Health-related Quality of Life in Patients with Previously Treated Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma from EV-301: A Phase 3 Trial of Enfortumab Vedotin Versus Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In comparison to chemotherapy, enfortumab vedotin (EV) prolonged overall survival in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma in EV-301. The objective of the present study was to assess patient experiences of EV versus chemotherapy using patient-reported outcome (PRO) analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: For patients in the phase 3 EV-301 trial randomized to EV or chemotherapy we assessed responses to the validated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) at baseline, weekly for the first 12 wk, and then every 12 wk until discontinuation. We analyzed the QLQ-C30 change from baseline to week 12, the confirmed improvement rate, and the time to improvement or deterioration. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Baseline PRO compliance rates were 91% for the EV arm (n = 301) and 89% for the chemotherapy arm (n = 307); the corresponding average rates from baseline to week 12 were 70% and 67%. Patients receiving EV versus chemotherapy had reduced pain (difference in change from baseline to week 12: -5.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.8 to -0.7; p = 0.027) and worsening appetite loss (7.3, 95% CI 0.90-13.69; p = 0.026). Larger proportions of patients in the EV arm reported HRQoL improvement from baseline than in the chemotherapy arm; the odds of a confirmed improvement across ten QLQ-C30 function/symptom scales were 1.67 to 2.76 times higher for EV than for chemotherapy. Patients in the EV arm had a shorter time to first confirmed improvement in global health status (GHS)/QoL, fatigue, pain, and physical, role, emotional, and social functioning (all p < 0.05). EV delayed the time to first confirmed deterioration in GHS/QoL (p = 0.027), but worsening appetite loss occurred earlier (p = 0.009) in comparison to chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: HRQoL with EV was maintained, and deterioration in HRQoL was delayed with EV in comparison to chemotherapy. Better results with EV were reported for some scales, with the greatest difference observed for pain. These findings reinforce the EV safety and efficacy outcomes and benefits observed in EV-301. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with previously treated advanced cancer of the urinary tract receiving the drug enfortumab vedotin maintained their HRQoL in comparison to patients treated with chemotherapy. The EV-301 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03474107 and on EudraCT as 2017-003344-21.

Final Analysis of the Ipilimumab Versus Placebo Following Radiotherapy Phase III Trial in Postdocetaxel Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Identifies an Excess of Long-term Survivors.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 trial CA184-043 evaluated radiotherapy to bone metastases followed by Ipilimumab or placebo in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had received docetaxel previously. In a prior analysis, the trial's primary endpoint (overall survival [OS]) was not improved significantly. OBJECTIVE: To report the final analysis of OS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 799 patients were randomized to receive a single dose of radiotherapy to one or more bone metastases followed by either Ipilimumab (n = 399) or placebo (n = 400). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS was analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. Prespecified and exploratory subset analyses based on Kaplan-Meier/Cox methodology were performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: During an additional follow-up of approximately 2.4 yr since the primary analysis, 721/799 patients have died. Survival analysis showed crossing of the curves at 7-8 mo, followed by persistent separation of the curves beyond that point, favoring the ipilimumab arm. Given the lack of proportional hazards, a piecewise hazard model showed that the hazard ratio (HR) changed over time: the HR was 1.49 (95% confidence interval 1.12, 1.99) for 0-5 mo, 0.66 (0.51, 0.86) for 5-12 mo, and 0.66 (0.52, 0.84) beyond 12 mo. OS rates were higher in the ipilimumab versus placebo arms at 2 yr (25.2% vs 16.6%), 3 yr (15.3% vs 7.9%), 4 yr (10.1% vs 3.3%), and 5 yr (7.9% vs. 2.7%). Disease progression was the most frequent cause of death in both arms. In seven patients (1.8%) in the ipilimumab arm and one (0.3%) in the placebo arm, the primary cause of death was reported as study drug toxicity. No long-term safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In this preplanned long-term analysis, OS favored ipilimumab plus radiotherapy versus placebo plus radiotherapy for patients with postdocetaxel mCRPC. OS rates at 3, 4, and 5 yr were approximately two to three times higher in the ipilimumab arm. PATIENT SUMMARY: After longer follow-up, survival favored the group of men who received ipilimumab, with overall survival rates being two to three times higher at 3 yr and beyond.

