Randomised Trial of No, Short-term, or Long-term Androgen Deprivation Therapy with Postoperative Radiotherapy After Radical Prostatectomy: Results from the Three-way Comparison of RADICALS-HD (NCT00541047).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The use and duration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with postoperative radiotherapy (RT) have been uncertain. RADICALS-HD compared adding no ("None"), 6-months ("Short"), or 24-mo ("Long") ADT to study efficacy in the long term. METHODS: Participants with prostate cancer were indicated for postoperative RT and agreed randomisation between all durations. ADT was allocated for 0, 6, or 24 mo. The primary outcome measure (OM) was metastasis-free survival (MFS). The secondary OMs included freedom from distant metastasis, overall survival, and initiation of nonprotocol ADT. Sample size was determined by two-way comparisons. Analyses followed standard time-to-event approaches and intention-to-treat principles. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Between 2007 and 2015, 492 participants were randomised one of three groups: 166 None, 164 Short, and 162 Long. The median age at randomisation was 66 yr; Gleason scores at surgery were as follows: <7 = 64 (13%), 3+4 = 229 (47%), 4+3 = 127 (26%), and 8+ = 72 (15%); T3b was 112 (23%); and T4 was 5 (1%). The median follow-up was 9.0 yr and, with MFS events reported for 89 participants (32 None, 31 Short, and 26 Long), there was no evidence of difference in MFS overall (logrank p = 0.98), and, for Long versus None, hazard ratio = 0.948 (95% confidence interval 0.54-1.68). After 10 yr, 80% None, 77% Short, and 81% Long patients were alive without metastatic disease. The three-way randomisation was not powered to conventional levels for assessment, yet provides a fair comparison. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Long-term outcomes after radical prostatectomy are usually favourable. In those indicated for postoperative RT and considered suitable for no, short-term, or long-term ADT, there was no evidence of improvement with addition of ADT. Future research should focus on patients at a higher risk of metastases in whom improvements are required more urgently.

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.

Adding 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy to postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of short-course versus no androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence indicates that adjuvant, short-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves metastasis-free survival when given with primary radiotherapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the value of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy is unclear. METHODS: RADICALS-HD was an international randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of ADT used in combination with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after 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 radiotherapy alone (no ADT) or radiotherapy with 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT), using monthly subcutaneous gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue injections, 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 distant metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. Standard survival analysis methods were used, accounting for randomisation stratification factors. The trial had 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 80% to 86% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·67). Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. FINDINGS: Between Nov 22, 2007, and June 29, 2015, 1480 patients (median age 66 years [IQR 61-69]) were randomly assigned to receive no ADT (n=737) or short-course ADT (n=743) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 121 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 7·1-10·1), metastasis-free survival events were reported for 268 participants (142 in the no ADT group and 126 in the short-course ADT group; HR 0·886 [95% CI 0·688-1·140], p=0·35). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 79·2% (95% CI 75·4-82·5) in the no ADT group and 80·4% (76·6-83·6) in the short-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 121 (17%) of 737 participants in the no ADT group and 100 (14%) of 743 in the short-course ADT group (p=0·15), with no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Metastatic disease is uncommon following postoperative bed radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adding 6 months of ADT to this radiotherapy did not improve metastasis-free survival compared with no ADT. These findings do not support the use of short-course ADT with postoperative radiotherapy in this patient population. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society.

Development and Validation of Blood-Based Predictive Biomarkers for Response to PD-1/PD-L1 Checkpoint Inhibitors: Evidence of a Universal Systemic Core of 3D Immunogenetic Profiling across Multiple Oncological Indications.

BACKGROUND: Unprecedented advantages in cancer treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) remain limited to only a subset of patients. Systemic analyses of the regulatory 3D genome architecture linked to individual epigenetic and immunogenetic controls associated with tumour immune evasion mechanisms and immune checkpoint pathways reveal a highly prevalent molecular profile predictive of response to PD-1/PD-L1 ICIs. A clinical blood test based on a set of eight (8) 3D genomic biomarkers has been developed and validated on the basis of an observational trial to predict response to ICI therapy. METHODS: The predictive eight biomarker set is derived from prospective observational clinical trials, representing 280 treatments with Pembrolizumab, Atezolizumab, Durvalumab, Nivolumab, and Avelumab in a broad range of indications: melanoma, lung, hepatocellular, renal, breast, bladder, colon, head and neck, bone, brain, lymphoma, prostate, vulvar, and cervical cancers. RESULTS: The 3D genomic eight biomarker panel for response to immune checkpoint therapy achieved a high accuracy of 85%, sensitivity of 93%, and specificity of 82%. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that a 3D genomic approach can be used to develop a predictive clinical assay for response to PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibition in cancer patients.

Metastatic Anorectal Melanoma Presenting as Seizures: An Infrequent Culprit.

