The genomic landscape of 2,023 colorectal cancers.

Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is a common cause of mortality1, but a comprehensive description of its genomic landscape is lacking2-9. Here we perform whole-genome sequencing of 2,023 CRC samples from participants in the UK 100,000 Genomes Project, thereby providing a highly detailed somatic mutational landscape of this cancer. Integrated analyses identify more than 250 putative CRC driver genes, many not previously implicated in CRC or other cancers, including several recurrent changes outside the coding genome. We extend the molecular pathways involved in CRC development, define four new common subgroups of microsatellite-stable CRC based on genomic features and show that these groups have independent prognostic associations. We also characterize several rare molecular CRC subgroups, some with potential clinical relevance, including cancers with both microsatellite and chromosomal instability. We demonstrate a spectrum of mutational profiles across the colorectum, which reflect aetiological differences. These include the role of Escherichia colipks+ colibactin in rectal cancers10 and the importance of the SBS93 signature11-13, which suggests that diet or smoking is a risk factor. Immune-escape driver mutations14 are near-ubiquitous in hypermutant tumours and occur in about half of microsatellite-stable CRCs, often in the form of HLA copy number changes. Many driver mutations are actionable, including those associated with rare subgroups (for example, BRCA1 and IDH1), highlighting the role of whole-genome sequencing in optimizing patient care.

Germline MBD4 deficiency causes a multi-tumor predisposition syndrome.

We report an autosomal recessive, multi-organ tumor predisposition syndrome, caused by bi-allelic loss-of-function germline variants in the base excision repair (BER) gene MBD4. We identified five individuals with bi-allelic MBD4 variants within four families and these individuals had a personal and/or family history of adenomatous colorectal polyposis, acute myeloid leukemia, and uveal melanoma. MBD4 encodes a glycosylase involved in repair of G:T mismatches resulting from deamination of 5'-methylcytosine. The colorectal adenomas from MBD4-deficient individuals showed a mutator phenotype attributable to mutational signature SBS1, consistent with the function of MBD4. MBD4-deficient polyps harbored somatic mutations in similar driver genes to sporadic colorectal tumors, although AMER1 mutations were more common and KRAS mutations less frequent. Our findings expand the role of BER deficiencies in tumor predisposition. Inclusion of MBD4 in genetic testing for polyposis and multi-tumor phenotypes is warranted to improve disease management.

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.

Serosurvey for Japanese encephalitis virus antibodies following an outbreak in an immunologically naïve population, Victoria, 2022: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the distribution and prevalence of Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) antibody (as evidence of past infection) in northern Victoria following the 2022 Japanese encephalitis outbreak, seeking to identify groups of people at particular risk of infection; to investigate the distribution and prevalence of antibodies to two related flaviviruses, Murray Valley encephalitis virus (MVEV) and West Nile virus Kunjin subtype (KUNV). STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional serosurvey (part of a national JEV serosurveillance program). SETTING: Three northern Victorian local public health units (Ovens Murray, Goulburn Valley, Loddon Mallee), 8 August - 1 December 2022. PARTICIPANTS: People opportunistically recruited at pathology collection centres and by targeted recruitment through community outreach and advertisements. People vaccinated against or who had been diagnosed with Japanese encephalitis were ineligible for participation, as were those born in countries where JEV is endemic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Seroprevalence of JEV IgG antibody, overall and by selected factors of interest (occupations, water body exposure, recreational activities and locations, exposure to animals, protective measures). RESULTS: 813 participants were recruited (median age, 59 years [interquartile range, 42-69 years]; 496 female [61%]); 27 were JEV IgG-seropositive (3.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.2-4.8%) (median age, 73 years [interquartile range, 63-78 years]; 13 female [48%]); none were IgM-seropositive. JEV IgG-seropositive participants were identified at all recruitment locations, including those without identified cases of Japanese encephalitis. The only risk factors associated with JEV IgG-seropositivity were age (per year: prevalence odds ratio [POR], 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.10) and exposure to feral pigs (POR, 21; 95% CI, 1.7-190). The seroprevalence of antibody to MVEV was 3.0% (95% CI, 1.9-4.5%; 23 of 760 participants), and of KUNV antibody 3.3% (95% CI, 2.1-4.8%; 25 of 761). CONCLUSIONS: People living in northern Victoria are vulnerable to future JEV infection, but few risk factors are consistently associated with infection. Additional prevention strategies, including expanding vaccine eligibility, may be required to protect people in this region from Japanese encephalitis.

