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.

First UK patient cohort treated with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for primary kidney cancer.

Aims: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a promising non-invasive ablative treatment option. A prospective interventional clinical trial published showed that treatment was feasible and well tolerated. We present the first single-institution UK cohort of patients with primary RCC receiving protocol-based SABR with prospective follow-up. We also present a protocol that could be used to facilitate more widespread use of the treatment. Materials and methods: Nineteen biopsy-proven primary RCC patients were treated with either 42 Gy in three fractions on alternate days or 26 Gy in a single fraction based on predefined eligibility criteria using either Linear Accelerator or CyberKnife platform. Prospective toxicity data using CTCAE V4.0 and outcome data such as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and tumour response using CT thorax, abdomen and pelvis (CT-TAP) were collected at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months post treatment. Results: The 19 patients had a median age of 76 years (interquartile range [IQR] 64-82 years) and 47.4% were males, and they had a median tumour size of 4.5 cm (IQR 3.8-5.2 cm). Single and fractionated treatment was well tolerated and there were no significant acute side effects. The mean drop from baseline in eGFR at 6 months was 5.4 ml/min and that at 12 months was 8.7 ml/min. The overall local control rate at both 6 and 12 months was 94.4%. Overall survival at 6 and 12 months was 94.7% and 78.3%, respectively. After a median follow-up of 17 months, three patients experienced a Grade 3 toxicity, which was resolved with conservative management. Conclusion: SABR for primary RCC is a safe and feasible treatment for medically unfit patients, which can be delivered in most UK cancer centres using standard Linear Accelerator as well as CyberKnife platforms.

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.

Outcomes following external beam radiotherapy to the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes in addition to androgen deprivation therapy in non-metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma with regional lymph node involvement: a retrospective cohort study.

Objective: There is a paucity of evidence for external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in patients with non-metastatic prostate adenocarcinoma with regional lymph nodes (cN1) as primary treatment in addition to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). We present the retrospective outcomes of cN1 patients treated with prostate and pelvic nodal (PPLN) EBRT and ADT. Methods: The clinical records of cN1 patients given PPLN EBRT from January 2012 to January 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Primary outcomes of overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, and failure-free survival were analysed. Secondary outcomes of biochemical relapse-free survival, locoregional recurrence-free survival, and distant metastases-free survival were also reviewed. The prognostic values of clinicopathological parameters were investigated. Treatment toxicity was also reviewed. Results: We identified 121 cN1 patients treated with PPLN EBRT and ADT. Treatment was well tolerated, with only a minority (1.7%) having Grade 3 toxicities. 5-year overall survival and prostate cancer-specific survival were 74.4 and 89.1% respectively. 5-year failure-free survival was 55.4%; with 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival, locoregional recurrence-free survival, and distant metastases-free survival at 56.2%, 85.2%, and 65.4% respectively. The benefits of PPLN EBRT were seen in most patients, with prolonged failure-free period and good loco-regional control. Conclusion: Patients with cN1 disease should be considered for PPLN EBRT, in addition to ADT. Treatment is well tolerated with low toxicity, good locoregional control, and prolonged time to disease progression. Advances in knowledge: We report real-world experience of cN1 patients treated with PPLN EBRT in addition to ADT, with good outcomes following treatment and low toxicity.

Cabazitaxel versus docetaxel for treatment of metastatic castrate refractory prostate cancer.

Objectives: To assess cabazitaxel versus docetaxel re-challenge for the treatment of metastatic castrate refractory prostate cancer (CRPC) patients previously treated with docetaxel at inception of primary hormone therapy. Patients and Methods: The CANTATA trial was a prospective, two-arm, open-label, phase II study conducted in eight UK centres. Patients over the age of 18, with histologically proven, metastatic prostate cancer who had been previously treated with up to 6 cycles of docetaxel as part of the STAMPEDE trial (or treated with the same drug outside of the trial at primary diagnosis) and had a performance status (PS) of 0-2, were eligible. Patients who progressed during primary treatment with docetaxel or had received prior systemic chemotherapy were excluded. Cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2) was administered via intravenous infusion every 3 weeks with oral prednisolone (10 mg) for up to 10 cycles, until disease progression, death or unacceptable toxicity. The primary outcome was clinical progression-free survival (PFS) as defined by either date of pain progression, date of a cancer-related skeletal-related event, or date of death from any cause. Analyses were by intention to treat. EudraCT number: 2012-003835-40. Results: Between 7 March 2013 and 4 January 2016, 15 patients with a median age of 70 years (range 54-76) were recruited; seven received cabazitaxel, eight docetaxel. The study was halted due to slow accrual. The median clinical PFS time in the cabazitaxel group was 6.2 months compared with 8.4 for the docetaxel group (95% confidence intervals were not reached due to the small number of patients). A total of 13 serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: Due to the low number of patients recruited, meaningful comparisons could not be made. However, toxicity was in line with known outcomes for these agents, demonstrating it is feasible and safe to deliver chemotherapy to men relapsing with CRPC after upfront chemotherapy.

