Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up. METHODS: CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b-T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3-6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9-77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0-90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5-92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4-88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68-1·03], pNI=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99-1·46], pNI=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

The Efficacy and Safety of Conventional and Hypofractionated High-Dose Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer in an Elderly Population: A Subgroup Analysis of the CHHiP Trial.

PURPOSE: Outcome data on radiation therapy for prostate cancer in an elderly population are sparse. The CHHiP (Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer) trial provides a large, prospectively collected, contemporary dataset in which to explore outcomes by age. METHODS AND MATERIALS: CHHiP participants received 3 to 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy and were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 74 Gy in 37 fractions (conventional fractionation), 60 Gy in 20 fractions, or 57 Gy in 19 fractions. Toxicity was assessed using clinician-reported outcome (CRO) and patient-reported outcome questionnaires. Participants were categorized as aged < 75 years or ≥ 75 years. Outcomes were compared by age group. RESULTS: Of 3216 patients, 491 (15%) were aged ≥ 75 years. There was no difference in biochemical or clinical failure rates between the groups aged < 75 years and ≥ 75 years for any of the fractionation schedules. In the group aged ≥ 75 years, biochemical or clinical failure-free rates favored hypofractionation, and at 5 years, they were 84.7% for 74 Gy, 91% for 60 Gy, and 87.7% for 57 Gy. The incidence of CRO (grade 3) acute bowel toxicity was 2% in both age groups. The incidence of grade 3 acute bladder toxicity was 8% in patients aged < 75 years and 7% in those aged ≥ 75 years. The 5-year cumulative incidence of CRO grade ≥ 2 late bowel side effects was similar in both age groups. However, in the group aged ≥ 75 years, there was a suggestion of a higher cumulative incidence of bowel bother (small or greater) with 60 Gy compared with 74 Gy and 57 Gy. Patient-reported bladder bother was slightly higher in the group aged ≥ 75 years than the group aged < 75 years, and there was a suggestion of a lower cumulative incidence of bladder bother with 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy and 60 Gy in patients aged ≥ 75 years, which was not evident in those aged < 75 years. CONCLUSIONS: Hypofractionated radiation therapy appears to be well tolerated and effective in men aged ≥ 75 years. The 57-Gy schedule has potential advantages in that it may moderate long-term side effects without compromising treatment efficacy in this group.

A 10-year retrospective audit of penile cancer management in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To audit the penile cancer workload, management and outcome within a regional cancer network serving a population of approximately 1 million in the West Midlands (UK), comparing these data to that published by the British Association of Urological Surgeons National Cancer Registry, the UK National Institute of Clinical Excellence and the European Associations of Urology guidelines. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed with or treated for penile cancer within the Arden Cancer Network over a 10-year period were identified retrospectively, and data relating to histology, local treatment, lymph node management, outcome and survival were recorded. RESULTS: Data were obtained for 65 patients; 61 (94%) had histologically confirmed squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the penis, equating to approximately 0.6 cases per 100 000 population per year. Their mean age at diagnosis was 63 years. Of SCCs, 86% were located on the glans and/or foreskin. Thirty-six patients had conservative primary local therapy, mostly for T0 or T1 disease. The 5-year relapse-free survival after radiotherapy was 63%, although survival after salvage penectomy was 75% at 4 years. Forty-seven patients had lymph node surveillance; 11 developed lymph node disease and had lymph node dissection (LND) with or with no radiotherapy, but survival was poor. Primary inguinal LND with or without radiotherapy was used in eight patients, and was associated with a good survival, although three were found to have negative histology after LND. Survival was strongly influenced by T and N stage at presentation and the 5-year survival for the whole group was 71%. CONCLUSION: The workload, incidence and overall mortality from penile cancer within the Arden Cancer Network are in line with those in the rest of the UK. Rates of conservative therapy were good in this group and associated with good survival. Survival could be improved by identifying and aggressively treating those patients at high risk of lymph node disease.