Impact of Intraoperative Femoral Fractures During Cemented Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fractures.

BACKGROUND: There have been several studies on intraoperative femoral fractures (IFFs) during primary total hip arthroplasty, but it is not well understood how this complication affects the patient population undergoing cemented hemiarthroplasty. This study aimed to analyze the impact of IFFs sustained during cemented hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of femoral neck fractures. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who were treated for Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association 31B fractures with cemented hemiarthroplasty between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2021, at a single academic level 1 trauma center. An initial cohort was constructed of all patients who sustained an IFF during their surgery, yielding 31 patients after excluding those who sustained a pathologic fracture or had incomplete data. These patients were matched 1:2 on age, sex, and body mass index to patients in a control cohort. The primary outcome measure was implant failure. Secondary outcome measures included complications, all-cause mortality, and radiographic outcomes (subsidence, femoral component loosening, acetabular wear, and heterotopic ossification) postoperatively. RESULTS: Subsequent implant revision was required in 3.2% (n = 1) of patients who sustained an IFF and 1.6% (n = 1) of patients who did not. After adjusting for comorbidities, there was no observed excess risk of implant failure in the fracture cohort when compared to the control cohort (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.30, P = 0.740). There was no observed excess risk of morbidity (HR = 0.69, P = 0.621) or all-cause mortality (HR = 0.23, P = 0.330). Radiographic outcomes also did not significantly differ between the 2 cohorts (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative fractures during cemented hemiarthroplasty do not contribute to an increased risk of secondary surgery, morbidity, or mortality after surgery. They also do not adversely affect radiographic outcomes postoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective Comparative Study.

Sacral insufficiency fractures are a frequent and painful consequence of pubic symphysis osteomyelitis.

BACKGROUND: Pubic symphysis osteomyelitis can result from urosymphyseal fistula formation. High rates of sacropelvic insufficiency fractures have been reported in this population. The aim of this study was to describe the presentation and risk factors for sacral insufficiency fractures (SIF) associated with surgical treatment of pubic symphysis osteomyelitis. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed for 54 patients who underwent surgery for pubic symphysis osteomyelitis associated with a urosymphyseal fistula at a single institution from 2009 to 2022. Average age was 71 years and 53 patients (98%) were male. All patients underwent debridement or partial resection of the pubic symphysis at the time of fistula treatment. Average width of the symphyseal defect was 65 mm (range 9-122) after treatment. RESULTS: Twenty patients (37%) developed SIF at a mean time of 4 months from osteomyelitis diagnosis. Rate of sacral fracture on Kaplan-Meier analysis was 31% at 6 months, 39% at 12 months, and 41% at 2 years. Eleven patients developed SIF prior to pubic debridement and 12 patients developed new or worsening of pre-existing SIF following surgery. Width of pubic resection was higher in patients who developed SIF (76 mm vs. 62 mm), but this did not meet statistical significance (p = 0.18). CONCLUSION: Sacral insufficiency fracture is a common sequela of pubic symphysis osteomyelitis. These fractures are often multifocal within the pelvis and can occur even prior to pubic resection. Pubectomy further predisposes these patients to fracture. Clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for these injuries in patients with symphyseal osteomyelitis.

Salvage of failed subtrochanteric fracture fixation in the elderly: revision internal fixation or hip arthroplasty?

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare reoperation rate and clinical outcomes between revision open reduction and internal fixation and hip arthroplasty following failed subtrochanteric fracture fixation. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of patients > 50 years old treated for failed fixation of subtrochanteric fractures with revision ORIF or hip arthroplasty from 2003 to 2023. Primary outcomes included rate of fracture union and reoperations after initial salvage therapy. Secondary outcomes included complications (infection, dislocation, bursitis, implant prominence, implant failure, nonunion), pain, and gait-aid requirements by final follow-up. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were identified: 34 treated with revision ORIF and 10 with hip arthroplasty. The arthroplasty cohort was older (75.4 vs. 66.0 years, p = 0.016) but did not differ from the ORIF cohort in sex, type of initial fixation, or reason for fixation failure. Patients treated with revision ORIF and patients treated with arthroplasty had similar rates of fracture union (85.3% vs. 80.0%, p = 0.772) and reoperation (35.3% vs. 30.0%, p = 0.710). There was no significant difference in rate of additional complications not requiring reoperation (0.0% vs. 40.0%, p = 0.071). The arthroplasty cohort achieved full weightbearing in significantly shorter time than the revision ORIF cohort (3.8 vs. 6.8 weeks, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Both revision ORIF and hip arthroplasty are acceptable options for salvage of failed subtrochanteric fracture fixation in patients greater than 50 years old, but patients should be counseled that although the rate of fracture union is high whether revision ORIF or hip arthroplasty is selected, the rate of reoperation can exceed 1-in-4 patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:  : Level III, Retrospective Comparative Study.