A Study of Pazopanib Safety and Efficacy in Patients With Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma and ECOG Performance Status 2 (Pazo2): An Open label, Multicentre, Single Arm, Phase II Trial.

AIM: Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and poor performance status (PS≥2) are often deemed unsuitable for treatment. The Pazo2 trial aimed to assess tolerability and efficacy of pazopanib as first-line treatment in renal cancer patients with ECOG PS2. METHODS: Pazo2 was a prospective, single arm, open label, multicentre, phase II trial, conducted in 26 UK centres. Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years, with advanced or metastatic renal cancer and a clear cell component (aRCC), measurable disease as per RECIST Criteria 1.1, and ECOG PS2. Co-primary outcomes, assessed at 6-months after patients entered the trial, were tolerability, defined as the proportion of patients who did not develop "intolerable" adverse events, and efficacy, defined as the proportion of all patients who were progression-free and alive. RESULTS: Between February 21, 2013 and August 12, 2016, 75 patients were registered. Median age was 68.6 years (IQR 64.6-76.0), 100% ECOG PS2, 62.7% 'poor risk' (International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium). Of the 65 evaluable patients, 70.8% (95% CI: 58.8, 80.4) did not develop "intolerable" adverse events and 56.9% (95% CI: 44.8, 68.2) were still alive and progression-free 6 months after starting pazopanib. Twenty-seven patients developed serious adverse events deemed to be related to pazopanib. CONCLUSION: These data suggests that pazopanib is tolerated and effective in aRCC patients with PS2 and represents a treatment option for patients who cannot receive or tolerate immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Docetaxel for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Survival Outcomes in the STAMPEDE Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: STAMPEDE previously reported adding upfront docetaxel improved overall survival for prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report long-term results for non-metastatic patients using, as primary outcome, metastatic progression-free survival (mPFS), an externally demonstrated surrogate for overall survival. METHODS: Standard of care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy with or without radical prostate radiotherapy. A total of 460 SOC and 230 SOC plus docetaxel were randomly assigned 2:1. Standard survival methods and intention to treat were used. Treatment effect estimates were summarized from adjusted Cox regression models, switching to restricted mean survival time if non-proportional hazards. mPFS (new metastases, skeletal-related events, or prostate cancer death) had 70% power (α = 0.05) for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.70. Secondary outcome measures included overall survival, failure-free survival (FFS), and progression-free survival (PFS: mPFS, locoregional progression). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 6.5 years with 142 mPFS events on SOC (3 year and 54% increases over previous report). There was no good evidence of an advantage to SOC plus docetaxel on mPFS (HR = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 1.19; P = .43); with 5-year mPFS 82% (95% CI = 78% to 87%) SOC plus docetaxel vs 77% (95% CI = 73% to 81%) SOC. Secondary outcomes showed evidence SOC plus docetaxel improved FFS (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.88; P = .002) and PFS (nonproportional P = .03, restricted mean survival time difference = 5.8 months, 95% CI = 0.5 to 11.2; P = .03) but no good evidence of overall survival benefit (125 SOC deaths; HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.21; P = .44). There was no evidence SOC plus docetaxel increased late toxicity: post 1 year, 29% SOC and 30% SOC plus docetaxel grade 3-5 toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: There is robust evidence that SOC plus docetaxel improved FFS and PFS (previously shown to increase quality-adjusted life-years), without excess late toxicity, which did not translate into benefit for longer-term outcomes. This may influence patient management in individual cases.