Improving information to caregivers of cancer patients: the Herlev Hospital Empowerment of Relatives through More and Earlier information Supply (HERMES) randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The newly developed "Herlev Hospital Empowerment of Relatives through More and Earlier information Supply" (HERMES) intervention systematically identifies cancer caregivers' unmet needs for information from health care professionals (HCPs) and offers them the information they lack. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the HERMES intervention on caregivers' perception of information, communication, attention and help from HCPs, fulfillment of care needs, and anxiety and depression. METHODS: A randomized intervention study with immediate intervention in the intervention group and delayed intervention (after follow-up) in the control group among caregivers of cancer patients starting chemotherapy. RESULTS: Totally 199 caregivers were included (intervention group, n = 101; control group, n = 98). No intervention effect was found on overall satisfaction with information from HCPs (p = 0.1687) measured by a single item from the Cancer Caregiving Tasks, Consequences and Needs Questionnaire (CaTCoN) and chosen as primary outcome. However, positive effects were found on the CaTCoN subscales "Problems with the quality of information from and communication with HCPs" (p = 0.0279), "Lack of information from HCPs (HERMES)" (p = 0.0039), and "Lack of attention on the caregivers' wellbeing from HCPs" (p < 0.0001). No effect was found on the CaTCoN subscale "Need for help from HCPs", the Family Inventory of Needs subscale regarding fulfillment of care needs, or the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale. CONCLUSIONS: Although no effect was found on overall satisfaction with information, the HERMES intervention had positive effects on the caregivers' experiences of the amount of information and attention given to them and the quality of information and communication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02380469).

Docetaxel Versus Surveillance After Radical Prostatectomy for High-risk Prostate Cancer: Results from the Prospective Randomised, Open-label Phase 3 Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group 12 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy is standard treatment for other solid tumours, but to date has not proven effective in prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: o evaluate whether six cycles of docetaxel alone improve biochemical disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Open-label, randomised multinational phase 3 trial. Enrolment of 459 patients after prostatectomy. INCLUSION CRITERIA: high-risk pT2 margin positive or pT3a Gleason score ≥4+3, pT3b, or lymph node positive disease Gleason score ≥3+4. Patients assigned (1:1) to either six cycles of adjuvant docetaxel 75mg/m2 every 3 wk without daily prednisone (Arm A) or surveillance (Arm B) until endpoint was reached. Primary endpoint was prostate-specific antigen progression ≥0.5 ng/ml. INTERVENTION: Docetaxel treatment after prostatectomy. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median time to progression, death, or last follow-up was 56.8 mo. Primary endpoint was reached in 190/459 patients-the risk of progression at 5 yr being 41% (45% in Arm A and 38% in Arm B). There was evidence of nonproportional hazards in Kaplan-Meier analysis, so we used the difference in restricted mean survival time as the primary estimate of effect. Restricted mean survival time to endpoint was 43 mo in Arm A versus 46 mo in Arm B (p=0.06), a nonsignificant difference of 3.2 mo (95% confidence interval: 6.7 to -1.5 mo). A total of 116 serious adverse events were recorded in Arm A and 41 in Arm B with no treatment-related deaths. Not all patients received docetaxel by protocol. The endpoint is biochemical progression and some patients received radiation treatment before the endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: Docetaxel without hormonal therapy did not significantly improve biochemical disease-free survival after radical prostatectomy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this randomised trial, we tested whether chemotherapy after surgery for high-risk prostate cancer decreases the risk of a rising prostate-specific antigen. We found no benefit from docetaxel given after radical prostatectomy.

