What is the impact of targeted therapies given within phase I trials on the cognitive function of patients with advanced cancer: a mixed-methods exploratory study conducted in an early clinical trials unit.

INTRODUCTION: Novel therapies such as small protein molecule inhibitors and immunotherapies are tested in early phase trials before moving to later phase trials and ultimately standard practice. A key aim of these clinical trials is to define a toxicity profile, however, the emphasis is often on safety with measurements of organ toxicity. Other subjective side effects can be under-reported because they are not measured formally within the trial protocols. The concern from clinical practice is that cognitive toxicity is poorly studied and may be under-reported in this context. This could lead to toxicity profiles of new treatments not being fully described and patients with unmet need in terms of acknowledgement and support of symptoms. This protocol outlines a framework of an exploratory study with feasibility aspects to investigate the impact and experience of cognitive changes for patients on phase I trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a mixed-methods study, combining quantitative and qualitative approaches. The sample is 30 patients with advanced cancer who are participating in phase I trials of novel therapies in the early clinical trials unit of a specialist cancer centre. A test battery of validated cognitive assessments will be taken alongside patient reported outcome measures at three time points from baseline, day eight and day 28 post start of treatment. At day 28, a semi-structured interview will be conducted and the narrative thematically analysed. Results will be integrated to offer a comprehensive description of cognitive function in this patient group. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received full HRA and ethical approval. It is the first study to introduce formal cognitive assessments in a cancer phase I trial context. The study has the potential to highlight previously unreported side effects and more importantly unmet need in terms of care for patients who are participating in the trials.

Treatment with abiraterone and enzalutamide does not overcome poor outcome from metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in men with the germline homozygous HSD3B1 c.1245C genotype.

BACKGROUND: In men with castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC), the HSD3B1 c.1245A>C variant has been reported to be associated with shorter responses to first-line androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Here, we evaluated the association between the inherited HSD3B1 c.1245A>C variant and outcomes from metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after first-line treatment with abiraterone (Abi) or enzalutamide (Enza). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mCRPC (n = 266) were enrolled from two centers at the time of starting first-line Abi/Enza. Outcomes after Abi/Enza included best prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, treatment duration, and overall survival (OS). Outcomes after first-line ADT were determined retrospectively, and included treatment duration and OS. As was prespecified, we compared patients with the homozygous variant HSD3B1 genotype (CC genotype) versus the combined group with the heterozygous (AC) and homozygous wild-type (AA) genotypes. RESULTS: Among the 266 patients, 22 (8.3%) were homozygous for the HSD3B1 variant (CC). The CC genotype had no association with PSA response rate; the median Abi/Enza treatment duration was 7.1 months for the CC group and 10.3 months for the AA/AC group (log rank P = 0.34). Patients with the CC genotype had significantly worse OS, with median survival at 23.6 months for the CC group and 30.7 months for the AA/AC group (log rank P = 0.02). In multivariable analysis adjusting for age, Gleason score, PSA, prior chemotherapy, and M1 disease, the association between the CC genotype and OS remained significant (hazard ratio 1.78, 95% confidence interval 1.03-3.07, P = 0.04). Poor outcome after first-line ADT in the CC group was also observed when evaluating retrospective ADT duration data for the same combined cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In this large two-center study evaluating the HSD3B1 c.1245 genotype and outcomes after first-line Abi/Enza, homozygous variant (CC) HSD3B1 genotype was associated with worse outcomes. Novel therapeutic strategies are needed to enable treatment selection based on this genetic marker.

Clinical outcomes in men of diverse ethnic backgrounds with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: We have shown previously in multivariable analysis that black men had 19% lower risk of death than white men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with a docetaxel and prednisone (DP)-based regimen. The primary goal of this analysis was to compare progression-free survival (PFS), biochemical PFS, ≥50% decline in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) from baseline and objective response rate (ORR) in white, black and Asian men with mCRPC treated with a DP-based regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from 8820 mCRPC men randomized on nine phase III trials to a DP-containing regimen were combined. Race used in the analysis was based on self-report. End points were PFS, biochemical PSA, ≥50% decline in PSA from baseline and ORR. The proportional hazards and the logistic regression models were employed to assess the prognostic importance of race in predicting outcomes adjusting for established prognostic factors. RESULTS: Of 8820 patients, 7528 (85%) were white, 500 (6%) were black, 424 were Asian (5%) and 368 (4%) had race unspecified. Median PFS were 8.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.2-8.5], 8.2 (95% CI 7.4-8.8) and 8.3 (95% CI 7.6-8.8) months in white, black and Asian men, respectively. Median PSA PFS were 9.9 (95% CI 9.7-10.4), 8.5 (95% CI 8.0-10.3) and 11.1 (95% CI 9.9-12.5) months in white, black and Asian men, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We observed no differences in clinical outcomes by race and ethnic groups in men with mCRPC enrolled on these phase III clinical trials with DP.

