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.

Adjuvant Sorafenib for Renal Cell Carcinoma at Intermediate or High Risk of Relapse: Results From the SORCE Randomized Phase III Intergroup Trial.

PURPOSE: SORCE is an international, randomized, double-blind, three-arm trial of sorafenib after surgical excision of primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) found to be at intermediate or high risk of recurrence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned participants (2:3:3) to 3 years of placebo (arm A), 1 year of sorafenib followed by 2 years of placebo (arm B), or 3 years of sorafenib (arm C). The initial sorafenib dose was 400 mg twice per day orally, amended to 400 mg daily. The primary outcome analysis, which was revised as a result of external results, was investigator-reported disease-free survival (DFS) comparing 3 years of sorafenib versus placebo. RESULTS: Between July 2007 and April 2013, we randomly assigned 1,711 participants (430, 642, and 639 participants in arms A, B, and C, respectively). Median age was 58 years, 71% of patients were men, 84% had clear cell histology, 53% were at intermediate risk of recurrence, and 47% were at high risk of recurrence. We observed no differences in DFS or overall survival in all randomly assigned patients, patients with high risk of recurrence, or patients with clear cell RCC only. Median DFS was not reached for 3 years of sorafenib or for placebo (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.23; P = .95). We observed nonproportional hazards; the restricted mean survival time (RMST) was 6.81 years for 3 years of sorafenib and 6.82 years for placebo (RMST difference, 0.01 year; 95% CI, -0.49 to 0.48 year; P = .99). Despite offering treatment adaptations, more than half of participants stopped treatment by 12 months. Grade 3 hand-foot skin reaction was reported in 24% of participants on sorafenib. CONCLUSION: Sorafenib should not be used as adjuvant therapy for RCC. Active surveillance remains the standard of care for patients at intermediate or high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy and is the appropriate control of our current international adjuvant RCC trial, RAMPART.

Adding Celecoxib With or Without Zoledronic Acid for Hormone-Naïve Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Survival Results From an Adaptive, Multiarm, Multistage, Platform, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Purpose Systemic Therapy for Advanced or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy is a randomized controlled trial using a multiarm, multistage, platform design. It recruits men with high-risk, locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer who were initiating long-term hormone therapy. We report survival data for two celecoxib (Cel)-containing comparisons, which stopped accrual early at interim analysis on the basis of failure-free survival. Patients and Methods Standard of care (SOC) was hormone therapy continuously (metastatic) or for ≥ 2 years (nonmetastatic); prostate (± pelvic node) radiotherapy was encouraged for men without metastases. Cel 400 mg was administered twice a day for 1 year. Zoledronic acid (ZA) 4 mg was administered for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly for 2 years. Stratified random assignment allocated patients 2:1:1 to SOC (control), SOC + Cel, or SOC + ZA + Cel. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. Results were analyzed with Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models adjusted for stratification factors. Results A total of 1,245 men were randomly assigned (Oct 2005 to April 2011). Groups were balanced: median age, 65 years; 61% metastatic, 14% N+/X M0, 25% N0M0; 94% newly diagnosed; median prostate-specific antigen, 66 ng/mL. Median follow-up was 69 months. Grade 3 to 5 adverse events were seen in 36% SOC-only, 33% SOC + Cel, and 32% SOC + ZA + Cel patients. There were 303 control arm deaths (83% prostate cancer), and median survival was 66 months. Compared with SOC, the adjusted hazard ratio was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.80 to 1.20; P = .847; median survival, 70 months) for SOC + Cel and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.05; P =.130; median survival, 76 months) for SOC + ZA + Cel. Preplanned subgroup analyses in men with metastatic disease showed a hazard ratio of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.62 to 0.98; P = .033) for SOC + ZA + Cel. Conclusion These data show no overall evidence of improved survival with Cel. Preplanned subgroup analyses provide hypotheses for future studies.

Assessment of the feasibility of using transrectal ultrasound for postimplant dosimetry in low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy.