Cabazitaxel Versus Docetaxel As First-Line Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Phase III Trial-FIRSTANA.

Purpose In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), overall survival (OS) is significantly improved with cabazitaxel versus mitoxantrone after prior docetaxel treatment. FIRSTANA ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01308567) assessed whether cabazitaxel 20 mg/m2 (C20) or 25 mg/m2 (C25) is superior to docetaxel 75 mg/m2 (D75) in terms of OS in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Patients and Methods Patients with mCRPC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive C20, C25, or D75 intravenously every 3 weeks plus daily prednisone. The primary end point was OS. Secondary end points included safety; progression-free survival (PFS); tumor, prostate-specific antigen, and pain response; pharmacokinetics; and health-related quality of life. Results Between May 2011 and April 2013, 1,168 patients were randomly assigned. Baseline characteristics were similar across cohorts. Median OS was 24.5 months with C20, 25.2 months with C25, and 24.3 months with D75. Hazard ratio for C20 versus D75 was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.20; P = .997), and hazard ratio for C25 versus D75 was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.16; P = .757). Median PFS was 4.4 months with C20, 5.1 months with C25, and 5.3 months with D75, with no significant differences between treatment arms. Radiographic tumor responses were numerically higher for C25 (41.6%) versus D75 (30.9%; nominal P = .037, without multiplicity test adjustment). Rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were 41.2%, 60.1%, and 46.0% for C20, C25, and D75, respectively. Febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, and hematuria were more frequent with C25; peripheral neuropathy, peripheral edema, alopecia, and nail disorders were more frequent with D75. Conclusion C20 and C25 did not demonstrate superiority for OS versus D75 in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Tumor response was numerically higher with C25 versus D75; pain PFS was numerically improved with D75 versus C25. Cabazitaxel and docetaxel demonstrated different toxicity profiles, with overall less toxicity with C20.

Late urinary morbidity and quality of life after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: There is a paucity of knowledge of long-term urinary morbidity in patients treated for prostate cancer (PCa) with radical prostatectomy (RP) and salvage radiotherapy (SRT). Improved long-term survival calls for heightened awareness of late effects from radiotherapy after RP. The purpose of this study was to assess late urinary morbidity and its potential impact on quality of life (QoL) in patients treated with RP plus SRT compared with patients treated with RP alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Long-term morbidity and QoL were evaluated using a cross-sectional design with validated questionnaires in urinary morbidity [Danish Prostatic Symptom Score (DAN-PSS)] and QoL [European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30)]. Included were a total of 227 patients treated with SRT and 192 treated with RP in the periods 2006-2010 and 2005-2007, respectively. RESULTS: Weak stream, straining, frequency and nocturia were significantly more prevalent in patients treated with RP + SRT than in patients treated with RP alone. Patients treated with RP + SRT generally suffered from more severe urinary symptoms. The QoL scores of the two treatment groups were not statistically significantly different, but a high level of urinary morbidity was significantly related to decreased QoL (p = 0.000). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with SRT have a higher rate of urinary morbidity than do patients treated with RP alone. Severe urinary morbidity was significantly related to decreased QoL, but did not differ between the two treatment groups.

Dendritic cell vaccination in combination with docetaxel for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: A randomized phase II study.