Anorectal malignant melanoma is a rare culprit of malignancies in the anorectal region. With a presentation that mimics the vastly more common colorectal tumours, clinical misdiagnosis and diagnostic delays often occur, contributing to a dismal prognosis. The authors report a case of metastatic anorectal malignant melanoma presenting as seizures. Though our standard diagnostic pathway for suspected anorectal malignancies was followed, and despite the patient having computerized tomography (CT) of the head earlier, this presentation nonetheless led to a prolongation of time needed to reach histological diagnosis and delay in commencing definitive treatment. It also highlights the paucity of research into the pathophysiology and management of this infrequent but aggressive disease, and the need for raising awareness about this condition to the medical community so that it is considered as a plausible differential diagnosis from the outset and diagnostic pathways adjusted accordingly.

Effect of the learning curve on survival after laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal metastases.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is a highly demanding procedure with great variability. Previously published randomized trials have proven oncological safety of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) as compared to open surgery. However, these were started after the learning curve (LC) was established. This leaves the question of whether the LC of LLR in the early laparoscopic era has affected the survival of patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). METHODS: All consecutive LLRs performed by a single surgeon between 2000 and 2019 were retrospectively analysed. A risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) chart for conversion rate and the log regression analysis of the blood loss identified two phases in the LC. This was then applied to patients with CRLM, and the two subgroups were compared for recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS). The analysis was repeated with propensity score-matched (PSM) groups. RESULTS: A total of 286 patients were included in the LC analysis, which identified two distinct phases, the early (EP; 68 patients) and the late (LP; 218 patients) phases. The LC was applied to 192 patients with colorectal liver metastasis (EPc, 45 patients; LPc, 147 patients). For patients with CRLM, R0 resection was achieved in 93 per cent: 100 per cent in the EPc group and 90 per cent in the LPc group (P = 0.026). Median OS and RFS were 60 and 16 months, respectively. The 5-year OS and RFS were 51 per cent and 32.7 per cent, respectively. OS (hazard ratio (h.r.) 0.78, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.51 to 1.2; P = 0.286) and RFS (h.r. 0.94, 95 per cent c.i. 0.64 to 1.37; P = 0.760) were not compromised by the learning curve. The results were replicated after PSM. CONCLUSION: In our experience, the development of a laparoscopic liver resection programme can be achieved without adverse effects on the long-term survival of patients with CRLM.

Exposure-response analysis of acalabrutinib and its active metabolite, ACP-5862, in patients with B-cell malignancies.

AIMS: Examine relationships between the systemic exposure of acalabrutinib, a highly selective, next-generation Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and its active metabolite (ACP-5862) vs. efficacy and safety responses in patients with B-cell malignancies who received acalabrutinib as monotherapy or in combination with obinutuzumab. METHODS: For exposure-efficacy analyses, patients with untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia were assessed for best overall response, progression-free survival and tumour regression. For exposure-safety analyses, incidences of grade ≥2 adverse events (AEs), grade ≥3 AEs and grade ≥2 events of clinical interest were assessed in patients with B-cell malignancies. Acalabrutinib and ACP-5862 pharmacokinetic (PK) parameter estimates were obtained from population PK modelling. Exposure calculations were based on study dosing regimens. Total active moieties were calculated to account for contributions of ACP-5862 to overall efficacy/safety. RESULTS: A total of 573 patients were included (exposure-efficacy analyses, n = 274; exposure-safety analyses, n = 573). Most patients (93%) received acalabrutinib 100 mg twice daily. Median total active area under the concentration-time curve (AUC24h,ss ) and total active maximal concentration at steady-state (Cmax,ss ) were similar for patients who received acalabrutinib as monotherapy or in combination with obinutuzumab, and for responders and nonresponders. No relationship was observed between AUC24h,ss /Cmax,ss and progression-free survival or tumour regression. Acalabrutinib AUC24h,ss and Cmax,ss were generally comparable across groups regardless of AE incidence. CONCLUSION: No clinically meaningful correlations between acalabrutinib PK exposure and efficacy and safety outcomes were observed. These data support the fixed acalabrutinib dose of 100 mg twice daily in the treatment of patients with B-cell malignancies.