Phase III, Double-Blind, Randomized Trial That Compared Maintenance Lapatinib Versus Placebo After First-Line Chemotherapy in Patients With Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 1/2-Positive Metastatic Bladder Cancer.

Purpose To establish whether maintenance lapatinib after first-line chemotherapy is beneficial in human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) 1/HER2-positive metastatic urothelial bladder cancer (UBC). Methods Patients with metastatic UBC were screened centrally for HER1/HER2 overexpression. Patients who screened positive for HER1/2 and who did not have progressive disease during chemotherapy (four to eight cycles) were randomly assigned one to one to lapatinib or placebo after completion of first-line/initial chemotherapy for metastatic disease. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results Between 2007 and 2013, 446 patients with UBC were screened, and 232 with HER1- or HER2-positive disease were randomly assigned. The median PFS for lapatinib and placebo was 4.5 (95% CI, 2.8 to 5.4) and 5.1 (95% CI, 3.0 to 5.8) months, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.43; P = .63). The overall survival for lapatinib and placebo was 12.6 (95% CI, 9.0 to 16.2) and 12.0 (95% CI, 10.5 to 14.9) months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.31; P = .80). Discontinuation due to adverse events were similar in both arms (6% lapatinib and 5% placebo). The rate of grade 3 to 4 adverse events for lapatinib and placebo was 8.6% versus 8.1% ( P = .82). Preplanned subset analysis of patients strongly positive for HER1/HER2 (3+ on immunohistochemistry; n = 111), patients positive for only HER1 (n = 102), and patients positive for only HER2 (n = 42) showed no significant benefit with lapatinib in terms of PFS and overall survival ( P > .05 for each). Conclusion This trial did not find significant improvements in outcome by the addition of maintenance lapatinib to standard of care.

Randomized Phase II Study Investigating Pazopanib Versus Weekly Paclitaxel in Relapsed or Progressive Urothelial Cancer.

Purpose Two previous single-arm trials have drawn conflicting conclusions regarding the activity of pazopanib in urothelial cancers after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients and Methods This randomized (1:1) open-label phase II trial compared the efficacy of pazopanib 800 mg orally with paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days) in the second-line setting. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results Between August 2012 and October 2014, 131 patients, out of 140 planned, were randomly assigned. The study was terminated early on the recommendation of the independent data monitoring committee because of futility. Final analysis after the preplanned number of deaths (n = 110) occurred after a median follow-up of 18 months. One hundred fifteen deaths had occurred at the final data extract presented here. Median OS was 8.0 months for paclitaxel (80% CI, 6.9 to 9.7 months) and 4.7 months for pazopanib (80% CI, 4.2 to 6.4 months). The hazard ratio (HR) adjusted for baseline stratification factors was 1.28 (80% CI, 0.99 to 1.67; one-sided P = .89). Median progression-free survival was 4.1 months for paclitaxel (80% CI, 3.0 to 5.6 months) and 3.1 months for pazopanib (80% CI, 2.7 to 4.6 months; HR, 1.09; 80% CI, 0.85 to 1.40; one-sided P = .67). Discontinuations for toxicity occurred in 7.8% and 23.1% for paclitaxel and pazopanib, respectively. Conclusion Pazopanib did not have greater efficacy than paclitaxel in the second-line treatment of urothelial cancers. There was a trend toward superior OS for paclitaxel.

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

BACKGROUND: Everolimus 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). OBJECTIVE: The 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. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with measurable mRCC and VEGF-refractory disease were eligible for this trial. INTERVENTION: Starting 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. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Progression-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. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Recruitment 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). CONCLUSIONS: The PFS and OS of AZD2014 were inferior to everolimus in this setting despite acceptable AE and PK profiles. PATIENT SUMMARY: There 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.