BACKGROUND AIMS: We investigated whether the addition of an autologous dendritic cell-based cancer vaccine (DCvac) induces an immune response in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with docetaxel. METHODS: Forty-three patients were randomized 1:1 to receive up to 10 cycles of docetaxel alone, 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or in combination with DCvac. Monocytes were harvested following a leukapheresis procedure, matured ex vivo and subsequently transfected with messenger RNA encoding multiple tumor-associated antigens (TAAs). DCvac was administered intradermally twice through treatment cycles 1-4 and once through treatment cycles 5-10. Immune cell composition and antigen-specific responses were analyzed using flow cytometry, ELISpot and delayed type hypersensitivity (DTH) tests. Toxicity was graded according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. Progression-free survival (PFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Prostate-specific antigen responses were similar in patients treated with docetaxel alone and combination therapy (58% versus 38%; P = 0.21). PFS and DSS were comparable: 5.5 versus 5.7 months (P = 0.62, log rank) and 21.9 versus 25.1 months (P = 0.60, log rank). Nine (50%) and 14 (78%) patients treated with docetaxel and DCvac had a TAA-specific or vaccine-specific immune response in the ELISpot and DTH analysis, respectively. Vaccine induced toxicity was limited to local reactions. Decline in myeloid-derived suppressor cells at the third treatment cycle was found to be an independent predictor of DSS. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of DCvac was safe. Immune responses were detected in approximately half of the patients investigated.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Trial of Ipilimumab Versus Placebo in Asymptomatic or Minimally Symptomatic Patients With Metastatic Chemotherapy-Naive Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Purpose Ipilimumab increases antitumor T-cell responses by binding to cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4. We evaluated treatment with ipilimumab in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer without visceral metastases. Patients and Methods In this multicenter, double-blind, phase III trial, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to four doses. Ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo maintenance therapy was administered to nonprogressing patients every 3 months. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results Four hundred patients were randomly assigned to ipilimumab and 202 to placebo; 399 were treated with ipilimumab and 199 with placebo. Median OS was 28.7 months (95% CI, 24.5 to 32.5 months) in the ipilimumab arm versus 29.7 months (95% CI, 26.1 to 34.2 months) in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95.87% CI, 0.88 to 1.39; P = .3667). Median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the ipilimumab arm versus 3.8 with placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95.87% CI, 0.55 to 0.81). Exploratory analyses showed a higher prostate-specific antigen response rate with ipilimumab (23%) than with placebo (8%). Diarrhea (15%) was the only grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse event (AE) reported in ≥ 10% of ipilimumab-treated patients. Nine (2%) deaths occurred in the ipilimumab arm due to treatment-related AEs; no deaths occurred in the placebo arm. Immune-related grade 3 to 4 AEs occurred in 31% and 2% of patients, respectively. Conclusion Ipilimumab did not improve OS in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The observed increases in progression-free survival and prostate-specific antigen response rates suggest antitumor activity in a patient subset.

Clinical Impact of the Number of Treatment Cycles in First-Line Docetaxel for Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the impact of the number of docetaxel cycles administered in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with first-line chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Charts from 421 consecutive patients who initiated standard treatment with docetaxel-based chemotherapy (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) between 2007 and 2013 were reviewed. Patients who received < 6 cycles of docetaxel were excluded from the analysis. Remaining patients were divided into 2 groups on the basis of whether or not ≥ 9 cycles of docetaxel were administered (n = 108 and 184, respectively). Reasons for treatment discontinuation and postdocetaxel treatments were registered. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses were defined as a confirmed ≥ 50% decrease in baseline PSA levels. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from start of therapy using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards were calculated to estimate the effect of clinical variables on OS. RESULTS: OS was longer in patients treated with ≥ 9 cycles of docetaxel (21.9 months vs. 17.2 months; P < .0001, log rank). Survival also favored patients treated with ≥ 9 cycles of docetaxel when only patients ending docetaxel because of toxicity or treatment conclusion (22.3 vs. 19.4 months; P = .048, log rank) or patients who achieved a PSA response (22.3 vs. 18.7 months; P = .012, log rank) were evaluated. mCRPC-related prognostic factors and patients who received ≥ 1 subsequent line of therapy post-docetaxel were well balanced. CONCLUSION: On the basis of our retrospective findings, a superior OS was found in patients treated with ≥ 9 cycles of docetaxel when adjusting for known prognostic factors. Dose reductions might increase the number of docetaxel cycles administered.