TUXEDO: A phase I/II trial of cetuximab with chemoradiotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess feasibility and preliminary efficacy of adding cetuximab to standard chemoradiotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: TUXEDO was a prospective, single-arm, open-label, phase I/II trial conducted in six UK hospitals. Cetuximab was administered with an initial loading dose of 400mg/m2 on day 1 of week -1, and then 7-weekly doses of 250mg/m2 . Radiotherapy schedule was 64Gy/32F with day 1 mitomycin C (12g/m2 ) and 5-fluorouracil (500mg/m2 /day) over days 1-5 and 22-26. Patients with T2-4aN0M0 urothelial cancer and a performance status (PS) of 0-1 were eligible. Prior neoadjuvant therapy was permitted. The phase I primary outcome was impact on radiotherapy treatment completion and toxicity experienced during treatment. The phase II primary outcome was local control at three-months post-treatment. ISRCTN identifier: 80733590. RESULTS: Between Sept-2012 and Oct-2016, 33 patients were recruited; 7 in phase I, 26 in phase II. Three patients in phase II were subsequently deemed ineligible and received no trial therapy. Eight patients discontinued cetuximab due to adverse effects. Median age of patients was 70.1 years (range 60.6-75.1), 20 were PS 0, 27 male and 26 had already received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In phase I, all patients completed planned radiotherapy, with no delays or dose reductions. Of the 30 evaluable patients in phase II, 25 had confirmed local control 3-months post treatment (77%, 95% CI: 58-90). During the trial there were 18 serious adverse events. The study was halted due to slow accrual. CONCLUSION: Phase I data demonstrate it is feasible and safe to add cetuximab to chemoradiotherapy. Exploratory analysis of phase II data provides evidence to consider further clinical evaluation of cetuximab in this setting.

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.

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.

Feasibility randomised controlled trial of a guided workbook intervention to support work-related goals among cancer survivors in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: Employment following illness is associated with better physical and psychological functioning. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a theoretically led workbook intervention designed to support patients with cancer returning to work. DESIGN: Parallel-group randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative interviews. SETTING: Oncology clinics within four English National Health Service Trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who had received a diagnosis of breast, gynaecological, prostate or colorectal cancer and who had been receiving treatment for a minimum of two weeks. INTERVENTION: A self-guided WorkPlan workbook designed to support patients with cancer to return to work with fortnightly telephone support calls to discuss progress. The control group received treatment as usual and was offered the workbook at the end of their 12-month follow-up. OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed aspects of feasibility including eligibility, recruitment, data collection, attrition, feasibility of the methodology, acceptability of the intervention and potential to calculate cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The recruitment rate of eligible patients was 44%; 68 participants consented and 58 (85%) completed baseline measures. Randomisation procedures were acceptable, data collection methods (including cost-effectiveness data) were feasible and the intervention was acceptable to participants. Retention rates at 6-month and 12-month follow-up were 72% and 69%, respectively. At 6-month follow-up, 30% of the usual care group had returned to full-time or part-time work (including phased return to work) compared with 43% of the intervention group. At 12 months, the percentages were 47% (usual care) and 68% (intervention). CONCLUSIONS: The findings confirm the feasibility of a definitive trial, although further consideration needs to be given to increasing the participation rates among men and black and ethnic minority patients diagnosed with cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN56342476; Pre-results.

Toxicity and Patient-Reported Outcomes of a Phase 2 Randomized Trial of Prostate and Pelvic Lymph Node Versus Prostate only Radiotherapy in Advanced Localised Prostate Cancer (PIVOTAL).

PURPOSE: To establish the toxicity profile of high-dose pelvic lymph node intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and to assess whether it is safely deliverable at multiple centers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this phase 2 noncomparative multicenter trial, 124 patients with locally advanced, high-risk prostate cancer were randomized between prostate-only IMRT (PO) (74 Gy/37 fractions) and prostate and pelvic lymph node IMRT (P&P; 74 Gy/37 fractions to prostate, 60 Gy/37 fractions to pelvis). The primary endpoint was acute lower gastrointestinal (GI) Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) toxicity at week 18, aiming to exclude a grade 2 or greater (G2+) toxicity-free rate of 80% in the P&P group. Key secondary endpoints included patient-reported outcomes and late toxicity. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-four participants were randomized (62 PO, 62 P&P) from May 2011 to March 2013. Median follow-up was 37.6 months (interquartile range [IQR], 35.4-38.9 months). Participants had a median age of 69 years (IQR, 64-74 years) and median diagnostic prostate-specific androgen level of 21.6 ng/mL (IQR, 11.8-35.1 ng/mL). At week 18, G2+ lower GI toxicity-free rates were 59 of 61 (96.7%; 90% confidence interval [CI], 90.0-99.4) for the PO group and 59 of 62 (95.2%; 90% CI, 88.0-98.7) for the P&P group. Patients in both groups reported similarly low Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire symptoms and Vaizey incontinence scores. The largest difference occurred at week 6 with 4 of 61 (7%) and 16 of 61 (26%) PO and P&P patients, respectively, experiencing G2+ toxicity. At 2 years, the cumulative proportion of RTOG G2+ GI toxicity was 16.9% (95% CI, 8.9%-30.9%) for the PO group and 24.0% (95% CI, 8.4%-57.9%) for the P&P group; in addition, RTOG G2+ bladder toxicity was 5.1% (95% CI, 1.7%-14.9%) for the PO group and 5.6% (95% CI, 1.8%-16.7%) for the P&P group. CONCLUSIONS: PIVOTAL demonstrated that high-dose pelvic lymph node IMRT can be delivered at multiple centers with a modest side effect profile. Although safety data from the present study are encouraging, the impact of P&P IMRT on disease control remains to be established.

