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.

Comparative Analysis of Small-Molecule LIMK1/2 Inhibitors: Chemical Synthesis, Biochemistry, and Cellular Activity.

LIM domain kinases 1 and 2 (LIMK1 and LIMK2) regulate actin dynamics and subsequently key cellular functions such as proliferation and migration. LIMK1 and LIMK2 phosphorylate and inactivate cofilin leading to increased actin polymerization. As a result, LIMK inhibitors are emerging as a promising treatment strategy for certain cancers and neurological disorders. High-quality chemical probes are required if the role of these kinases in health and disease is to be understood. To that end, we report the results of a comparative assessment of 17 reported LIMK1/2 inhibitors in a variety of in vitro enzymatic and cellular assays. Our evaluation has identified three compounds (TH-257, LIJTF500025, and LIMKi3) as potent and selective inhibitors suitable for use as in vitro and in vivo pharmacological tools for the study of LIMK function in cell biology.

Abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of primary results from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol.

BACKGROUND: Men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer are treated with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for 3 years, often combined with radiotherapy. We analysed new data from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials done in a multiarm, multistage platform protocol to assess the efficacy of adding abiraterone and prednisolone alone or with enzalutamide to ADT in this patient population. METHODS: These open-label, phase 3 trials were done at 113 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restrictions) had high-risk (defined as node positive or, if node negative, having at least two of the following: tumour stage T3 or T4, Gleason sum score of 8-10, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] concentration ≥40 ng/mL) or relapsing with high-risk features (≤12 months of total ADT with an interval of ≥12 months without treatment and PSA concentration ≥4 ng/mL with a doubling time of <6 months, or a PSA concentration ≥20 ng/mL, or nodal relapse) non-metastatic prostate cancer, and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Local radiotherapy (as per local guidelines, 74 Gy in 37 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles or the equivalent using hypofractionated schedules) was mandated for node negative and encouraged for node positive disease. In both trials, patients were randomly assigned (1:1), by use of a computerised algorithm, to ADT alone (control group), which could include surgery and luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists, or with oral abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and oral prednisolone (5 mg daily; combination-therapy group). In the second trial with no overlapping controls, the combination-therapy group also received enzalutamide (160 mg daily orally). ADT was given for 3 years and combination therapy for 2 years, except if local radiotherapy was omitted when treatment could be delivered until progression. In this primary analysis, we used meta-analysis methods to pool events from both trials. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was metastasis-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, biochemical failure-free survival, progression-free survival, and toxicity and adverse events. For 90% power and a one-sided type 1 error rate set to 1·25% to detect a target hazard ratio for improvement in metastasis-free survival of 0·75, approximately 315 metastasis-free survival events in the control groups was required. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety according to the treatment started within randomised allocation. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00268476, and with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN78818544. FINDINGS: Between Nov 15, 2011, and March 31, 2016, 1974 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The first trial allocated 455 to the control group and 459 to combination therapy, and the second trial, which included enzalutamide, allocated 533 to the control group and 527 to combination therapy. Median age across all groups was 68 years (IQR 63-73) and median PSA 34 ng/ml (14·7-47); 774 (39%) of 1974 patients were node positive, and 1684 (85%) were planned to receive radiotherapy. With median follow-up of 72 months (60-84), there were 180 metastasis-free survival events in the combination-therapy groups and 306 in the control groups. Metastasis-free survival was significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups (median not reached, IQR not evaluable [NE]-NE) than in the control groups (not reached, 97-NE; hazard ratio [HR] 0·53, 95% CI 0·44-0·64, p<0·0001). 6-year metastasis-free survival was 82% (95% CI 79-85) in the combination-therapy group and 69% (66-72) in the control group. There was no evidence of a difference in metatasis-free survival when enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate were administered concurrently compared with abiraterone acetate alone (interaction HR 1·02, 0·70-1·50, p=0·91) and no evidence of between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·90). Overall survival (median not reached [IQR NE-NE] in the combination-therapy groups vs not reached [103-NE] in the control groups; HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·48-0·73, p<0·0001), prostate cancer-specific survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [NE-NE]; 0·49, 0·37-0·65, p<0·0001), biochemical failure-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs 86 months [83-NE]; 0·39, 0·33-0·47, p<0·0001), and progression-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [103-NE]; 0·44, 0·36-0·54, p<0·0001) were also significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups than in the control groups. Adverse events grade 3 or higher during the first 24 months were, respectively, reported in 169 (37%) of 451 patients and 130 (29%) of 455 patients in the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone trial, respectively, and 298 (58%) of 513 patients and 172 (32%) of 533 patients of the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, respectively. The two most common events more frequent in the combination-therapy groups were hypertension (abiraterone trial: 23 (5%) in the combination-therapy group and six (1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 73 (14%) and eight (2%), respectively) and alanine transaminitis (abiraterone trial: 25 (6%) in the combination-therapy group and one (<1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 69 (13%) and four (1%), respectively). Seven grade 5 adverse events were reported: none in the control groups, three in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone group (one event each of rectal adenocarcinoma, pulmonary haemorrhage, and a respiratory disorder), and four in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with enzalutamide group (two events each of septic shock and sudden death). INTERPRETATION: Among men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer, combination therapy is associated with significantly higher rates of metastasis-free survival compared with ADT alone. Abiraterone acetate with prednisolone should be considered a new standard treatment for this population. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.