A phase I dose-escalation study of enzalutamide in combination with the AKT inhibitor AZD5363 (capivasertib) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Activation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway through loss of phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) occurs in approximately 50% of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Recent evidence suggests that combined inhibition of the androgen receptor (AR) and AKT may be beneficial in mCRPC with PTEN loss. PATIENTS AND METHODS: mCRPC patients who previously failed abiraterone and/or enzalutamide, received escalating doses of AZD5363 (capivasertib) starting at 320 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) given 4 days on and 3 days off, in combination with enzalutamide 160 mg daily. The co-primary endpoints were safety/tolerability and determining the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase II dose; pharmacokinetics, antitumour activity, and exploratory biomarker analysis were also evaluated. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were enrolled, 15 received study treatment and 13 were assessable for dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Patients were treated at 320, 400, and 480 mg b.i.d. dose levels of capivasertib. The recommended phase II dose identified for capivasertib was 400 mg b.i.d. with 1/6 patients experiencing a DLT (maculopapular rash) at this level. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were hyperglycemia (26.7%) and rash (20%). Concomitant administration of enzalutamide significantly decreased plasma exposure of capivasertib, though this did not appear to impact pharmacodynamics. Three patients met the criteria for response (defined as prostate-specific antigen decline ≥50%, circulating tumour cell conversion, and/or radiological response). Responses were seen in patients with PTEN loss or activating mutations in AKT, low or absent AR-V7 expression, as well as those with an increase in phosphorylated extracellular signal-regulated kinase (pERK) in post-exposure samples. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of capivasertib and enzalutamide is tolerable and has antitumour activity, with all responding patients harbouring aberrations in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT02525068.

A decade of clinical development of PARP inhibitors in perspective.

Genomic instability is a hallmark of cancer, and often is the result of altered DNA repair capacities in tumour cells. DNA damage repair defects are common in different cancer types; these alterations can also induce tumour-specific vulnerabilities that can be exploited therapeutically. In 2009, a first-in-man clinical trial of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib clinically validated the synthetic lethal interaction between inhibition of PARP1, a key sensor of DNA damage, and BRCA1/BRCA2 deficiency. In this review, we summarize a decade of PARP inhibitor clinical development, a work that has resulted in the registration of several PARP inhibitors in breast (olaparib and talazoparib) and ovarian cancer (olaparib, niraparib and rucaparib, either alone or following platinum chemotherapy as maintenance therapy). Over the past 10 years, our knowledge on the mechanism of action of PARP inhibitor as well as how tumours become resistant has been extended, and we summarise this work here. We also discuss opportunities for expanding the precision medicine approach with PARP inhibitors, identifying a wider population who could benefit from this drug class. This includes developing and validating better predictive biomarkers for patient stratification, mainly based on homologous recombination defects beyond BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations, identifying DNA repair deficient tumours in other cancer types such as prostate or pancreatic cancer, or by designing combination therapies with PARP inhibitors.

Vistusertib (dual m-TORC1/2 inhibitor) in combination with paclitaxel in patients with high-grade serous ovarian and squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

