Cardiovascular Events and Androgen Receptor Signaling Inhibitors in Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Cardiovascular (CV) events remain a substantial cause of mortality among men with advanced and metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). The introduction of novel androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSI) has transformed the treatment landscape of PCa in recent years; however, their associated CV toxic effects remains unclear. Objective: To assess the incidence of CV events with addition of ARSI to standard of care (SOC) in locally advanced (M0) and metastatic (M1) PCa. Data Sources: Systematic searches of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov were performed from inception up to May 2023. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials of ARSI agents (abiraterone, apalutamide, darolutamide, enzalutamide) that reported CV events among individuals with M0 and M1, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC) and castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Data Extraction and Synthesis: A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidance. Two authors screened and independently evaluated studies eligible for inclusion. Data extraction and bias assessment was subsequently performed. Main Outcomes and Measures: A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate risk ratios for the incidence of all grade and grade 3 or higher CV events (primary outcomes), in addition to hypertension, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), cardiac dysrhythmia, CV death, cerebrovascular event, and venous thromboembolism (secondary outcomes). Sources of heterogeneity were explored using meta-regression. Results: There were 24 studies (n = 22 166 patients; median age range, 63-77 years; median follow-up time range, 3.9-96 months) eligible for inclusion. ARSI therapy was associated with increased risk of all grade CV event (risk ratio [RR], 1.75; 95% CI, 1.50-2.04; P < .001) and grade 3 or higher CV events (RR, 2.10; 95%, 1.72-2.55; P < .001). ARSI therapy also was associated with increased risk for grade 3 or higher events for hypertension (RR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.74-2.90; P < .001), ACS (RR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.43-1.60; P < .01), cardiac dysrhythmia (RR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.23-2.17; P < .001), cerebrovascular events (RR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.34-2.59; P < .001) and for CV-related death (RR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.32-3.10; P = .001). Subgroup analysis demonstrated increased risk of all CV events across the disease spectrum (M0 HSPC: RR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.36-3.75; P = .002; M1 HSPC: RR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.47-2.31; P < .001; M0 CRPC: RR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.13-2.81; P = .01; M1 CRPC: RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.16-1.83; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that the addition of ARSIs to traditional ADT was associated with increased risk of CV events across the prostate cancer disease spectrum. These results suggest that patients with prostate cancer should be advised about and monitored for the potential of increased risk of CV events with initiation of ARSI therapy alongside conventional hormonal therapy.

Refining Risk Stratification of High-risk and Locoregional Prostate Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Radiotherapy (RT) and long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ltADT; 18-36 mo) is a standard of care in the treatment of high-risk localized/locoregional prostate cancer (HRLPC). We evaluated the outcomes in patients treated with RT + ltADT to identify which patients have poorer prognosis with standard therapy. METHODS: Individual patient data from patients with HRLPC (as defined by any of the following three risk factors [RFs] in the context of cN0 disease-Gleason score ≥8, cT3-4, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >20 ng/ml, or cN1 disease) treated with RT and ltADT in randomized controlled trials collated by the Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate group. The outcome measures of interest were metastasis-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), time to metastasis, and prostate cancer-specific mortality. Multivariable Cox and Fine-Gray regression estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for the three RFs and cN1 disease. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 3604 patients from ten trials were evaluated, with a median PSA value of 24 ng/ml. Gleason score ≥8 (MFS HR = 1.45; OS HR = 1.42), cN1 disease (MFS HR = 1.86; OS HR = 1.77), cT3-4 disease (MFS HR = 1.28; OS HR = 1.22), and PSA >20 ng/ml (MFS HR = 1.30; OS HR = 1.21) were associated with poorer outcomes. Adjusted 5-yr MFS rates were 83% and 78%, and 10-yr MFS rates were 63% and 53% for patients with one and two to three RFs, respectively; corresponding 10-yr adjusted OS rates were 67% and 60%, respectively. In cN1 patients, adjusted 5- and 10-yr MFS rates were 67% and 36%, respectively, and 10-yr OS was 47%. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: HRLPC patients with two to three RFs (and cN0) or cN1 disease had the poorest outcomes on RT and ltADT. This will help in counseling patients treated in routine practice and in guiding adjuvant trials in HRLPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Radiotherapy and long-term hormone therapy are standard treatments for high-risk and locoregional prostate cancer. In this report, we defined prognostic groups within high-risk/locoregional prostate cancer and showed that outcomes to standard therapy are poorest in those with two or more "high-risk" factors or evidence of lymph node involvement. Such patients may therefore be the best candidates for intensification of treatment.