Abiraterone for Prostate Cancer Not Previously Treated with Hormone Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone improves survival in men with relapsed prostate cancer. We assessed the effect of this combination in men starting long-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), using a multigroup, multistage trial design. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive ADT alone or ADT plus abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and prednisolone (5 mg daily) (combination therapy). Local radiotherapy was mandated for patients with node-negative, nonmetastatic disease and encouraged for those with positive nodes. For patients with nonmetastatic disease with no radiotherapy planned and for patients with metastatic disease, treatment continued until radiologic, clinical, or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression; otherwise, treatment was to continue for 2 years or until any type of progression, whichever came first. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. The intermediate primary outcome was failure-free survival (treatment failure was defined as radiologic, clinical, or PSA progression or death from prostate cancer). RESULTS: A total of 1917 patients underwent randomization from November 2011 through January 2014. The median age was 67 years, and the median PSA level was 53 ng per milliliter. A total of 52% of the patients had metastatic disease, 20% had node-positive or node-indeterminate nonmetastatic disease, and 28% had node-negative, nonmetastatic disease; 95% had newly diagnosed disease. The median follow-up was 40 months. There were 184 deaths in the combination group as compared with 262 in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.76; P<0.001); the hazard ratio was 0.75 in patients with nonmetastatic disease and 0.61 in those with metastatic disease. There were 248 treatment-failure events in the combination group as compared with 535 in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.34; P<0.001); the hazard ratio was 0.21 in patients with nonmetastatic disease and 0.31 in those with metastatic disease. Grade 3 to 5 adverse events occurred in 47% of the patients in the combination group (with nine grade 5 events) and in 33% of the patients in the ADT-alone group (with three grade 5 events). CONCLUSIONS: Among men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer, ADT plus abiraterone and prednisolone was associated with significantly higher rates of overall and failure-free survival than ADT alone. (Funded by Cancer Research U.K. and others; STAMPEDE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00268476 , and Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN78818544 .).

An anthropomorphic phantom study of visualisation of surgical clips for partial breast irradiation (PBI) setup verification.

Surgical clips were investigated for partial breast image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT). Small titanium clips were insufficiently well visualised. Medium tantalum clips were best for megavoltage IGRT and small tantalum clips were best for floor mounted kilovoltage IGRT (ExacTrac). Both small tantalum and medium titanium clips were suitable for isocentric kilovoltage IGRT.

Segmental urethral dosimetry and urinary toxicity in patients with no urinary symptoms before permanent prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To determine whether segmental urethral dosimetry is predictive for the degree of urinary morbidity after prostate brachytherapy in patients with no urinary symptoms before prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between May 2000 and November 2005, 1,107 patients underwent iodine-125 monotherapy with urethral sparing techniques. A total of 166 patients fulfilled the selection criteria: baseline (International Prostate Symptom Score) IPSS < or =5, no androgen deprivation therapy, and prostate ultrasound planning volumes (PUTV) <45 mL. The median follow-up was 44 months. Urinary morbidity was defined by maximum increase in IPSS, time to IPSS resolution, maximum Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) score, time to RTOG resolution, and urinary retention. Surrogate deviated urethra was contoured and doses calculated at the base, mid-prostate, apex, and urogenital diaphragm. Univariate and multivariate analysis was used to evaluate urethral and prostate dosimetry, age, PUTV, and number of needles for their association with urinary morbidity. RESULTS: Urethral dose was fairly constant in all urethra segments except prostate base, where the variation in does was large. On multivariate analysis, higher urethral base D50, V100, and larger PUTV were predictive for higher maximum increase in IPSS. Higher urethral base V100 and larger PUTV predicted for prolonged IPSS resolution. Higher urethral base D50 and larger needle number predicted for longer RTOG resolution. Higher urethral base V100 predicted for RTOG > or =2 toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation dose to the urethral base, larger PUTV, and needle number, predicted for increased urinary toxicity after prostate brachytherapy. Correlation between urinary morbidity and urethral base dosimetry may reflect a large variation in urethral dose observed at the prostate base.

