Duration of androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of long-course versus short-course androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence supports androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with primary radiotherapy as initial treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the use and optimal duration of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. METHODS: RADICALS-HD was a randomised controlled trial of ADT duration within the RADICALS protocol. Here, we report on the comparison of short-course versus long-course ADT. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after previous radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to add 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT) or 24 months of ADT (long-course ADT) to radiotherapy, using subcutaneous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (monthly in the short-course ADT group and 3-monthly in the long-course ADT group), daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. The comparison had more than 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 75% to 81% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72). Standard time-to-event analyses were used. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. FINDINGS: Between Jan 30, 2008, and July 7, 2015, 1523 patients (median age 65 years, IQR 60-69) were randomly assigned to receive short-course ADT (n=761) or long-course ADT (n=762) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 138 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 8·9 years (7·0-10·0), 313 metastasis-free survival events were reported overall (174 in the short-course ADT group and 139 in the long-course ADT group; HR 0·773 [95% CI 0·612-0·975]; p=0·029). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 71·9% (95% CI 67·6-75·7) in the short-course ADT group and 78·1% (74·2-81·5) in the long-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 105 (14%) of 753 participants in the short-course ADT group and 142 (19%) of 757 participants in the long-course ADT group (p=0·025), with no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Compared with adding 6 months of ADT, adding 24 months of ADT improved metastasis-free survival in people receiving postoperative radiotherapy. For individuals who can accept the additional duration of adverse effects, long-course ADT should be offered with postoperative radiotherapy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society.

MAVMET trial: maraviroc and/or metformin for metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease(MAFLD) in adults with suppressed HIV.

OBJECTIVE: Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) is over-represented in people living with HIV (PLWH). Maraviroc (MVC) and/or metformin (MET) may reduce MAFLD by influencing inflammatory pathways and fatty acid metabolism. DESIGN: Open-label, 48-week randomised trial with a 2x2 factorial design. SETTING: Multicentre HIV clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Nondiabetic, virologically-suppressed PLWH, aged ≥35 years, with confirmed/suspected MAFLD (≥1 biochemical/anthropometric/radiological/histological features). INTERVENTION: Adjunctive MVC; MET; MVC+MET vs. antiretroviral therapy (ART) alone. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Change in liver fat fraction (LFF) between baseline and week-48 using Magnetic Resonance Proton Density Fat Fraction (MR PDFF). RESULTS: Six sites enrolled 90 participants (93% male; 81% white; median age 52 [interquartile range, IQR 47-57] years) between 19-Mar-2018 and 11-November-2019. 70% had imaging/biopsy plus ≥1 MAFLD criteria. The analysis included 82/90 with week-0 and -48 scans. Median baseline MR PDFF was 8.9 (4.6-17.1); 40%, 38%, 8%, and 14% had grade zero, one, two, and three steatosis respectively. Mean LFF increased slightly between baseline and follow-up scans: 2.22% MVC, 1.26% MET, 0.81% MVC+MET, and 1.39% ART alone. Prolonged intervention exposure (delayed week-48 scans) exhibited greater increases in MR PDFF (estimated difference 4.23% [95% CI 2.97, 5.48], P  < 0.001). There were no differences in predicted change for any intervention compared to ART alone: MVC (-0.42% [95% CI -1.53-0.68, P  = 0.45]), MET (-0.62 [-1.81-0.56, P  = 0.30]), and MVC+MET (-1.04 [-2.74-0.65, P  = 0.23]). Steatosis grade remained unchanged in 55% and increased in 24%. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline levels of liver fat were lower than predicted. Contrary to our hypothesis, neither MVC, MET, or the combination significantly reduced MR PDFF compared to ART alone.

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.

Changing platforms without stopping the train: experiences of data management and data management systems when adapting platform protocols by adding and closing comparisons.