Background: We have previously shown that raised p-S6K levels correlate with resistance to chemotherapy in ovarian cancer. We hypothesised that inhibiting p-S6K signalling with the dual m-TORC1/2 inhibitor in patients receiving weekly paclitaxel could improve outcomes in such patients. Patients and methods: In dose escalation, weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) was given 6/7 weeks in combination with two intermittent schedules of vistusertib (dosing starting on the day of paclitaxel): schedule A, vistusertib dosed bd for 3 consecutive days per week (3/7 days) and schedule B, vistusertib dosed bd for 2 consecutive days per week (2/7 days). After establishing a recommended phase II dose (RP2D), expansion cohorts in high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) and squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC) were explored in 25 and 40 patients, respectively. Results: The dose-escalation arms comprised 22 patients with advanced solid tumours. The dose-limiting toxicities were fatigue and mucositis in schedule A and rash in schedule B. On the basis of toxicity and pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) evaluations, the RP2D was established as 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel with 50 mg vistusertib bd 3/7 days for 6/7 weeks. In the HGSOC expansion, RECIST and GCIG CA125 response rates were 13/25 (52%) and 16/25 (64%), respectively, with median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 5.8 months (95% CI: 3.28-18.54). The RP2D was not well tolerated in the SqNSCLC expansion, but toxicities were manageable after the daily vistusertib dose was reduced to 25 mg bd for the following 23 patients. The RECIST response rate in this group was 8/23 (35%), and the mPFS was 5.8 months (95% CI: 2.76-21.25). Discussion: In this phase I trial, we report a highly active and well-tolerated combination of vistusertib, administered as an intermittent schedule with weekly paclitaxel, in patients with HGSOC and SqNSCLC. Clinical trial registration: ClinicialTrials.gov identifier: CNCT02193633.

Circulating tumour cell increase as a biomarker of disease progression in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with low baseline CTC counts.

Background: The development of treatment response and surrogate biomarkers for advanced prostate cancer care is an unmet clinical need. Patients with baseline circulating tumour cell (BLCTCs) counts <5/7.5 mL represent a good prognosis subgroup but are non-evaluable for response assessment (decrease in CTCs). The aim of the study is to determine the value of any increase in CTCs (CTC progression) as an indicator of progression in prostate cancer patients with low pre-treatment CTCs (<5). Patients and methods: We carried out a post hoc analysis of patients with BLCTCs < 5 treated in the COU-AA-301 (abiraterone or placebo + prednisone) and IMMC-38 (chemotherapy) trials. The association of CTC progression (increase in CTCs at 4, 8 or 12 weeks) with overall survival (OS) was evaluated in multi-variable Cox regression models. Performance of survival models with and without CTC progression was evaluated by calculating ROC curve area under the curves (AUCs) and weighted c-indices. Results: Overall, 511 patients with CTCs < 5 (421 in COU-AA-301 and 90 in IMMC-38) were selected; 212 (41.7%) had CTC progression at 4, 8 or 12 weeks after treatment initiation. CTC progression was associated with significantly worse OS [27.1 versus 15.1 m; hazard ratio (HR) 3.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5-4.5; P < 0.001)], independent of baseline CTCs and established clinical variables. Adding CTC progression to the OS model significantly improved ROC AUC (0.77 versus 0.66; P < 0.001). Models including CTC progression had superior ROC AUC (0.77 versus 0.69; P < 0.001) and weighted c-index [0.750 versus 0.705; delta c-index: 0.045 (95% CI 0.019-0.071)] values than those including CTC conversion (increase to CTCs ≥ 5). In COU-AA-301, the impact of CTC progression was independent of treatment arm. Conclusions: Increasing CTCs during the first 12 weeks of treatment are independently associated with worse OS from advanced prostate cancer in patients with baseline CTCs < 5 treated with abiraterone or chemotherapy and improve models with established prognostic variables. These findings must be prospectively validated.

Adding abiraterone or docetaxel to long-term hormone therapy for prostate cancer: directly randomised data from the STAMPEDE multi-arm, multi-stage platform protocol.