Cabazitaxel as second-line or third-line therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

To compare treatment outcomes in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with cabazitaxel (CA) as second-line or third-line therapy in the everyday clinical setting. Charts from 94 patients treated with CA as second-line (n=28) or third-line therapy (n=66) were evaluated. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events were used to register grade 3-4 nonhematological toxicity during treatment with CA. Baseline metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer-related prognostic factors, duration of therapy, and maximum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) percentage change were registered during treatment with CA and previous/subsequent novel androgen receptor targeting therapies. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A median of 6 versus 5 treatment cycles was administered in patients treated with second-line and third-line CA (P=0.483). Events with grade 3-4 nonhematological toxicity were equally distributed in the two groups (32 vs. 35%, P=0.80). PSA responses were observed in 46 and 17% of patients treated with second-line and third-line CA (P=0.002). PFS (5.5 vs. 3.3 months, P=0.087, log rank) and OS (18.3 vs. 11.4 months, P=0.003, log rank) was longer in patients treated with second-line CA. OS measured from second-line abiraterone acetate/enzalutamide was similar (18.0 months) to second-line CA (P=0.883, log rank). Treatment-related toxicity was independent of CA being administered as second-line or third-line therapy. Although PFS and the frequency of PSA responders favored patients treated with second-line CA, one treatment sequence could not be considered superior to the other in this study.

Predictors of Chemotherapy-Induced Toxicity and Treatment Outcomes in Elderly Versus Younger Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the present study, we examined possible predictors of chemotherapy-induced toxicity, treatment outcomes, and the consequences of dose reductions in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) receiving standard docetaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records from 421 consecutive patients treated with first-line docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) and low-dose prednisolone from 2007 to 2013 at Herlev University Hospital were reviewed. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0, and the Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 guidelines were used to evaluate treatment-related toxicity and efficacy. Logistic and Cox regression models were used to predict toxicity and survival. RESULTS: Age ≥ 75 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.33), baseline levels of hemoglobin (OR, 0.89), and previous metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC; OR, 1.70) were predictive of grade 3 and 4 nonhematologic toxicity. Previous MESCC was associated with a greater risk of febrile neutropenia (OR, 2.74). The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 6.4 and 15.4 months, respectively. Survival was similar in the older (age ≥ 75 years) and younger patients (PPFS = .66, POS = .90; log-rank) and when comparing patients undergoing dose reductions with patients treated with standard docetaxel throughout their treatment course (PPFS = .51 and POS = 0.52; log-rank). A longer interval from the primary diagnosis to the initiation of docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00), baseline hemoglobin levels (HR, 0.85), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status > 0 to 1 (HR, 1.44), lactate dehydrogenase greater than the upper limit of normal (HR, 1.64), and prostate-specific antigen levels (HR, 1.00) were predictors of OS. CONCLUSIONS: OS in the everyday clinical setting was inferior to that observed in randomized trials. Our results indicate that elderly patients and patients with moderate anemia or a history of MESCC at baseline have a greater risk of treatment-induced toxicity. Dose reductions did not compromise survival.

Results from a Phase I Study of Lapatinib with Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Advanced or Metastatic Bladder Cancer: EORTC Trial 30061.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Lapatinib is a potent HER1 and HER2 inhibitor. Gemcitabine-cisplatin (GC) is a standard chemotherapy regimen for advanced/metastatic bladder cancer. This phase I study examined the safety of lapatinib in combination with GC in patients with bladder cancer. The primary aim was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of lapatinib in combination with GC. METHODS: A 3 + 3 dose escalation protocol was used with lapatinib at 750, 1,000 and then 1,250 mg. It was dosed daily with gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15) and cisplatin (70 mg/m2 on day 2) every 28 days. In all, 18 patients with a median age of 63 years (range 50-77) were included; 3/6, 3/5 and 6/7 patients received lapatinib at 750, 1,000 and 1,250 mg, combined with GC, in cohorts 1, 2 and 3, respectively. RESULTS: No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed in cohort 1 or 2 (3 patients each); in cohort 3 (2 × 3 patients), 1 of the 6 patients presented DLTs (grade 4, treatment-related febrile neutropenia and renal failure). Twelve patients received 6 cycles. CONCLUSIONS: Lapatinib at 750-1,250 mg combined with GC appears safe and tolerable. The MTD of lapatinib combined with GC in bladder cancer was 1,250 mg.

