ESTIMATING AND COMPARING CANCER PROGRESSION RISKS UNDER VARYING SURVEILLANCE PROTOCOLS.

Outcomes after cancer diagnosis and treatment are often observed at discrete times via doctor-patient encounters or specialized diagnostic examinations. Despite their ubiquity as endpoints in cancer studies, such outcomes pose challenges for analysis. In particular, comparisons between studies or patient populations with different surveillance schema may be confounded by differences in visit frequencies. We present a statistical framework based on multistate and hidden Markov models that represents events on a continuous time scale given data with discrete observation times. To demonstrate this framework, we consider the problem of comparing risks of prostate cancer progression across multiple active surveillance cohorts with different surveillance frequencies. We show that the different surveillance schedules partially explain observed differences in the progression risks between cohorts. Our application permits the conclusion that differences in underlying cancer progression risks across cohorts persist after accounting for different surveillance frequencies.

A randomized phase II efficacy and safety study of vandetanib (ZD6474) in combination with bicalutamide versus bicalutamide alone in patients with chemotherapy naïve castration-resistant prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of combining vandetanib, an orally available multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 (VEGFR-2) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), with bicalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized phase II multi-center study. Eligible patients had rising PSA on androgen deprivation therapy, minimal symptoms and were chemotherapy-naïve. Protocol therapy was either vandetanib 300 mg oral daily plus bicalutamide 50 mg oral daily (Arm A) or bicalutamide 50 mg oral daily alone (Arm B) with cross-over to vandetanib monotherapy at progression. The primary endpoint was PSA response (≥ 50 % decline from baseline). RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were recruited, 19 in Arm A and 20 in Arm B. PSA response was comparable in Arm A and Arm B (18 vs. 19 %). Time to PSA progression was 3.16 months (95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.09, not reached (NR)) for Arm A and 3.09 months (95 % CI: 1.22, NR) for Arm B. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was more common in Arm A compared to Arm B (42 vs. 5 %; p = 0.019). Treatment with vandetanib was associated with a reduction in soluble VEGFR-2 levels after two cycles but an increase in plasma VEGF levels. CONCLUSION: The combination of vandetanib and bicalutamide was associated with considerable toxicity and did not have superior efficacy over bicalutamide alone. Further evaluation of this combination is not warranted in mCRPC.

Impact of androgen-deprivation therapy on physical function and quality of life in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: This prospective longitudinal study evaluated the effect of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) on objective and self-reported physical function. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PC) starting continuous ADT were enrolled in this matched cohort study. Physical function was assessed with the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), grip strength, and the timed-up-and-go (TUG) test, representing endurance and upper and lower extremity strength, respectively. Quality of life (QOL) was measured with the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire. Subjects were assessed at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Two control groups (PC without ADT; no PC), matched on age, education, and baseline function were enrolled. Mixed effects regression models were fitted, adjusting for baseline covariates. RESULTS: We enrolled 87 patients on ADT, 86 PC controls, and 86 healthy controls; groups were similar in age (mean, 69.1 years; range, 50 to 87) and physical function. The 6MWT distance remained stable in the ADT group (P = .96) but improved in both control groups (P < .05). Grip strength declined in the ADT group (P = .04), remained stable in PC controls (P = .31), and improved in healthy controls (P = .008). TUG scores remained stable over time and across groups (P > .10). The SF-36 physical function summary score declined in the ADT group (P < .001), but increased in both control groups (P < .001). Negative effects on outcomes were observed within 3 months of starting ADT and were generally independent of age. CONCLUSION: Endurance, upper extremity strength, and physical components of QOL are affected within 3 months of starting ADT. Up-front exercise interventions to counteract these losses are warranted.

Pathologic effects of neoadjuvant cyproterone acetate on nonneoplastic prostate, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and adenocarcinoma: a detailed analysis of radical prostatectomy specimens from a randomized trial.

Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (NHT; androgen ablation) is used prior to radical prostatectomy (RP) in an attempt to pathologically "downstage" prostatic adenocarcinoma and ultimately to improve disease-free survival. This study describes the pathologic effects of NHT with the antiandrogen cyproterone acetate, 300 mg/day for 12 weeks, on the RP specimens from men with clinically localized (stage T1 or T2) prostatic adenocarcinoma. There were 101 men in the pretreatment group (CPA) and 91 men in a control group who were treated with surgery alone. The prevalence and extent of morphologic effects were recorded for the nonneoplastic prostate, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and invasive adenocarcinoma. The commonest effects on the nonneoplastic prostate were atrophy and basal cell hyperplasia and prominence. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia was more commonly identified in the surgery alone group than the CPA group (p <0.01). In the CPA group, flat and low tufted patterns of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia predominated. Following NHT, the adenocarcinoma showed characteristic morphologic alterations, including reduction in cytoplasmic quantity, cytoplasmic vacuolation, nuclear pyknosis, reduced gland diameter, and mucinous breakdown. In many cases there was prominence of collagenous stroma, obscuring malignant glands. Compared with the surgery alone group, the CPA group RP specimens had a significantly lower mean specimen weight (40.3 g vs 46.5 g, p = 0.025) and less tumor extent by several measures. Organ-confined tumor (stage pT2, margin negative) was found in 41.6% of the CPA group compared with 19.8% of the surgery alone group (p = 0.0017). The overall rate of margin positivity was lower in the CPA group (27.7% vs 64.8%, p = 0.001). We consider that the difference in margin positivity is the result of tumor shrinkage with a decreased likelihood of sampling in routine sections. There was no significant difference in the rate of extraprostatic extension between the two groups. There was elevation of the Gleason score in the RP specimens versus baseline biopsy in 60% of the CPA group compared with 33% of the surgery alone group (p = 0.02). The higher rate of elevation in the CPA group largely resulted from an increase in primary or secondary Gleason score 5 tumor, a morphologic artifact introduced by NHT. Because of this, we recommend not giving a Gleason grade to RP specimens following NHT. Monotherapy with CPA has similar pathologic effects on benign and malignant prostate tissue as does dual agent androgen blockade. Prolonged follow-up of these patients is required to determine if NHT with CPA leads to improved disease-free survival.