Background: Adding abiraterone acetate with prednisolone (AAP) or docetaxel with prednisolone (DocP) to standard-of-care (SOC) each improved survival in systemic therapy for advanced or metastatic prostate cancer: evaluation of drug efficacy: a multi-arm multi-stage platform randomised controlled protocol recruiting patients with high-risk locally advanced or metastatic PCa starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The protocol provides the only direct, randomised comparative data of SOC + AAP versus SOC + DocP. Method: Recruitment to SOC + DocP and SOC + AAP overlapped November 2011 to March 2013. SOC was long-term ADT or, for most non-metastatic cases, ADT for ≥2 years and RT to the primary tumour. Stratified randomisation allocated pts 2 : 1 : 2 to SOC; SOC + docetaxel 75 mg/m2 3-weekly×6 + prednisolone 10 mg daily; or SOC + abiraterone acetate 1000 mg + prednisolone 5 mg daily. AAP duration depended on stage and intent to give radical RT. The primary outcome measure was death from any cause. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, adjusted for stratification factors. This was not a formally powered comparison. A hazard ratio (HR) <1 favours SOC + AAP, and HR > 1 favours SOC + DocP. Results: A total of 566 consenting patients were contemporaneously randomised: 189 SOC + DocP and 377 SOC + AAP. The patients, balanced by allocated treatment were: 342 (60%) M1; 429 (76%) Gleason 8-10; 449 (79%) WHO performance status 0; median age 66 years and median PSA 56 ng/ml. With median follow-up 4 years, 149 deaths were reported. For overall survival, HR = 1.16 (95% CI 0.82-1.65); failure-free survival HR = 0.51 (95% CI 0.39-0.67); progression-free survival HR = 0.65 (95% CI 0.48-0.88); metastasis-free survival HR = 0.77 (95% CI 0.57-1.03); prostate cancer-specific survival HR = 1.02 (0.70-1.49); and symptomatic skeletal events HR = 0.83 (95% CI 0.55-1.25). In the safety population, the proportion reporting ≥1 grade 3, 4 or 5 adverse events ever was 36%, 13% and 1% SOC + DocP, and 40%, 7% and 1% SOC + AAP; prevalence 11% at 1 and 2 years on both arms. Relapse treatment patterns varied by arm. Conclusions: This direct, randomised comparative analysis of two new treatment standards for hormone-naïve prostate cancer showed no evidence of a difference in overall or prostate cancer-specific survival, nor in other important outcomes such as symptomatic skeletal events. Worst toxicity grade over entire time on trial was similar but comprised different toxicities in line with the known properties of the drugs. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00268476.

Application of Liquid Biopsies in Cancer Targeted Therapy.

As a growing body of evidence demonstrates intertumoral and intratumoral heterogeneity and clonal evolution, both during carcinogenesis and also throughout treatment resulting in acquired drug resistance, the utility of blood-based assays or "liquid biopsies" is becoming increasingly recognized in clinical practice and trial design. "Liquid biopsies" provide a less invasive approach to the current gold standard of interrogating tumors by tissue biopsies, which are frequently unfeasible, associated with morbidity, and cannot be performed as often.

Molecularly targeted therapies in cancer: a guide for the nuclear medicine physician.

Molecular imaging continues to influence every aspect of cancer care including detection, diagnosis, staging and therapy response assessment. Recent advances in the understanding of cancer biology have prompted the introduction of new targeted therapy approaches. Precision medicine in oncology has led to rapid advances and novel approaches optimizing the use of imaging modalities in cancer care, research and development. This article focuses on the concept of targeted therapy in cancer and the challenges that exist for molecular imaging in cancer care.

Analysis of DNA methylation in single circulating tumor cells.

Direct analysis of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) can inform on molecular mechanisms underlying systemic spread. Here we investigated promoter methylation of three genes regulating epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT), a key mechanism enabling epithelial tumor cells to disseminate and metastasize. For this, we developed a single-cell protocol based on agarose-embedded bisulfite treatment, which allows investigating DNA methylation of multiple loci via a multiplex PCR (multiplexed-scAEBS). We established our assay for the simultaneous analysis of three EMT-associated genes miR-200c/141, miR-200b/a/429 and CDH1 in single cells. The assay was validated in solitary cells of GM14667, MDA-MB-231 and MCF-7 cell lines, achieving a DNA amplification efficiency of 70% with methylation patterns identical to the respective bulk DNA. Then we applied multiplexed-scAEBS to 159 single CTCs from 11 patients with metastatic breast and six with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, isolated via CellSearch (EpCAMpos/CKpos/CD45neg/DAPIpos) and subsequent FACS sorting. In contrast to CD45pos white blood cells isolated and processed by the identical approach, we observed in the isolated CTCs methylation patterns resembling more those of epithelial-like cells. Methylation at the promoter of microRNA-200 family was significantly higher in prostate CTCs. Data from our single-cell analysis revealed an epigenetic heterogeneity among CTCs and indicates tumor-specific active epigenetic regulation of EMT-associated genes during blood-borne dissemination.