Salvage radiation therapy following radical prostatectomy. A national Danish study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this observational cohort study was to evaluate the outcome and prognostic factors following salvage radiotherapy (SRT) in a consecutive national cohort. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between 2006 and 2010, 259 patients received SRT in Denmark. Patient- and cancer-related characteristics were retrospectively retrieved from patient charts. The primary end point was biochemical progression-free survival (b-PFS). RESULTS: At the end of follow-up, 51% of the patients displayed a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level <0.1 ng/ml. The three-year b-PFS rate for the total cohort was 57.0%. Nearly half of the patients (44%) received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in combination with SRT. Positive surgical tumour margins (p = 0.025) and ADT (p = 0.001) were the only markers independently correlated with b-PFS. In patients who received SRT without ADT, both a pre-SRT PSA level ≤0.5 ng/ml (p = 0.003) and pathological tumour stage T1-T2 (p = 0.036) independently correlated with b-PFS. Moreover, a duration between radical prostatectomy (RP) and SRT ≤29 months (p = 0.035) independently correlated with b-PFS in patients treated with ADT in combination with RT. CONCLUSIONS: In patients treated for biochemical failure after RP, positive surgical tumour margins and PSA levels ≤0.5 ng/mL at the time of SRT were associated with a favourable outcome. Despite less favourable tumour characteristics, patients receiving SRT and ADT demonstrated improved b-PFS, and in particular, patients with PSA levels >0.2 ng/ml benefitted from additional ADT.

Low-dose prednisolone in first-line docetaxel for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: is there a clinical benefit?

BACKGROUND: Randomized studies have shown improved survival with the combination of docetaxel (D) and prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We retrospectively investigated whether coadministration of low-dose glucocorticoids has clinical benefits. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Records from 358 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated consecutively with either D 75mg/m(2) every 3 weeks (n = 124) (Rigshospitalet) or D and prednisolone (P) 10mg daily (n = 234) (Herlev Hospital) given as first-line chemotherapy were reviewed. Of these, 15 patients treated with glucocorticoids at initiation of D at Rigshospitalet were excluded. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0 was used to register any grade of peripheral edema, grade ≥2 sensory neuropathy, and grade ≥3 nonhematological toxicity. Background clinical data, rates of toxicity, hospital admissions, dose reductions, and post-D treatments were analyzed by the Chi-squared test or Mann-Whitney U test. Progression-free survival and overall survival were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Patients treated with D alone had a higher incidence of peripheral edema (32% vs. 15%, P<0.001) and grade 3 nonhematological toxicity (56% vs. 43%, P = 0.022). Patients treated with D alone were also more frequently hospitalized (53% vs. 41%, P = 0.035), mainly owing to a higher incidence of febrile neutropenia in this group (25% vs. 10%, P<0.001). P did not influence progression-free survival (P = 0.692, log-rank test) or overall survival when adjusting for baseline levels of hemoglobin, alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase, prostate-specific antigen, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (hazard ratioP = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.76-1.26, P = 0.89, Cox proportional hazard regression model). CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of low-dose P reduced the incidence of peripheral edema, grade 3 nonhematological toxicity, and the risk of being admitted owing to febrile neutropenia during treatment with D. Adjusted survival analysis did not indicate that P affected prognosis.

[Fatal neutropenic enterocolitis in a patient with castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy]. / Fatal neutropen enterokolitis hos en patient i kemoterapi med kastrationsresistent prostatacancer.