Duration of androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of long-course versus short-course androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence supports androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with primary radiotherapy as initial treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the use and optimal duration of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. METHODS: RADICALS-HD was a randomised controlled trial of ADT duration within the RADICALS protocol. Here, we report on the comparison of short-course versus long-course ADT. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after previous radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to add 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT) or 24 months of ADT (long-course ADT) to radiotherapy, using subcutaneous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (monthly in the short-course ADT group and 3-monthly in the long-course ADT group), daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. The comparison had more than 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 75% to 81% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72). Standard time-to-event analyses were used. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. FINDINGS: Between Jan 30, 2008, and July 7, 2015, 1523 patients (median age 65 years, IQR 60-69) were randomly assigned to receive short-course ADT (n=761) or long-course ADT (n=762) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 138 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 8·9 years (7·0-10·0), 313 metastasis-free survival events were reported overall (174 in the short-course ADT group and 139 in the long-course ADT group; HR 0·773 [95% CI 0·612-0·975]; p=0·029). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 71·9% (95% CI 67·6-75·7) in the short-course ADT group and 78·1% (74·2-81·5) in the long-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 105 (14%) of 753 participants in the short-course ADT group and 142 (19%) of 757 participants in the long-course ADT group (p=0·025), with no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Compared with adding 6 months of ADT, adding 24 months of ADT improved metastasis-free survival in people receiving postoperative radiotherapy. For individuals who can accept the additional duration of adverse effects, long-course ADT should be offered with postoperative radiotherapy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society.

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

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence indicates that adjuvant, short-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves metastasis-free survival when given with primary radiotherapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the value of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy is unclear. METHODS: RADICALS-HD was an international randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of ADT used in combination with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to radiotherapy alone (no ADT) or radiotherapy with 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT), using monthly subcutaneous gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue injections, daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as distant metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. Standard survival analysis methods were used, accounting for randomisation stratification factors. The trial had 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 80% to 86% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·67). Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. FINDINGS: Between Nov 22, 2007, and June 29, 2015, 1480 patients (median age 66 years [IQR 61-69]) were randomly assigned to receive no ADT (n=737) or short-course ADT (n=743) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 121 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 7·1-10·1), metastasis-free survival events were reported for 268 participants (142 in the no ADT group and 126 in the short-course ADT group; HR 0·886 [95% CI 0·688-1·140], p=0·35). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 79·2% (95% CI 75·4-82·5) in the no ADT group and 80·4% (76·6-83·6) in the short-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 121 (17%) of 737 participants in the no ADT group and 100 (14%) of 743 in the short-course ADT group (p=0·15), with no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Metastatic disease is uncommon following postoperative bed radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adding 6 months of ADT to this radiotherapy did not improve metastasis-free survival compared with no ADT. These findings do not support the use of short-course ADT with postoperative radiotherapy in this patient population. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society.

Tolerability of Olaparib Combined with Abiraterone in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Further Results from the Phase 3 PROpel Trial.