Interstitial lung disease secondary to Cetuximab in bladder cancer: an Oncologist's perspective.

A wide variety of cytotoxic medications cause interstitial lung disease (ILD). For the first time, we describe ILD in an 82-year-old woman with muscle invasive bladder cancer 10 days after receiving cetuximab as part of a novel trial. She had no significant medical history or drug allergies, had good exercise tolerance and a 5 pack-year smoking history. She received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (gemcitabine, cisplatin) with a good response on MRI. She was eligible for a phase 2 trial of cetuximab with chemotherapy and radiotherapy for muscle invasive bladder cancer (TUXEDO), in which the trial arm used cetuximab plus standard chemoradiotherapy to the bladder (64 grey in 32 fractions plus mitomycinandfluorouracil). Ten days after her third infusion of cetuximab, she was presented with type 1 respiratory failure. Thoracic CT scan demonstrated new widespread ground glass change in the lungs. She received high-dose steroids (prednisolone 1 mg/kg), broad spectrum antibacterial cover and non-invasive ventilation. She survived to be discharged with residual respiratory failure.

Usefulness and engagement with a guided workbook intervention (WorkPlan) to support work related goals among cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Returning to work after cancer is associated with improved physical and psychological functioning, but managing this return can be a challenging process. A workbook based intervention (WorkPlan) was developed to support return-to-work among cancer survivors. The aim of this study was to explore how participants using the workbook engaged with the intervention and utilised the content of the intervention in their plan to return-to-work. METHODS: As part of a feasibility randomised controlled trial, 23 participants from the intervention group were interviewed 4-weeks post intervention. Interviews focussed on intervention delivery and data was analysed using Framework analysis. RESULTS: Participants revealed a sense of empowerment and changes in their outlook as they transitioned from patient to employee, citing the act of writing as a medium for creating their own return-to-work narrative. Participants found the generation of a return-to-work plan useful for identifying potential problems and solutions, which also served as a tool for aiding discussion with the employer on return-to-work. Additionally, participants reported feeling less uncertain and anxious about returning to work. Timing of the intervention in coordination with ongoing cancer treatments was crucial to perceived effectiveness; participants identified the sole or final treatment as the ideal time to receive the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The self-guided workbook supports people diagnosed with cancer to build their communication and planning skills to successfully manage their return-to-work. Further research could examine how writing plays a role in this process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56342476 . Retrospectively registered 14 October 2015.

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 .).

A Guided Workbook Intervention (WorkPlan) to Support Work-Related Goals Among Cancer Survivors: Protocol of a Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Returning to and staying at work following illness is associated with better physical and psychological functioning. Not working has been shown to be associated with reduced self-esteem, lowered self-efficacy, and decreased belief in one's ability to return to the workplace. Although there is a growing body of research looking at what predicts return to work following cancer treatment, there are fewer studies examining interventions targeting return to work. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a theoretically led workbook intervention designed to support cancer patients in returning to work to inform a fully powered randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: This is a multicenter feasibility RCT where the main analysis uses a qualitative approach. Sixty participants (aged 18-65 years) who have received a diagnosis of cancer and who intend to return to work will be randomized to either the WorkPlan intervention group or a usual care group (ratio 1:1). Participants in the intervention group will receive a guided workbook intervention (which contains activities aimed at eliciting thoughts and beliefs, identifying targets and actions, and concrete steps to achieve goals) and will receive telephone support over a 4-week period. The primary outcome measure is time taken to return to work (in days), and secondary outcome measures include mood, quality of life, illness perceptions, and job satisfaction. Data will be collected through postal questionnaires administered immediately postintervention and at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. In addition, interviews will be undertaken immediately postintervention (to explore acceptability of the intervention and materials) and at 12-month follow-up (to explore perceptions of participation in the trial and experiences of returning to work). RESULTS: Enrollment for the study will be completed in May 2016. Data analysis will commence in April 2017, and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in late 2017. CONCLUSIONS: Currently no standardized return-to-work intervention based on targeting cancer patient beliefs is in existence. If the intervention is shown to be feasible and acceptable, the results of this study will inform a future full RCT with the potential to provide a valuable and cost-efficient tool in supporting cancer survivors in the return-to-work process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): ISRCTN56342476; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN56342476 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6gblhEPXd).