Impact of single-agent daily prednisone on outcomes in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite palliative benefits and PSA responses, the objective clinical impact of daily oral prednisone (P) for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is unknown. We performed a pooled analysis of control arms of randomized trials that either did or did not administer single-agent P to evaluate its impact on overall survival (OS) and toxicities. METHODS: Individual patient data from control arms of randomized trials of men with mCRPC who received placebo or P+placebo post docetaxel were eligible for analysis. The impact of P on OS and severe toxicities was investigated in Cox regression models adjusted for known prognostic factors. Statistical significance was defined as P<0.05 and all tests were two sided. RESULTS: Data from the control arms of two randomized phase III trials were available totaling 794 men: the COU-AA-301 trial (n=394) administered P plus placebo and the CA184-043 trial (n=400) administered placebo alone. P plus placebo was not significantly associated with OS compared with placebo in a multivariable analysis (hazard ratio=0.89 (95% confidence interval 0.72-1.10), P=0.27). Other factors associated with poor OS were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)-performance status (PS) ⩾1, Gleason score ⩾8, liver metastasis, high PSA, hypoalbuminemia and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Grade ⩾3 therapy-related toxicities were significantly increased with P plus placebo compared with placebo (hazard ratio=1.48 (95% confidence interval 1.03-2.13), P=0.034). Other baseline factors significantly associated with a higher risk of grade ⩾3 toxicities were ECOG-PS ⩾1, hypoalbuminemia and elevated LDH. Fatigue, asthenia, anorexia and pain were not different based on P administration. CONCLUSIONS: P plus placebo was associated with higher grade ⩾3 toxicities but not extension of OS compared with placebo alone in men with mCRPC who received prior docetaxel. Except for the use of P with abiraterone to alleviate toxicities, the use of P should be questioned given its association with toxicities and resistance.

Phase I trial outcomes in older patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: This study had two aims: (a) to test the hypothesis that advanced age is associated with lower levels of tolerability and clinical benefit to experimental Phase I trial agents; (b) to assess the validity of the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) prognostic score as a patient selection tool in older patients. METHODS: Clinico-pathological characteristics and treatment outcomes of all patients treated consecutively from 2005 to 2009 in phase I trials at the RMH were recorded. All toxicity and clinical outcome data were compared between patients aged below and above 65 years of age. RESULTS: One thousand and four patients were treated in 30 Phase I trials, with 315 (31%) patients aged 65 years and older. Grade 3-5 toxicities (22.8% vs 24.8% (P=0.52)), trial discontinuation (6% vs 4%; P=0.33), and dose interruptions (8.0% vs 8.0% (P=0.96)) were observed at similar rates in patients below and above 65 years of age, respectively. The overall response rate 5.2% vs 4.1%, progression-free survival (PFS) 1.9 vs 3.5 months and clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 6 months 15.2% vs 14.3% were comparable in both groups. To avoid bias due to the potential therapeutic benefit of abiraterone, comparisons were repeated excluding prostate cancer patients with similar results (ORR 4.6% vs 4%, PFS 1.8 vs 3.0 months, CBR at 6 months 13.5% vs 9.5%). Multivariate analysis indicated that the previously identified RMH score (including albumin and lactate dehydrogenase levels) was an accurate predictor of outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Phase I clinical trials should be considered in patients with advanced cancers regardless of age, as older patients who enter these have similar safety and efficacy outcomes as their younger counterparts. The RMH prognostic score can assist in the selection of suitable older patients.

Does Gleason score at initial diagnosis predict efficacy of abiraterone acetate therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer? An analysis of abiraterone acetate phase III trials.

BACKGROUND: The usefulness of Gleason score (<8 or ≥8) at initial diagnosis as a predictive marker of response to abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) was explored retrospectively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Initial diagnosis Gleason score was obtained in 1048 of 1195 (COU-AA-301, post-docetaxel) and 996 of 1088 (COU-AA-302, chemotherapy-naïve) patients treated with AA 1 g plus prednisone 5 mg twice daily by mouth or placebo plus prednisone. Efficacy end points included radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS). Distributions and medians were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) by Cox model. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar across studies and treatment groups. Regardless of Gleason score, AA treatment significantly improved rPFS in post-docetaxel [Gleason score <8: median, 6.4 versus 5.5 months (HR = 0.70; 95% CI 0.56-0.86), P = 0.0009 and Gleason score ≥8: median, 5.6 versus 2.9 months (HR = 0.58; 95% CI 0.48-0.72), P < 0.0001] and chemotherapy-naïve patients [Gleason score <8: median, 16.5 versus 8.2 months (HR = 0.50; 95% CI 0.40-0.62), P < 0.0001 and Gleason score ≥8: median, 13.8 versus 8.2 months (HR = 0.61; 95% CI 0.49-0.76), P < 0.0001]. Clinical benefit of AA treatment was also observed for OS, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, objective response and time to PSA progression across studies and Gleason score subgroups. CONCLUSION: OS and rPFS trends demonstrate AA treatment benefit in patients with pre- or post-chemotherapy mCRPC regardless of Gleason score at initial diagnosis. The initial diagnostic Gleason score in patients with mCRPC should not be considered in the decision to treat with AA, as tumour metastases may no longer reflect the histology at the time of diagnosis. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: COU-AA-301 (NCT00638690); COU-AA-302 (NCT00887198).