BACKGROUND: The PROpel study (NCT03732820) demonstrated a statistically significant progression-free survival benefit with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in the first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) setting, irrespective of homologous recombination repair mutation status. OBJECTIVE: We report additional safety analyses from PROpel to increase clinical understanding of the adverse-event (AE) profiles of olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomised (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 126 centres in 17 countries (October 2018-January 2020). Patients had mCRPC and no prior systemic mCRPC treatment. INTERVENTION: Olaparib (300 mg bid) or placebo with abiraterone (1000 mg od) plus prednisone/prednisolone (5 mg bid). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The data cut-off date was July 30, 2021. Safety was assessed by AE reporting (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03) and analysed descriptively. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The most common AEs (all grades) for olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone were anaemia (46.0% vs 16.4%), nausea (28.1% vs 12.6%), and fatigue (27.9% vs 18.9%). Grade ≥3 anaemia occurred in 15.1% versus 3.3% of patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone arm. The incidences of the most common AEs for olaparib plus abiraterone peaked early, within 2 mo, and were managed typically by dose modifications or standard medical practice. Overall, 13.8% versus 7.8% of patients discontinued treatment with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone because of an AE; 3.8% versus 0.8% of patients discontinued because of anaemia. More venous thromboembolism events were observed in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 7.3%; grade ≥3, 6.8%) than in the placebo plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 3.3%; grade ≥3, 2.0%), most commonly pulmonary embolism (6.5% vs 1.8% for olaparib plus abiraterone vs placebo plus abiraterone). CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib plus abiraterone has a manageable and predictable safety profile. PATIENT SUMMARY: The PROpel trial showed that in patients who had not received any previous treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, olaparib combined with abiraterone was more effective in delaying progression of the disease than abiraterone alone. Most side effects caused by combining olaparib with abiraterone could be managed with supportive care methods, by pausing olaparib administration for a short period of time and/or by reducing the dose of olaparib.

What can patient-reported experience measures tell us about the variation in patients' experience of prostate cancer care? A cross-sectional study using survey data from the National Prostate Cancer Audit in England.

OBJECTIVES: A national survey aimed to measure how men with prostate cancer perceived their involvement in and decisions around their care immediately after diagnosis. This study aimed to describe any differences found by socio-demographic groups. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of men who were diagnosed with and treated for prostate cancer. SETTING: The National Prostate Cancer Audit patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) survey in England. PARTICIPANTS: Men diagnosed in 2014-2016, with non-metastatic prostate cancer, were surveyed. Responses from 32 796 men were individually linked to records from a national clinical audit and to administrative hospital data. Age, ethnicity, deprivation and disease risk classification were used to explore variation in responses to selected questions. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses to five questions from the PREMs survey: the proportion responding to the highest positive category was compared across the socio-demographic characteristics above. RESULTS: When adjusted for other factors, older men were less likely than men under the age of 60 to feel side effects had been explained in a way they could understand (men 80+: relative risk (RR)=0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.00), that their views were considered (RR=0.79, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.87) or that they were involved in decisions (RR=0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00). The latter was also apparent for men who were not white (black men: RR=0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; Asian men: RR=0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96) and, to a lesser extent, for more deprived men. CONCLUSIONS: The observed discrepancies highlight the need for more focus on initiatives to improve the experience of ethnic minority patients and those older than 60 years. The findings also argue for further validation of discriminatory instruments to help cancer care providers fully understand the variation in the experience of their patients.

Risk of Fractures and Falls in Men with Advanced or Metastatic Prostate Cancer Receiving Androgen Deprivation Therapy and Treated with Novel Androgen Receptor Signalling Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