Consensus Guidelines and Contouring Atlas for Pelvic Node Delineation in Prostate and Pelvic Node Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish reproducible guidelines for delineating the clinical target volume (CTV) of the pelvic lymph nodes (LN) by combining the freehand Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) vascular expansion techniques. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seven patients with prostate cancer underwent standard planning computed tomography scanning. Four different CTVs (RMH, RTOG, modified RTOG, and Prostate and pelvIs Versus prOsTate Alone treatment for Locally advanced prostate cancer [PIVOTAL] trial) were created for each patient, and 6 different bowel expansion margins (BEM) were created to assess bowel avoidance by the CTV. The resulting CTVs were compared visually and by using Jaccard conformity indices. The volume of overlap between bowel and planning target volume (PTV) was measured to aid selection of an appropriate BEM to enable maximal LN yet minimal normal tissue coverage. RESULTS: In total, 84 nodal contours were evaluated. LN coverage was similar in all groups, with all of the vascular-expansion techniques (RTOG, modified RTOG, and PIVOTAL), resulting in larger CTVs than that of the RMH technique (mean volumes: 287.3 cm(3), 326.7 cm(3), 310.3 cm(3), and 256.7 cm(3), respectively). Mean volumes of bowel within the modified RTOG PTV were 19.5 cm(3) (with 0 mm BEM), 17.4 cm(3) (1-mm BEM), 10.8 cm(3) (2-mm BEM), 6.9 cm(3) (3-mm BEM), 5.0 cm(3) (4-mm BEM), and 1.4 cm(3) (5-mm BEM) in comparison with an overlap of 9.2 cm(3) seen using the RMH technique. Evaluation of conformity between LN-CTVs from each technique revealed similar volumes and coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Vascular expansion techniques result in larger LN-CTVs than the freehand RMH technique. Because the RMH technique is supported by phase 1 and 2 trial safety data, we proposed modifications to the RTOG technique, including the addition of a 3-mm BEM, which resulted in LN-CTV coverage similar to that of the RMH technique, with reduction in bowel and planning target volume overlap. On the basis of these findings, recommended guidelines including a detailed pelvic LN contouring atlas have been produced and implemented in the PIVOTAL trial.

Docetaxel chemotherapy for metastatic hormone refractory prostate cancer as first-line palliative chemotherapy and subsequent re-treatment: Birmingham experience.

Three-weekly docetaxel chemotherapy with prednisolone is now considered standard of care for patients with metastatic hormone refractory prostate cancer (MHRPC). This study reports the efficacy and toxicity of first-line docetaxel chemotherapy followed subsequently by re-treatment on biochemical disease progression (BDP). Forty-two patients with MHRPC were treated with three-weekly docetaxel chemotherapy 75 mg/m(2) and 10 mg of prednisolone daily. Median age 73 years (range 58-87) and median initial PSA 182 ng/ml (range 19.9-1500). Of these patients, 10 were re-treated with the same regimen (second-line chemotherapy) on BDP. A further 3 out of these 10 patients received 2nd re-treatment (third-line chemotherapy) with docetaxel chemotherapy on BDP. Fifty-four percent of patients responded to first-line docetaxel chemotherapy and all re-treated patients responded again with a PSA reduction >50%. Median treatment-free interval prior to second and third-line chemotherapy was 24 and 26 weeks, respectively. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 2.5, 7 and 12% of the total number of cycles in patients receiving first-, second- and third-line docetaxel chemotherapy, respectively. Median survival was 13 months (range 3-35) and one-year overall survival 52%. This is the first report of three-weekly docetaxel chemotherapy re-treatment in patients with MHRPC and demonstrates that patients who initially respond to docetaxel chemotherapy maintain their sensitivity to subsequent re-treatment without a significant rise in haematological toxicity.