A study was performed to establish whether transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-based postimplant dosimetry (PID) is both practically feasible and comparable to computed tomography (CT)-based PID, recommended in current published guidelines. In total, 22 patients treated consecutively at a single cancer center with low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy for early-stage prostate cancer had a transrectal ultrasound performed immediately after implant (d0-TRUS) and computed tomography scan 30 days after implant (d30-CT). Postimplant dosimetry planning was performed on both image sets and the results were compared. The interobserver reproducibility of the transrectal ultrasound postimplant dosimetry planning technique was also assessed. It was noticed that there was no significant difference in mean prostate D90 (136.5Gy and 144.4Gy, p = 0.2197), V100 (86.4% and 89.1%, p = 0.1480) and V150 (52.0% and 47.8%, p = 0.1657) for d30-CT and d0-TRUS, respectively. Rectal doses were significantly higher for d0-TRUS than d30-CT. Urethral doses were available with d0-TRUS only. We have shown that d0-TRUS PID is a useful tool for assessing the quality of an implant after low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy and is comparable to d30-CT PID. There are clear advantages to its use in terms of resource and time efficiency both for the clinical team and the patient.

Failure-Free Survival and Radiotherapy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: Data From Patients in the Control Arm of the STAMPEDE Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The natural history of patients with newly diagnosed high-risk nonmetastatic (M0) prostate cancer receiving hormone therapy (HT) either alone or with standard-of-care radiotherapy (RT) is not well documented. Furthermore, no clinical trial has assessed the role of RT in patients with node-positive (N+) M0 disease. The STAMPEDE Trial includes such individuals, allowing an exploratory multivariate analysis of the impact of radical RT. OBJECTIVE: To describe survival and the impact on failure-free survival of RT by nodal involvement in these patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cohort study using data collected for patients allocated to the control arm (standard-of-care only) of the STAMPEDE Trial between October 5, 2005, and May 1, 2014. Outcomes are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models; survival estimates are reported at 2 and 5 years. Participants were high-risk, hormone-naive patients with newly diagnosed M0 prostate cancer starting long-term HT for the first time. Radiotherapy is encouraged in this group, but mandated for patients with node-negative (N0) M0 disease only since November 2011. EXPOSURES: Long-term HT either alone or with RT, as per local standard. Planned RT use was recorded at entry. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Failure-free survival (FFS) and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 721 men with newly diagnosed M0 disease were included: median age at entry, 66 (interquartile range [IQR], 61-72) years, median (IQR) prostate-specific antigen level of 43 (18-88) ng/mL. There were 40 deaths (31 owing to prostate cancer) with 17 months' median follow-up. Two-year survival was 96% (95% CI, 93%-97%) and 2-year FFS, 77% (95% CI, 73%-81%). Median (IQR) FFS was 63 (26 to not reached) months. Time to FFS was worse in patients with N+ disease (HR, 2.02 [95% CI, 1.46-2.81]) than in those with N0 disease. Failure-free survival outcomes favored planned use of RT for patients with both N0M0 (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.18-0.61]) and N+M0 disease (HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.29-0.79]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Survival for men entering the cohort with high-risk M0 disease was higher than anticipated at study inception. These nonrandomized data were consistent with previous trials that support routine use of RT with HT in patients with N0M0 disease. Additionally, the data suggest that the benefits of RT extend to men with N+M0 disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00268476; ISRCTN78818544.

What Predicts Minimal Response to Abiraterone in Metastatic Castrate-resistant Prostate Cancer?

BACKGROUND: Several treatments have been shown to prolong survival in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC); the optimum sequencing of these is not established. We investigated methods of identifying patients with mCRPC unlikely to respond to abiraterone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was carried-out in 47 consecutive patients with mCRPC treated sequentially with androgen deprivation (LHRHa), bicalutamide, docetaxel then abiraterone. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival in patients treated with abiraterone was shorter in those with ≤18 months' response to LHRHa (118 vs. 279 days; p=0.018), bicalutamide non-responders (91 vs. 196 days; p=0.003) and patients with ≤6 months' response to docetaxel (102 vs. 294 days; p<0.001). The median overall survival was also shorter (348 vs. 815 days, p=0.016; 413 vs. 752 days, p=0.009; and 325 vs. 727 days, p<0.04, respectively). CONCLUSION: A response of ≤18 months' to LHRHa, non-response to bicalutamide and ≤6 months' response to docetaxel predicted poor response to abiraterone.

SUCCINCT: an open-label, single-arm, non-randomised, phase 2 trial of gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy in combination with sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.