CONTEXT: The addition of androgen receptor signalling inhibitors (ARSIs) to standard androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has improved survival outcomes in patients with advanced prostate cancer (PCa). Advanced PCa patients have a higher incidence of osteoporosis, compounded by rapid bone density loss upon commencement of ADT resulting in an increased fracture risk. The effect of treatment intensification with ARSIs on fall and fracture risk is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of falls and fractures in men with PCa treated with ARSIs. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, and The Health Technology Assessment Database for randomised control trials between 1990 and June 2023 was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses guidance. Risk ratios were estimated for the incidence of fracture and fall events. Subgroup analyses by grade of event and disease state were conducted. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-three studies were eligible for inclusion. Fracture outcomes were reported in 17 studies (N = 18 811) and fall outcomes in 16 studies (N = 16 537). A pooled analysis demonstrated that ARSIs increased the risk of fractures (relative risk [RR] 2.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.00-2.71; p < 0.01) and falls (RR 2.22, 95% CI 1.81-2.72; p < 0.01) compared with control. A subgroup analysis demonstrated an increased risk of both fractures (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.70-2.67; p < 0.01) and falls (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.53-3.12; p < 0.0001) in metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa patients, and an increased risk of fractures in the nonmetastatic (RR 2.27, 95% CI 1.60-3.20; p < 0.00001) and metastatic castrate-resistant (RR 2.85, 95% CI 2.16-3.76; p < 0.00001) settings. The key limitations include an inability to distinguish fragility from pathological fractures and potential for a competing risk bias. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of an ARSI to standard ADT significantly increases the risk of fractures and falls in men with prostate cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: We found a significantly increased risk of both fractures and falls with a combination of novel androgen signalling inhibitors and traditional forms of hormone therapy.

Does Research from Clinical Trials in Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer Treatment Translate into Access to Treatments for Patients in the "Real World"? A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Since 2015 there have been major advances in the management of primary metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) following the publication of key clinical trials that demonstrated significant clinical benefits with docetaxel chemotherapy or novel hormone therapy (NHT) in addition to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Despite these advances, there is evidence to show that these treatments are not being utilised for mHSPC in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To determine the utilisation of docetaxel and NHT in mHSPC in routine practice and the determinants of variation in their use. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: MEDLINE and Embase were searched systematically for studies on utilisation of treatments for primary mHSPC that were based on regional or national data sets and published after January 2005. Study results were summarised using a narrative synthesis. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Thirteen papers were included in the analysis, six full-text articles and seven abstracts, on studies that included a total of 166 876 patients. The utilisation rate of treatment intensification with either docetaxel or NHT (enzalutamide, apalutamide, or abiraterone) in addition to ADT ranged from 9.3% to 38.1% across the studies. Younger, White patients with fewer comorbidities and living in more urban settings were more likely to be prescribed treatment intensification. Patients treated in private academic institutions by oncologists were more likely to receive docetaxel or NHT. Socioeconomic status did not impact receipt of systemic therapy. NHT utilisation rates appear to have increased over time. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the need to change the approach to the treatment of primary mHSPC in the real world by harnessing the practice-changing results from recent trials in this setting to optimise upfront systemic therapy for this patient population. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed the use of treatments for primary metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer that showed a benefit in key clinical trials. We found that these treatments are underused, particularly among certain patient groups.

Cardiovascular Effects of GnRH Antagonists Compared With Agonists in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Background: Androgen deprivation therapy is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with advanced prostate cancer. Meta-analysis of small, oncology-focused trials suggest gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists may be associated with fewer adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared with GnRH agonists. Objectives: This study sought to determine whether GnRH antagonists were associated with fewer major adverse cardiovascular events compared with GnRH agonists. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for all prospective, randomized trials comparing GnRH antagonists with agonists. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiovascular event as defined by the following standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms: "myocardial infarction," "central nervous system hemorrhages and cerebrovascular conditions," and all-cause mortality. Bayesian meta-analysis models with random effects were fitted. Results: A total of 11 eligible studies of a maximum duration of 3 to 36 months (median = 12 months) enrolling 4,248 participants were included. Only 1 trial used a blinded, adjudicated event process, whereas potential bias persisted in all trials given their open-label design. A total of 152 patients with primary outcome events were observed, 76 of 2,655 (2.9%) in GnRH antagonist-treated participants and 76 of 1,593 (4.8%) in agonist-treated individuals. Compared with GnRH agonists, the pooled OR of GnRH antagonists for the primary endpoint was 0.57 (95% credible interval: 0.37-0.86) and 0.58 (95% credible interval: 0.32-1.08) for all-cause death. Conclusions: Despite the addition of the largest, dedicated cardiovascular outcome trial, the volume and quality of available data to definitively answer this question remain suboptimal. Notwithstanding these limitations, the available data suggest that GnRH antagonists are associated with fewer cardiovascular events, and possibly mortality, compared with GnRH agonists.