Hearing preservation following fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy for vestibular schwannomas: prognostic implications of cochlear dose.

OBJECT: The goal in this study was to evaluate hearing preservation rates and to determine prognostic factors for this outcome following fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) of vestibular schwannoma. METHODS: Thirty-four consecutive patients with serviceable hearing who received FSRT between May 1998 and December 2003 were identified. Clinical and audiometry data were collected prospectively. The prescription dose was 45 Gy in 25 fractions prescribed to the 90% isodose line. The median follow-up duration was 36.5 months (range 12-85 months). The actuarial 2- and 4-year local control rates were 100 and 95.7%, respectively. Permanent trigeminal and facial nerve complications were 0 and 6%, respectively. The actuarial 2- and 3-year serviceable hearing preservation rates were both 63%. The median loss in speech reception threshold was 15 dB (range--10 to 65 dB). The radiotherapy dose to the cochlea was the only significant prognostic factor for hearing deterioration. Radiotherapy dose to the cochlear nucleus, patient age, sex, pre-FSRT hearing grade, tumor volume, and intracanalicular tumor volume failed to show any significance as prognostic factors. RESULTS: Five cases were replanned with four different radiotherapy techniques (namely arcs, dynamic arcs, static conformal fields, and intensity-modulated radiotherapy), with the cochlea defined as an organ at risk. In all cases, replanning resulted in statistically significant reduction in radiation to the cochlea (p = 0.001); however, no single replanning technique was found to be superior. CONCLUSIONS: The radiation dose to the cochlea is strongly predictive for subsequent hearing deterioration. It is essential for the cochlea to be outlined as an organ at risk, and for radiation techniques to be optimized, to improve long-term hearing preservation.

Clinical impact of second pathology opinion: a longitudinal study of central genitourinary pathology review before prostate brachytherapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical impact of pathology review before prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Original and reviewing pathologists' reports were retrospectively collected from 1323 men treated with prostate brachytherapy between July 1998 and October 2005 at one institution. Statistical analysis was performed pre- and post-January 2002. The clinical impact of pathology review was evaluated. RESULTS: Gleason Score (GS) change (GS(Delta)) occurred in 25.2% (334) of cases; GS increased in 21.6%, decreased in 2.4%, and diagnosed malignancy in 1.2% of cases. Post-2002, concordance in attributed GS improved, with GS(Delta) of 31.9-20.6%, respectively (p<0.001), and a reduction in the average GS(Delta) (p<0.001). The clinical impact was substantial with management changing in 14.8% of cases. CONCLUSION: Concordance between the original and reviewing pathologists' GS has improved during the study period. Nevertheless, discordance persists in one of five cases. Pathology review remains essential, if treatment decisions hinge on GS.

Prostate brachytherapy post-implant dosimetry: a comparison between higher and lower source density.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare post-implant dosimetry between high density source implants (HDI) and low density source implants (LDI). MATERIALS AND METHOD: Dosimetric analysis of the whole prostate (V200, V150, V100, D90, D80, contiguous V200 and V150, external index), prostate quadrants (V200, V150, V100, D90), rectum (V150, V120, V100, V80, V60) and deviated surrogate urethra (V200, V150, V120, V100, V80) was performed on 39 consecutive prostate brachytherapy LDI and 39 volume matched HDI over the same time period. The distinction between LDI and HDI was based on differing prescribed dose using 125-Iodine sources, with MPD of 115 and 144 Gy, respectively, using a fixed source strength of 0.424 U (0.334 mCi). Cases were contoured by two independent blinded observers. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to look at the effects of treatment arm, observer and their interaction. RESULTS: Whole prostate (WP) volume did not differ significantly between the treatment arms, mean of 25.4 cc for LDI and 26.6 cc for HDI. There was no significant difference in any of the measured post-implant dosimetric parameters for the WP or quadrants, surrogate urethra or rectum. CONCLUSIONS: No difference in post-implant dosimetric parameters was observed between Iodine 125 LDI and HDI. Neither dose homogeneity nor conformality is compromised with a lower source density. Higher strength sources have the potential for considerable cost saving and reduced morbidity.

Assessing Efficacy of Stuttering Treatments.

Efficacy has been defined as the extent to which a specific intervention, procedure, regimen or service produces a beneficial result under ideally controlled conditions when administered or monitored by experts. Studies on efficacy can be divided into those that study methods of conducting treatment (treatment process research) and those that are concerned with the effects of treatments (treatment outcome research). This reviews both of these areas, emphasizes the former and considers such key determinants of efficacy as measurement, treatment integrity and design issues. A set of criteria is given and a meta-analysis of whether studies published since 1993 meet these criteria is reported (incorporating some pragmatic and ethical considerations). The review ends by considering future directions that warrant further investigation.