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.

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 .).

Health and safety inspection of hairdressing and nail salons by local authority environmental health practitioners.

The objective of the study described in this article was to provide environmental health practitioners (EHPs) with an evaluation of the levels of understanding of, and compliance with, health and safety legislation in hairdressing and nail salons. EHPs carried out a series of inspections of 205 salons in a large British city, consisting of a site assessment and an assessment of employee knowledge of relevant regulations, including those relating to control of exposure to hazardous substances. Two-fifths of senior salon employees understood Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) assessments and could provide evidence of their completion. Most employees had been trained and made aware of the health hazards associated with carrying out their work and took suitable precautions to protect themselves and their clients. The results suggest that senior employees within the salons sampled, have knowledge of the risks to health and have been taking measures to control these risks. Initiatives such as the Health and Safety Executive's (in collaboration with local authorities and the hairdressing industry) "Bad Hand Day?" campaign and sector-specific COSHH essentials guidance help raise awareness levels and aim to support good control practice in salons.

Managing Asbestos-Containing Materials in the Built Environment: Report of a Health and Safety Executive and Government Office for Science Workshop.

The duty to manage asbestos in non-domestic premises is described in the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. Health and Safety Executive (HSE) policy and guidance on asbestos in the built environment in Great Britain is that asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) that are in good condition and unlikely to be disturbed can be managed in place. Where ACMs are in poor condition or likely to be disturbed they should be repaired, encapsulated or, if necessary, removed. HSE and Government Office for Science hosted a stakeholder workshop to consider evidence on the management of ACMs in public buildings. Invitees attended from a range of backgrounds (including regulatory, government, academic, medical, public interest groups, and professional service providers). Participants considered the evidence, suggested nine evidence gap areas and ranked these according to preference in an anonymous vote. The top three suggested evidence gaps were: (i) the comparative risks of managing ACMs in place versus removal; (ii) improved measurement techniques at lower fibre concentrations; and (iii) building the evidence base on the effectiveness of asbestos management and safe removal. HSE will use the workshop outputs to inform its research planning. It is anticipated that a number of initiatives for shared research will be explored.

Barriers to opportunistic chlamydia testing in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Opportunistic testing and screening for genital chlamydia infection in sexually active women under the age of 25 years can lead to a reduction in chlamydia infection and its related morbidity. AIMS: To explore the barriers to testing for genital chlamydial infection in primary care. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative study with focus groups. SETTING: Rural and urban general practice in Southwest England. METHODS: Focus groups were held with randomly selected high- and lowtesting general practices in Herefordshire, Gloucestershire and Avon. The high- and low-testing practices did not differ in their age/sex make-up, or by deprivation indices. Open questions were asked about the management of genitourinary symptoms and opportunistic testing for chlamydia. Data were collected and analysed concurrently until saturation occurred. RESULTS: Although staff from high test rate practices were much more aware of the evidence for opportunistic chlamydia testing and screening, none of the practices were happy to discuss chlamydia in a consultation unrelated to sexual health. The greatest barriers to opportunistic chlamydia testing and screening were lack of knowledge of the benefits of testing, when and how to take specimens, lack of time, worries about discussing sexual health, and lack of guidance. Healthcare staff stated that any increased testing should be accompanied by clear, concise primary care trust guidance on when and how to test, including how to obtain informed consent and perform contact tracing. Staff felt that testing could be undertaken at family planning clinics or with cervical smears if patients received information before the consultation. Alternatively, in larger practices specific chlamydia clinics could be held. CONCLUSION: The Department of Health needs to be aware of the extreme pressures that primary care staff are under, and the potential barriers to any screening implementation. Efforts to increase chlamydia screening in this setting should be accompanied by clear guidance and education. Any chlamydia clinics or increased testing must have appropriate financial and staff resources. Genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics, or level three practices with GUM expertise, will need to be increased in parallel with testing in primary care to provide appropriate contact tracing and follow-up.

Cytokine levels as biomarkers of radiation fibrosis in patients treated with breast radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Radiation fibrosis is not easily measurable although clinical scores have been developed for this purpose. Biomarkers present an alternative more objective approach to quantification, and estimation in blood provides accessible samples. We investigated if blood cytokines could be used to measure established fibrosis in patients who have undergone radiotherapy for breast cancer. METHODS: We studied two cohorts treated by breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy in the UK START Trial A, one with breast fibrosis (cases) and one with no or minimal fibrosis (controls). Two candidate cytokines, plasma connective tissue growth factor (CTGF) and serum interleukin-6 (IL6) were estimated by ELISA. Comparisons between cases and controls used the t-test or Mann-Whitney test and associations between blood concentration and clinical factors were assessed using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Seventy patients were included (26 cases, 44 controls). Mean time since radiotherapy was 9.9 years (range 8.3-12.0). No statistically significant differences between cases and controls in serum IL6 (median (IQR) 0.84 pg/ml (0.57-1.14), 0.75 pg/ml (0.41-1.43) respectively) or plasma CTGF (331.4 pg/ml (234.8-602.9), 334.5 pg/ml (270.0-452.8) were identified. There were no significant associations between blood cytokine concentration and age, fibrosis severity, breast size or time since radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference in IL6 or CTGF concentrations was detected between patients with breast fibrosis and controls with minimal or no fibrosis.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: a survey of GPs' attitudes and knowledge.

BACKGROUND: GPs need evidence and guidance to help them diagnose and manage Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS)/ME appropriately. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this survey was to obtain baseline data and identify the factors associated with GPs' attitudes to and knowledge of CFS/ME. The attitude of GPs to the condition is an important indicator of likely prognosis. METHODS: A postal questionnaire was sent to 1054 GPs served by Taunton, Bristol and Gloucester laboratories. GPs' attitudes to nine statements about CFS/ME were assessed and the factors associated with positive or negative responses were determined. Knowledge of the clinical features was also assessed. RESULTS: 811 GPs (77%) returned the questionnaire. 48% of GPs did not feel confident with making a diagnosis of CFS/ME and 41% did not feel confident in treatment. 72% of GPs accepted CFS/ME as a recognisable clinical entity and those GPs had significantly more positive attitudes. Three other key factors that were significantly, positively associated with GPs' attitudes were knowing someone socially with CFS/ME, being male and seeing more patients with the condition in the last year. CONCLUSION: Despite the publication of guidance for GPs on CFS/ME, confidence with making a diagnosis and management was found to be low. Educational initiatives and guidance for GPs should stress the importance of accepting CFS/ME as a recognisable clinical entity, as this is linked to having a positive attitude and could lead to improved confidence to make a diagnosis and treat CFS/ME patients.