How to Compose Platform Trials.

Platform trials are adaptive randomised controlled trials that address multiple questions using a single protocol, which reduces the time taken to reach a meaningful trial endpoint. This mini review provides a description of how to conceive, design, and carry out a platform trial in urology, using experience gained in the STAMPEDE trial. PATIENT SUMMARY: Clinical trials to test how well a new drug or treatment works can take a long time before meaningful results can be assessed. Trials with a platform design can test multiple treatments using just one protocol and control, which reduces the time taken to reach a trial endpoint.

Organisation and delivery of supportive services for patients with prostate cancer in the National Health Service in England and Wales: a national cross-sectional hospital survey and latent class analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed how often National Health Service (NHS) hospitals reported that they had specific supportive services for patients with prostate cancer available onsite, including nursing support, sexual function and urinary continence services, psychological and genetic counselling, and oncogeriatric services. We identified groups of hospitals with similar patterns of supportive services. DESIGN/SETTING: We conducted an organisational survey in 2021 of all NHS hospitals providing prostate cancer services in England and Wales. Latent class analysis grouped hospitals with similar patterns of supportive services. RESULTS: In 138 hospitals, an advanced prostate cancer nurse was available in 125 hospitals (90.6%), 107 (77.5%) had a clinical nurse specialist (CNS) attending all clinics, 103 (75.7%) had sexual function services, 111 (81.6%) had continence services and 93 (69.4%) psychological counselling. The availability of genetic counselling (41 hospitals, 30.6%) and oncogeriatric services (15 hospitals, 11.0%) was lower. The hospitals could be divided into three groups. The first and largest group of 85 hospitals provided the most comprehensive supportive services onsite: all hospitals had a CNS attending all clinics, 84 (98.8%) sexual function services and 73 (85.9%) continence services. A key characteristic of the second group of 31 hospitals was that none had a CNS attending all clinics. A key characteristic of the third group of 22 hospitals was that none had sexual function services available. The hospitals in the largest group were more likely to run joint clinics (p<0.001) and host the regional specialist multidisciplinary team (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation in supportive services for prostate cancer available onsite in NHS hospitals in England and Wales. Availability of genetic counselling and oncogeriatric services is low. The different patterns of supportive services among hospitals demonstrate that initiatives to improve the availability of the entire range of supportive services to all patients should be carefully targeted.

Olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PROpel): final prespecified overall survival results of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: PROpel met its primary endpoint showing statistically significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in patients with first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) unselected by homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) status, with benefit observed in all prespecified subgroups. Here we report the final prespecified overall survival analysis. METHODS: This was a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial done at 126 centres in 17 countries worldwide. Patients with mCRPC aged at least 18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, a life expectancy of at least 6 months, with no previous systemic treatment for mCRPC and unselected by HRRm status were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by means of an interactive voice response system-interactive web response system to abiraterone acetate (orally, 1000 mg once daily) plus prednisone or prednisolone with either olaparib (orally, 300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The patients, the investigator, and study centre staff were masked to drug allocation. Stratification factors were site of metastases and previous docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive cancer stage. Radiographic progression-free survival was the primary endpoint and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint with alpha-control (alpha-threshold at prespecified final analysis: 0·0377 [two-sided]), evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03732820, and is completed and no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Oct 31, 2018 and March 11, 2020, 1103 patients were screened, of whom 399 were randomly assigned to olaparib plus abiraterone and 397 to placebo plus abiraterone. Median follow-up for overall survival in patients with censored data was 36·6 months (IQR 34·1-40·3) for olaparib plus abiraterone and 36·5 months (33·8-40·3) for placebo plus abiraterone. Median overall survival was 42·1 months (95% CI 38·4-not reached) with olaparib plus abiraterone and 34·7 months (31·0-39·3) with placebo plus abiraterone (hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·67-1·00; p=0·054). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was anaemia reported in 64 (16%) of 398 patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone and 13 (3%) of 396 patients in the placebo plus abiraterone group. Serious adverse events were reported in 161 (40%) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and 126 (32%) in the placebo plus abiraterone group. One death in the placebo plus abiraterone group, from interstitial lung disease, was considered treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Overall survival was not significantly different between treatment groups at this final prespecified analysis. FUNDING: Supported by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Classification of formalin-fixed bladder cancer cells with laser tweezer Raman spectroscopy.