UNLABELLED: Gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy (GC regimen) represents a standard treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma. We performed an open-label, single-arm, non-randomised, phase 2 trial evaluating the addition of sunitinib to standard GC chemotherapy (SGC regimen). Overall, 63 treatment-naïve participants were recruited and received up to six 21-d cycles of cisplatin 70 mg/m2 (intravenously [IV], day 1) and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (IV, days 1 and 8) combined with sunitinib 37.5 mg (orally, days 2-15). Following review of toxicity after the first six patients, the sunitinib dose was reduced to 25 mg for all patients. Overall response rate was 64%, with response noted in 37 of 58 patients. At 6 mo, 30 of 58 assessable patients (52%; 90% confidence interval [CI], 40-63%) were progression free. Median overall survival was 12 mo (95% CI, 9-15) and was heavily influenced by Bajorin prognostic group. Grade 3-4 toxicities were predominantly haematologic and limited the deliverability of the triple SGC regimen. The trial did not meet its prespecified primary end point of >60% patients progression free at 6 mo. Cumulative myelosuppression led to treatment delays of gemcitabine and cisplatin and dose reduction and/or withdrawal of sunitinib in the majority of cases. The triple-drug combination was not well tolerated. Phase 3 evaluation of the triple SGC regimen in advanced transitional cell carcinoma is not recommended. PATIENT SUMMARY: The addition of sunitinib to standard cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy was poorly tolerated and did not improve outcomes in advanced urothelial carcinoma. Treatment delivery was limited by myelotoxicity.

Population-based analysis of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in younger men (<55 years) in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the trends in opportunistic PSA screening in Australia, focusing on younger men (<55 years of age), to examine the effects of this screening on transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsy rates and to determine the nature of prostate cancers (PCas) being detected. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: All men who received an opportunistic screening PSA test and TRUS-guided biopsy between 2001 and 2008 in Australia were analysed using data from the Australian Cancer registry (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) and Medicare databases. The Victorian cancer registry was used to obtain Gleason scores. Age-standardized and age-specific rates were calculated, along with the incidence of PCa, and correlated with Gleason scores. RESULTS: A total 5 174 031 PSA tests detected 128 167 PCas in the period 2001-2008. During this period, PSA testing increased by 146% (a mean of 4629 tests per 100 000 men annually), with 80 and 59% increases in the rates of TRUS-guided biopsy and incidence of PCa, respectively. The highest increases in PSA screening occurred in men <55 years old and up to 1101 men had to be screened to detect one incident case of PCa (0.01%). Screening resulted in two thirds of men aged <55 years receiving a negative TRUS biopsy. There was no correlation with Gleason >7 tumours in patients aged <55 years. CONCLUSION: Despite the ongoing controversy about the merits of PCa screening, there was an increase in PSA testing, especially in men <55 years old, leading to a modestly higher incidence of PCa in Australia. Overall, PSA screening was associated with high rates of negative TRUS-biopsy and the detection of low/intermediate grade PCa among younger patients.

Combined androgen deprivation therapy and radiation therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Whether the addition of radiation therapy (RT) improves overall survival in men with locally advanced prostate cancer managed with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is unclear. Our aim was to compare outcomes in such patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: Patients with: locally advanced (T3 or T4) prostate cancer (n=1057); or organ-confined disease (T2) with either a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration more than 40 ng/mL (n=119) or PSA concentration more than 20 ng/mL and a Gleason score of 8 or higher (n=25), were randomly assigned (done centrally with stratification and dynamic minimisation, not masked) to receive lifelong ADT and RT (65-69 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicles, 45 Gy to the pelvic nodes). The primary endpoint was overall survival. The results presented here are of an interim analysis planned for when two-thirds of the events for the final analysis were recorded. All efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat and were based on data from all patients. This trial is registered at controlledtrials.com as ISRCTN24991896 and Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00002633. RESULTS: Between 1995 and 2005, 1205 patients were randomly assigned (602 in the ADT only group and 603 in the ADT and RT group); median follow-up was 6·0 years (IQR 4·4-8·0). At the time of analysis, a total of 320 patients had died, 175 in the ADT only group and 145 in the ADT and RT group. The addition of RT to ADT improved overall survival at 7 years (74%, 95% CI 70-78 vs 66%, 60-70; hazard ratio [HR] 0·77, 95% CI 0·61-0·98, p=0·033). Both toxicity and health-related quality-of-life results showed a small effect of RT on late gastrointestinal toxicity (rectal bleeding grade >3, three patients (0·5%) in the ADT only group, two (0·3%) in the ADT and RT group; diarrhoea grade >3, four patients (0·7%) vs eight (1·3%); urinary toxicity grade >3, 14 patients (2·3%) in both groups). INTERPRETATION: The benefits of combined modality treatment--ADT and RT--should be discussed with all patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. FUNDING: Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, US National Cancer Institute, and UK Medical Research Council.