received. Bicalutamide preserved clinician assessed (LENT-SOM) erectile function at 2 years but patient-reported outcomes were similar between groups.