A prognostic index model for predicting overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with abiraterone acetate after docetaxel.

BACKGROUND: Few prognostic models for overall survival (OS) are available for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with recently approved agents. We developed a prognostic index model using readily available clinical and laboratory factors from a phase III trial of abiraterone acetate (hereafter abiraterone) in combination with prednisone in post-docetaxel mCRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Baseline data were available from 762 patients treated with abiraterone-prednisone. Factors were assessed for association with OS through a univariate Cox model and used in a multivariate Cox model with a stepwise procedure to identify those of significance. Data were validated using an independent, external, population-based cohort. RESULTS: Six risk factors individually associated with poor prognosis were included in the final model: lactate dehydrogenase > upper limit of normal (ULN) [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.31], Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 (HR = 2.19), presence of liver metastases (HR = 2.00), albumin ≤4 g/dl (HR = 1.54), alkaline phosphatase > ULN (HR = 1.38) and time from start of initial androgen-deprivation therapy to start of treatment ≤36 months (HR = 1.30). Patients were categorized into good (n = 369, 46%), intermediate (n = 321, 40%) and poor (n = 107, 13%) prognosis groups based on the number of risk factors and relative HRs. The C-index was 0.70 ± 0.014. The model was validated by the external dataset (n = 286). CONCLUSION: This analysis identified six factors used to model survival in mCRPC and categorized patients into three distinct risk groups. Prognostic stratification with this model could assist clinical practice decisions for follow-up and monitoring, and may aid in clinical trial design. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT00638690.

Complications of hyperglycaemia with PI3K-AKT-mTOR inhibitors in patients with advanced solid tumours on Phase I clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: PI3K-AKT-mTOR inhibitors (PAMi) are promising anticancer treatments. Hyperglycaemia is a mechanism-based toxicity of these agents and is becoming increasingly important with their use in larger numbers of patients. METHODS: Retrospective case-control study comparing incidence and severity of hyperglycaemia (all grades) between a case group of 387 patients treated on 18 phase I clinical trials with PAMi (78 patients with PI3Ki, 138 with mTORi, 144 with AKTi and 27 with PI3K/mTORi) and a control group of 109 patients treated on 10 phase I clinical trials with agents not directly targeting the PAM pathway. Diabetic patients were excluded in both groups. RESULTS: The incidence of hyperglycaemia was not significantly different between cases and controls (86.6% vs 80.7%, respectively, P=0.129). However, high grade (grade 3-4) hyperglycaemia was more frequent in the PAMi group than in controls (6.7% vs 0%, respectively, P=0.005). The incidence of grade 3-4 hyperglycaemia was greater with AKT and multikinase inhibitors compared with other PAMi (P<0.001). All patients with high-grade hyperglycaemia received antihyperglycemic treatment and none developed severe metabolic complications (diabetic ketoacidosis or hyperosmolar hyperglycemic nonketotic state). High-grade hyperglycaemia was the cause of permanent PAMi discontinuation in nine patients. CONCLUSIONS: PI3K-AKT-mTOR inhibitors are associated with small (6.7%) but statistically significant increased risk of high-grade hyperglycaemia compared with non-PAM targeting agents. However, PAMi-induced hyperglycaemia was not found to be associated with severe metabolic complications in this non-diabetic population of patients with advanced cancers.

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer: recommendations of the St Gallen Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2015.

The first St Gallen Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) Expert Panel identified and reviewed the available evidence for the ten most important areas of controversy in advanced prostate cancer (APC) management. The successful registration of several drugs for castration-resistant prostate cancer and the recent studies of chemo-hormonal therapy in men with castration-naïve prostate cancer have led to considerable uncertainty as to the best treatment choices, sequence of treatment options and appropriate patient selection. Management recommendations based on expert opinion, and not based on a critical review of the available evidence, are presented. The various recommendations carried differing degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of the article text and in the detailed voting results recorded in supplementary Material, available at Annals of Oncology online. Detailed decisions on treatment as always will involve consideration of disease extent and location, prior treatments, host factors, patient preferences as well as logistical and economic constraints. Inclusion of men with APC in clinical trials should be encouraged.