Bladder cancer is a common cancer that is relatively hard to detect at an early stage because of its non-obvious symptoms. It is known that bladder cells can be found in urine samples which potentially could be used for early detection of bladder cancer. Raman spectroscopy is a powerful non-invasive tool for accessing biochemical information of cells. Combined with laser tweezers, to allow isolation of single cells, Raman spectroscopy has been used to characterise a number of bladder cells that might be found in a urine sample. Using principal component-canonical variates analysis (PC-CVA) and k-fold validation, the results shows that the invasive bladder cancer cells can be identified with accuracy greater than 87%. This demonstrates the potential of developing an early detection method that identifies the invasive bladder cancer cells in urine samples.

Prostate cancer outcomes following whole-gland and focal high-intensity focused ultrasound.

OBJECTIVE: To report the 5-year failure-free survival (FFS) following high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational cohort study used linked National Cancer Registry data, radiotherapy data, administrative hospital data and mortality records of 1381 men treated with HIFU for clinically localised prostate cancer in England. The primary outcome, FFS, was defined as freedom from local salvage treatment and cancer-specific mortality. Secondary outcomes were freedom from repeat HIFU, prostate cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Cox regression was used to determine whether baseline characteristics, including age, treatment year, T stage and International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group were associated with FFS. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) follow-up was 37 (20-62) months. The median (IQR) age was 65 (59-70) years and 81% had an ISUP Grade Group of 1-2. The FFS was 96.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 95.4%-97.4%) at 1 year, 86.0% (95% CI 83.7%-87.9%) at 3 years and 77.5% (95% CI 74.4%-80.3%) at 5 years. The 5-year FFS for ISUP Grade Groups 1-5 was 82.9%, 76.6%, 72.2%, 52.3% and 30.8%, respectively (P < 0.001). Freedom from repeat HIFU was 79.1% (95% CI 75.7%-82.1%), CSS was 98.8% (95% CI 97.7%-99.4%) and OS was 95.9% (95% CI 94.2%-97.1%) at 5 years. CONCLUSION: Four in five men were free from local salvage treatment at 5 years but treatment failure varied significantly according to ISUP Grade Group. Patients should be appropriately informed with respect to salvage radical treatment following HIFU.