Neutropenic enterocolitis (NE) is a possible life-threatening complication to chemotherapy. The pathogenesis is multi-factorial with mucosal injury and impaired mucosal defence as contributing factors. Histopathological findings are heterogeneous. Clinical presentation includes neutropenia, fever and abdominal pain. Treatment is not clearly defined. We present a fatal case of NE in a patient with prostate cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy, docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every three weeks and prednisolone 5 mg × 2 daily. The post-mortem examination confirmed NE with prostate cancer cells in bowel wall.

Immediate versus deferred chemotherapy after radical cystectomy in patients with pT3-pT4 or N+ M0 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (EORTC 30994): an intergroup, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder have poor survival after cystectomy. The EORTC 30994 trial aimed to compare immediate versus deferred cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy after radical cystectomy in patients with pT3-pT4 or N+ M0 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. METHODS: This intergroup, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial recruited patients from hospitals across Europe and Canada. Eligible patients had histologically proven urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, pT3-pT4 disease or node positive (pN1-3) M0 disease after radical cystectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy, with no evidence of any microscopic residual disease. Within 90 days of cystectomy, patients were centrally randomly assigned (1:1) by minimisation to either immediate adjuvant chemotherapy (four cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin, high-dose methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin [high-dose MVAC], or MVAC) or six cycles of deferred chemotherapy at relapse, with stratification for institution, pT category, and lymph node status according to the number of nodes dissected. Neither patients nor investigators were masked. Overall survival was the primary endpoint; all analyses were by intention to treat. The trial was closed after recruitment of 284 of the planned 660 patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00028756. FINDINGS: From April 29, 2002, to Aug 14, 2008, 284 patients were randomly assigned (141 to immediate treatment and 143 to deferred treatment), and followed up until the data cutoff of Aug 21, 2013. After a median follow-up of 7.0 years (IQR 5.2-8.7), 66 (47%) of 141 patients in the immediate treatment group had died compared with 82 (57%) of 143 in the deferred treatment group. No significant improvement in overall survival was noted with immediate treatment when compared with deferred treatment (adjusted HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.56-1.08; p=0.13). Immediate treatment significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with deferred treatment (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.4-0.73, p<0.0001), with 5-year progression-free survival of 47.6% (95% CI 38.8-55.9) in the immediate treatment group and 31.8% (24.2-39.6) in the deferred treatment group. Grade 3-4 myelosuppression was reported in 33 (26%) of 128 patients who received treatment in the immediate chemotherapy group versus 24 (35%) of 68 patients who received treatment in the deferred chemotherapy group, neutropenia occurred in 49 (38%) versus 36 (53%) patients, respectively, and thrombocytopenia in 36 (28%) versus 26 (38%). Two patients died due to toxicity, one in each group. INTERPRETATION: Our data did not show a significant improvement in overall survival with immediate versus deferred chemotherapy after radical cystectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy for patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. However, the trial is limited in power, and it is possible that some subgroups of patients might still benefit from immediate chemotherapy. An updated individual patient data meta-analysis and biomarker research are needed to further elucidate the potential for survival benefit in subgroups of patients. FUNDING: Lilly, Canadian Cancer Society Research.

Correlation between frequencies of blood monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells, regulatory T cells and negative prognostic markers in patients with castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer.

Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) are believed to play a role in immune suppression and subsequent failure of T cells to mount an efficient anti-tumor response, by employing both direct T-cell inhibition as well as induction of regulatory T cells (Tregs). Investigating the frequency and function of immune suppressive cell subsets in the peripheral blood of 41 patients with prostate cancer (PC) and 36 healthy donors (HD) showed a significant increase in circulating CD14(+) HLA-DR(low/neg) monocytic MDSC (M-MDSC) and Tregs in patients with PC compared to HD. Furthermore, M-MDSC frequencies correlated positively with Treg levels. In vitro proliferation assay with autologous T cells confirmed M-MDSC-mediated T-cell suppression, and intracellular staining of immune suppressive enzyme iNOS revealed a higher expression in M-MDSC from patients with PC. Increased frequencies of M-MDSC correlated with known negative prognostic markers in patients with PC including elevated levels of lactate dehydrogenase and prostate-specific antigen. Accordingly, high levels of M-MDSC were associated with a shorter median overall survival. Our data strongly suggest that M-MDSC, possibly along with Tregs, play a role in establishing an immune suppressive environment in patients with PC. Moreover, correlation of M-MDSC frequency with known prognostic markers and the observed impact on OS could reflect a possible role in tumor progression. Further insight into the generation and function of MDSC and their interplay with Tregs and other cell types may suggest ways to tackle their induction and/or function to improve immunological tumor control.