Safety and Efficacy of Pazopanib Therapy Prior to Planned Nephrectomy in Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: The role of cytoreductive nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal cancer in the era of targeted therapy is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To establish the safety and efficacy of upfront pazopanib therapy prior to cytoreductive nephrectomy in previously untreated patients with metastatic clear cell renal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Single-arm phase 2 study of 104 previously untreated patients with metastatic clear cell renal cancer recruited between June 2008 and October 2012 at cancer treatment centers with access to nephrectomy services. The minimum follow-up was 30 months. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received 12 to 14 weeks of preoperative pazopanib therapy prior to planned cytoreductive nephrectomy and continued pazopanib therapy after surgery. Treatment was stopped at disease progression. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was clinical benefit (using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1) prior to surgery (at 12-14 weeks). Secondary end points included surgical complications, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and biomarker analysis. RESULTS: Of 104 patients recruited, 100 patients were assessable for clinical benefit prior to planned nephrectomy; 80 of 104 (76.9%) were men; median [interquartile range] age, 64 [56-71] years). Overall, 84 of 100 (84% [95% CI, 75%-91%]) gained clinical benefit before planned nephrectomy. The median reduction in the size of the primary tumor was 14.4% (interquartile range, 1.4%-21.1%). No patients were unable to undergo surgery as a result of local progression of disease. Nephrectomy was performed in 63 (61%) of patients; 14 (22%) reported surgical complications. The 2 most common reasons for not undergoing surgery were progression of disease (n = 13) and patient choice (n = 9). There was 1 postoperative surgical death. The median PFS and OS for the whole cohort were 7.1 (95% CI, 6.0-9.2) and 22.7 (95% CI, 14.3-not estimable) months, respectively. Patients with MSKCC poor-risk disease or progressive disease prior to surgery had a poor outcome (median OS, 5.7 [95% CI, 2.6-10.8] and 3.9 [95% CI, 0.5-9.1] months, respectively). Surgical complications were observed in 14 (22%) of the nephrectomies. Biomarker analysis from sequential tissue samples revealed a decrease in CD8 expression (20.00 vs 13.75; P = .05) and significant reduction in expression of von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor (100 vs 40; P < .001) and C-MET (300 vs 100; P < .001) and increased programmed cell death ligand 1 expression (0 vs 1.5; P < .001) in the immune component. No on-treatment biomarker correlated with response. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Nephrectomy after upfront pazopanib therapy could be performed safely and was associated with good outcomes in patients with intermediate-risk metastatic clear cell renal cancer.

An indirect comparison of the toxicity of sunitinib and pazopanib in metastatic clear cell renal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Both sunitinib and pazopanib are widely used as first line therapy in metastatic renal cancer (mRCC). The efficacy of these agents appears similar but they may have distinct toxicity profiles. In this study we compare the severity of symptomatic and asymptomatic toxicity associated with sunitinib and pazopanib. METHODS: Two sequential prospective single arm phase II studies investigated either 12 weeks of sunitinib (n=43) or pazopanib (n=34) prior to nephrectomy in untreated mRCC. Toxicity was defined as either symptomatic (hand and foot syndrome, mucositis, nausea, fatigue, diarrhoea, oedema, headache, pain, anorexia and change in taste) or asymptomatic (liver toxicity or haematological toxicity). Pazopanib (800 mg once daily (OD)) and sunitinib (50 mg 4/2) were given. Regular Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) toxicity assessment was performed during the first 12 weeks of therapy. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the overall number of toxic events (grade 1-4) for sunitinib and pazopanib (mean number of toxic events/patients: 1.97 versus 1.96: p>0.05). Increased grade 2-4 symptomatic toxicity events occurred with sunitinib (hazard ratio (HR) 1.67 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-2.56] p<0.03). Sunitinib was associated with an increased grade 2-4 mucositis (16% versus 0% p=0.02) and fatigue (42% versus 15% p=0.01). Pazopanib was associated with more frequent grade 1 diarrhoea (39% versus 12%: p=0.03). Dose reductions for symptomatic toxicity occurred more frequently with sunitinib (26% versus 6% p<0.05). There was no difference in the occurrence of asymptomatic toxicity. CONCLUSION: This indirect analysis suggests sunitinib and pazopanib have distinct toxicity profiles which may help guide patient's choice. Further comparative data from randomised trials are awaited.