Phase II study of acalabrutinib in ibrutinib-intolerant patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

B-cell receptor signalling inhibition by targeting Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) is effective in treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The BTK inhibitor ibrutinib may be intolerable for some patients. Acalabrutinib is a more selective BTK inhibitor that may be better tolerated by patients who are intolerant to ibrutinib. A phase 2 study of acalabrutinib was conducted in patients with relapsed/refractory CLL who were ibrutinib-intolerant and had continued disease activity. Intolerance was defined as having discontinued ibrutinib due to persistent grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) or persistent/recurrent grade 2 AEs despite dose modification/interruption. Patients received oral acalabrutinib 100 mg twice daily until disease progression or intolerance. Sixty patients were treated. Overall response rate to acalabrutinib was 73% and three patients (5%) achieved complete remission. At median follow-up of 35 months, the median progressionfree and overall survival were not reached; 24-month estimates were 72% and 81%, respectively. The most frequent AEs with acalabrutinib were diarrhea (53%), headache (42%), contusion (40%), dizziness (33%), upper respiratory tract infection (33%), and cough (30%). Most common reasons for acalabrutinib discontinuation were progressive disease (23%) and AEs (17%). Most patients with baseline samples (49/52; 94%) and all with on-treatment samples (3/3; 100%) had no detectable BTK and/or PLCG2 mutations. Acalabrutinib is effective and tolerable in most patients with relapsed/refractory CLL who are intolerant of ibrutinib. Acalabrutinib may be useful for patients who may benefit from BTK inhibitor therapy but are ibrutinib intolerant.

Timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT): a randomised, controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer is uncertain. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant radiotherapy versus an observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) biochemical progression. METHODS: We did a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with at least one risk factor (pathological T-stage 3 or 4, Gleason score of 7-10, positive margins, or preoperative PSA ≥10 ng/mL) for biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT). The study took place in trial-accredited centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to adjuvant radiotherapy or an observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for PSA biochemical progression (PSA ≥0·1 ng/mL or three consecutive rises). Masking was not deemed feasible. Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned radiotherapy schedule (52·5 Gy in 20 fractions or 66 Gy in 33 fractions), and centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom from distant metastases, designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with salvage radiotherapy (control) to 95% at 10 years with adjuvant radiotherapy. We report on biochemical progression-free survival, freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used. A hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1 favoured adjuvant radiotherapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. FINDINGS: Between Nov 22, 2007, and Dec 30, 2016, 1396 patients were randomly assigned, 699 (50%) to salvage radiotherapy and 697 (50%) to adjuvant radiotherapy. Allocated groups were balanced with a median age of 65 years (IQR 60-68). Median follow-up was 4·9 years (IQR 3·0-6·1). 649 (93%) of 697 participants in the adjuvant radiotherapy group reported radiotherapy within 6 months; 228 (33%) of 699 in the salvage radiotherapy group reported radiotherapy within 8 years after randomisation. With 169 events, 5-year biochemical progression-free survival was 85% for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 88% for those in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 1·10, 95% CI 0·81-1·49; p=0·56). Freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy at 5 years was 93% for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 92% for those in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·58-1·33; p=0·53). Self-reported urinary incontinence was worse at 1 year for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group (mean score 4·8 vs 4·0; p=0·0023). Grade 3-4 urethral stricture within 2 years was reported in 6% of individuals in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 4% in the salvage radiotherapy group (p=0·020). INTERPRETATION: These initial results do not support routine administration of adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adjuvant radiotherapy increases the risk of urinary morbidity. An observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for PSA biochemical progression should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, MRC Clinical Trials Unit, and Canadian Cancer Society.

Whole blood transcriptome correlates with treatment response in nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment protocols for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) developed in the past decade have significantly improved patient survival. In most NPC patients, however, the disease is diagnosed at late stages, and for some patients treatment response is less than optimal. This investigation has two aims: to identify a blood-based gene-expression signature that differentiates NPC from other medical conditions and from controls and to identify a biomarker signature that correlates with NPC treatment response. METHODS: RNA was isolated from peripheral whole blood samples (2 x 10 ml) collected from NPC patients/controls (EDTA vacutainer). Gene expression patterns from 99 samples (66 NPC; 33 controls) were assessed using the Affymetrix array. We also collected expression data from 447 patients with other cancers (201 patients) and non-cancer conditions (246 patients). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to obtain biomarker signatures differentiating NPC samples from controls and other diseases. Differences were also analysed within a subset (n=28) of a pre-intervention case cohort of patients whom we followed post-treatment. RESULTS: A blood-based gene expression signature composed of three genes - LDLRAP1, PHF20, and LUC7L3 - is able to differentiate NPC from various other diseases and from unaffected controls with significant accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of over 0.90). By subdividing our NPC cohort according to the degree of patient response to treatment we have been able to identify a blood gene signature that may be able to guide the selection of treatment. CONCLUSION: We have identified a blood-based gene signature that accurately distinguished NPC patients from controls and from patients with other diseases. The genes in the signature, LDLRAP1, PHF20, and LUC7L3, are known to be involved in carcinoma of the head and neck, tumour-associated antigens, and/or cellular signalling. We have also identified blood-based biomarkers that are (potentially) able to predict those patients who are more likely to respond to treatment for NPC. These findings have significant clinical implications for optimizing NPC therapy.