Ipilimumab versus placebo after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy (CA184-043): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 to enhance antitumour immunity. Our aim was to assess the use of ipilimumab after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in which men with at least one bone metastasis from castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel treatment were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive bone-directed radiotherapy (8 Gy in one fraction) followed by either ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to four doses. Non-progressing patients could continue to receive ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg or placebo as maintenance therapy every 3 months until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effect, or death. Patients were randomly assigned to either treatment group via a minimisation algorithm, and stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, alkaline phosphatase concentration, haemoglobin concentration, and investigator site. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00861614. FINDINGS: From May 26, 2009, to Feb 15, 2012, 799 patients were randomly assigned (399 to ipilimumab and 400 to placebo), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Median overall survival was 11·2 months (95% CI 9·5-12·7) with ipilimumab and 10·0 months (8·3-11·0) with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·85, 0·72-1·00; p=0·053). However, the assessment of the proportional hazards assumption showed that it was violated (p=0·0031). A piecewise hazard model showed that the HR changed over time: the HR for 0-5 months was 1·46 (95% CI 1·10-1·95), for 5-12 months was 0·65 (0·50-0·85), and beyond 12 months was 0·60 (0·43-0·86). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were immune-related, occurring in 101 (26%) patients in the ipilimumab group and 11 (3%) of patients in the placebo group. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events included diarrhoea (64 [16%] of 393 patients in the ipilimumab group vs seven [2%] of 396 in the placebo group), fatigue (40 [11%] vs 35 [9%]), anaemia (40 [10%] vs 43 [11%]), and colitis (18 [5%] vs 0). Four (1%) deaths occurred because of toxic effects of the study drug, all in the ipilimumab group. INTERPRETATION: Although there was no significant difference between the ipilimumab group and the placebo group in terms of overall survival in the primary analysis, there were signs of activity with the drug that warrant further investigation. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

An open-label study to investigate the cardiac safety profile of cabazitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the cardiovascular safety of cabazitaxel, based on thorough evaluation of QT and non-QT variables, and the relationship between pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic electrocardiographic (ECG) profiles and the occurrence of Grade ≥3 cardiovascular adverse events. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors were treated with cabazitaxel 25 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. Digital ECG recordings were obtained during Cycle 1 over 24 h after dosing. The primary end point was effect of cabazitaxel on QT interval corrected by the Fridericia formula (QTcF). Secondary end points were additional ECG parameters (QT, PR and QRS intervals, and heart rate), plasma pharmacokinetics of cabazitaxel and overall clinical safety. RESULTS: The pharmacodynamic (ECG) population included 94 patients. In 63 patients with a full 24-h ECG evaluation, the maximum upper bound of 90 % confidence interval (CI) for mean QTcF change from baseline was 7.46 ms (mean 4.8 ms), occurring at 1 h 30 min post-infusion. The slope of QTcF change from baseline versus cabazitaxel concentration was slightly negative (-0.012 [95 % CI -0.017; -0.008], equivalent to a 1.2 ms decrease per 100 ng/mL increase in cabazitaxel concentration). For non-QT variables, no effect was noted. No Grade ≥3 cardiac adverse events were observed; Grade ≥3 hypotension and lymphocele occurred in two patients and one patient, respectively. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that cabazitaxel has no clinically significant cardiovascular adverse effects in patients with advanced solid tumors.