Which patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer benefit from docetaxel: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Adding docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, but uncertainty remains about who benefits most. We therefore aimed to obtain up-to-date estimates of the overall effects of docetaxel and to assess whether these effects varied according to prespecified characteristics of the patients or their tumours. METHODS: The STOPCAP M1 collaboration conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. We searched MEDLINE (from database inception to March 31, 2022), Embase (from database inception to March 31, 2022), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from database inception to March 31, 2022), proceedings of relevant conferences (from Jan 1, 1990, to Dec 31, 2022), and ClinicalTrials.gov (from database inception to March 28, 2023) to identify eligible randomised trials that assessed docetaxel plus ADT compared with ADT alone in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Detailed and updated individual participant data were requested directly from study investigators or through relevant repositories. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival and failure-free survival. Overall pooled effects were estimated using an adjusted, intention-to-treat, two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis, with one-stage and random-effects sensitivity analyses. Missing covariate values were imputed. Differences in effect by participant characteristics were estimated using adjusted two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis of within-trial interactions on the basis of progression-free survival to maximise power. Identified effect modifiers were also assessed on the basis of overall survival. To explore multiple subgroup interactions and derive subgroup-specific absolute treatment effects we used one-stage flexible parametric modelling and regression standardisation. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019140591. FINDINGS: We obtained individual participant data from 2261 patients (98% of those randomised) from three eligible trials (GETUG-AFU15, CHAARTED, and STAMPEDE trials), with a median follow-up of 72 months (IQR 55-85). Individual participant data were not obtained from two additional small trials. Based on all included trials and patients, there were clear benefits of docetaxel on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·70 to 0·88; p<0·0001), progression-free survival (0·70, 0·63 to 0·77; p<0·0001), and failure-free survival (0·64, 0·58 to 0·71; p<0·0001), representing 5-year absolute improvements of around 9-11%. The overall risk of bias was assessed to be low, and there was no strong evidence of differences in effect between trials for all three main outcomes. The relative effect of docetaxel on progression-free survival appeared to be greater with increasing clinical T stage (pinteraction=0·0019), higher volume of metastases (pinteraction=0·020), and, to a lesser extent, synchronous diagnosis of metastatic disease (pinteraction=0·077). Taking into account the other interactions, the effect of docetaxel was independently modified by volume and clinical T stage, but not timing. There was no strong evidence that docetaxel improved absolute effects at 5 years for patients with low-volume, metachronous disease (-1%, 95% CI -15 to 12, for progression-free survival; 0%, -10 to 12, for overall survival). The largest absolute improvement at 5 years was observed for those with high-volume, clinical T stage 4 disease (27%, 95% CI 17 to 37, for progression-free survival; 35%, 24 to 47, for overall survival). INTERPRETATION: The addition of docetaxel to hormone therapy is best suited to patients with poorer prognosis for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer based on a high volume of disease and potentially the bulkiness of the primary tumour. There is no evidence of meaningful benefit for patients with metachronous, low-volume disease who should therefore be managed differently. These results will better characterise patients most and, importantly, least likely to gain benefit from docetaxel, potentially changing international practice, guiding clinical decision making, better informing treatment policy, and improving patient outcomes. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Prostate Cancer UK.

Treatment-related toxicity using prostate bed versus prostate bed and pelvic lymph node radiation therapy following radical prostatectomy: A national population-based study.

Purpose There is debate about the effectiveness and toxicity of pelvic lymph node (PLN) irradiation in addition to prostate bed radiotherapy when used to treat disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy. We compared toxicity from radiation therapy (RT) to the prostate bed and pelvic lymph nodes (PBPLN-RT) with prostatebed only radiation therapy (PBO-RT) following radical prostatectomy. Methods and Materials Patients with prostate cancer who underwent post-prostatectomy RT between 2010 and 2016 were identified by using the National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database. Follow-up data was available up to December 31, 2018. Validated outcome measures, based on a framework of procedural and diagnostic codes, were used to capture ≥Grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity. An adjusted competing-risks regression analysis estimated subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR). A sHR > 1 indicated a higher incidence of toxicity with PBPLN-RT than with PBO-RT. Results 5-year cumulative incidences in the PBO-RT (n = 5,087) and PBPLNRT (n = 593) groups was 18.2% and 15.9% for GI toxicity, respectively. For GU toxicity it was 19.1% and 20.7%, respectively. There was no evidence of difference in GI or GU toxicity after adjustment between PBO-RT and PBPLN-RT (GI: adjusted sHR, 0.90, 95% CI, 0.67-1.19; P = 0.45); (GU: adjusted sHR, 1.19, 95% CI, 0.99-1.44; P = 0.09). Conclusions This national population-based study found that including PLNs in the radiation field following radical prostatectomy is not associated with a significant increase in rates of ≥Grade 2 GI or GU toxicity at 5 years.

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.