BACKGROUND: There is limited research and literature on the data management challenges encountered in multi-arm, multi-stage platform and umbrella protocols. These trial designs allow both (1) seamless addition of new research comparisons and (2) early stopping of accrual to individual comparisons that do not show sufficient activity. FOCUS4 (colorectal cancer) and STAMPEDE (prostate cancer), run from the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) at UCL, are two leading UK examples of clinical trials implementing adaptive platform protocol designs. To date, STAMPEDE has added five new research comparisons, closed two research comparisons following pre-planned interim analysis (lack of benefit), adapted the control arm following results from STAMPEDE and other relevant trials, and completed recruitment to six research comparisons. FOCUS4 has closed one research comparison following pre-planned interim analysis (lack of benefit) and added one new research comparison, with a number of further comparisons in the pipeline. We share our experiences from the operational aspects of running these adaptive trials, focusing on data management. METHODS: We held discussion groups with STAMPEDE and FOCUS4 CTU data management staff to identify data management challenges specific to adaptive platform protocols. We collated data on a number of case report form (CRF) changes, database amendments and database growth since each trial began. DISCUSSION: We found similar adaptive protocol-specific challenges in both trials. Adding comparisons to and removing them from open trials provides extra layers of complexity to CRF and database development. At the start of an adaptive trial, CRFs and databases must be designed to be flexible and scalable in order to cope with the continuous changes, ensuring future data requirements are considered where possible. When adding or stopping a comparison, the challenge is to incorporate new data requirements while ensuring data collection within ongoing comparisons is unaffected. Some changes may apply to all comparisons; others may be comparison-specific or applicable only to patients recruited during a specific time period. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches to CRF and database design we implemented in these trials, particularly in relation to use and maintenance of generic versus comparison-specific CRFs and databases. The work required to add or remove a comparison, including the development and testing of changes, updating of documentation, and training of sites, must be undertaken alongside data management of ongoing comparisons. Adequate resource is required for these competing data management tasks, especially in trials with long follow-up. A plan is needed for regular and pre-analysis data cleaning for multiple comparisons that could recruit at different rates and periods of time. Data-cleaning activities may need to be split and prioritised, especially if analyses for different comparisons overlap in time. CONCLUSIONS: Adaptive trials offer an efficient model to run randomised controlled trials, but setting up and conducting the data management activities in these trials can be operationally challenging. Trialists and funders must plan for scalability in data collection and the resource required to cope with additional competing data management tasks.

Sharing data from clinical trials: the rationale for a controlled access approach.

BACKGROUND: The move towards increased transparency around clinical trials is welcome. Much focus has been on under-reporting of trials and access to individual patient data to allow independent verification of findings. There are many other good reasons for data sharing from clinical trials. We describe some key issues in data sharing, including the challenges of open access to data. These include issues in consent and disclosure; risks in identification, including self-identification; risks in distorting data to prevent self-identification; and risks in analysis. These risks have led us to develop a controlled access policy, which safeguards the rights of patients entered in our trials, guards the intellectual property rights of the original researchers who designed the trial and collected the data, provides a barrier against unnecessary duplication, and ensures that researchers have the necessary resources and skills to analyse the data. METHODS: We briefly discuss the practicalities of our current approach to data sharing, including ensuring that data are discoverable and how to deal with old studies. We describe data sharing activities at the MRC Clinical Trials Unit. RESULTS: One hundred and three data sharing activities were logged from 2012 to 2014 from external and internal applicants. The motivations are varied, but none have been for replication of the primary results. CONCLUSIONS: For any request to share data, we note the important role of independent reviewers as well as reviewers who know the study well, and present some of the key questions that all reviewers should ask when deciding whether a request is reasonable. We consider the responsibilities of all parties. We highlight the potential for opportunity costs. Clinical trial data should be shared for reasonable requests but there are many practical issues that must be explicitly considered.

The potential for central monitoring techniques to replace on-site monitoring: findings from an international multi-centre clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Compliance with Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines should ensure the safety of trial participants and the reliability of trial results. Over the last decade, increasing emphasis has been placed on the role of costly on-site monitoring and source data verification as processes to demonstrate that GCP is being followed, despite a lack of empirical evidence that these are effective. PURPOSE: To assess whether findings from on-site monitoring of a recent international multi-centre clinical trial could have been identified using central data review and other centralised monitoring techniques. METHODS: Findings documented in a sample of site monitoring reports, and Programme Management Board Executive (PMBe) reports, from the Microbicides Development Programme (MDP) 301 trial - a randomised placebo-controlled trial of a microbicide gel to prevent vaginally acquired HIV infection conducted in four countries in East and Southern Africa - were extracted and individually assessed to determine whether they could have been detected in the trial database or through other central means. RESULTS: Four site visit reports contained 268 monitoring findings from a review of 104 participant files covering 324 study visits. Of the 268 findings, 76 (28.4%) were also identified in the study database. Central checks, had these been in place (such as central receipt and review of back-translated documents, enrolment and testing logs, informed consent, and more complex database queries), could have identified a further 179 (66.8%); 13 (4.9%) other findings (all minor) could have been identified through a review of the participant folder at site. The four PMBe reports reviewed included six major and three critical findings from a review of over 1000 participant files: only two of these (both major) were assessed as unlikely to be identified using central monitoring techniques. LIMITATIONS: The study data used were not collected with this retrospective review in mind. It suggests that prospective work is needed to compare monitoring practices in real time. CONCLUSIONS: While there may be some categories of findings that it is not possible to identify centrally, the very large majority of findings reviewed in this analysis could be identified using central monitoring strategies. These data suggest that with better central and targeted on-site monitoring, it should be possible to identify and address most protocol and procedural compliance issues without performing intensive and costly routine on-site data monitoring.