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.

Abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of primary results from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol.

BACKGROUND: Men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer are treated with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for 3 years, often combined with radiotherapy. We analysed new data from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials done in a multiarm, multistage platform protocol to assess the efficacy of adding abiraterone and prednisolone alone or with enzalutamide to ADT in this patient population. METHODS: These open-label, phase 3 trials were done at 113 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restrictions) had high-risk (defined as node positive or, if node negative, having at least two of the following: tumour stage T3 or T4, Gleason sum score of 8-10, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] concentration ≥40 ng/mL) or relapsing with high-risk features (≤12 months of total ADT with an interval of ≥12 months without treatment and PSA concentration ≥4 ng/mL with a doubling time of <6 months, or a PSA concentration ≥20 ng/mL, or nodal relapse) non-metastatic prostate cancer, and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Local radiotherapy (as per local guidelines, 74 Gy in 37 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles or the equivalent using hypofractionated schedules) was mandated for node negative and encouraged for node positive disease. In both trials, patients were randomly assigned (1:1), by use of a computerised algorithm, to ADT alone (control group), which could include surgery and luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists, or with oral abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and oral prednisolone (5 mg daily; combination-therapy group). In the second trial with no overlapping controls, the combination-therapy group also received enzalutamide (160 mg daily orally). ADT was given for 3 years and combination therapy for 2 years, except if local radiotherapy was omitted when treatment could be delivered until progression. In this primary analysis, we used meta-analysis methods to pool events from both trials. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was metastasis-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, biochemical failure-free survival, progression-free survival, and toxicity and adverse events. For 90% power and a one-sided type 1 error rate set to 1·25% to detect a target hazard ratio for improvement in metastasis-free survival of 0·75, approximately 315 metastasis-free survival events in the control groups was required. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety according to the treatment started within randomised allocation. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00268476, and with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN78818544. FINDINGS: Between Nov 15, 2011, and March 31, 2016, 1974 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The first trial allocated 455 to the control group and 459 to combination therapy, and the second trial, which included enzalutamide, allocated 533 to the control group and 527 to combination therapy. Median age across all groups was 68 years (IQR 63-73) and median PSA 34 ng/ml (14·7-47); 774 (39%) of 1974 patients were node positive, and 1684 (85%) were planned to receive radiotherapy. With median follow-up of 72 months (60-84), there were 180 metastasis-free survival events in the combination-therapy groups and 306 in the control groups. Metastasis-free survival was significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups (median not reached, IQR not evaluable [NE]-NE) than in the control groups (not reached, 97-NE; hazard ratio [HR] 0·53, 95% CI 0·44-0·64, p<0·0001). 6-year metastasis-free survival was 82% (95% CI 79-85) in the combination-therapy group and 69% (66-72) in the control group. There was no evidence of a difference in metatasis-free survival when enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate were administered concurrently compared with abiraterone acetate alone (interaction HR 1·02, 0·70-1·50, p=0·91) and no evidence of between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·90). Overall survival (median not reached [IQR NE-NE] in the combination-therapy groups vs not reached [103-NE] in the control groups; HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·48-0·73, p<0·0001), prostate cancer-specific survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [NE-NE]; 0·49, 0·37-0·65, p<0·0001), biochemical failure-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs 86 months [83-NE]; 0·39, 0·33-0·47, p<0·0001), and progression-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [103-NE]; 0·44, 0·36-0·54, p<0·0001) were also significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups than in the control groups. Adverse events grade 3 or higher during the first 24 months were, respectively, reported in 169 (37%) of 451 patients and 130 (29%) of 455 patients in the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone trial, respectively, and 298 (58%) of 513 patients and 172 (32%) of 533 patients of the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, respectively. The two most common events more frequent in the combination-therapy groups were hypertension (abiraterone trial: 23 (5%) in the combination-therapy group and six (1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 73 (14%) and eight (2%), respectively) and alanine transaminitis (abiraterone trial: 25 (6%) in the combination-therapy group and one (<1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 69 (13%) and four (1%), respectively). Seven grade 5 adverse events were reported: none in the control groups, three in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone group (one event each of rectal adenocarcinoma, pulmonary haemorrhage, and a respiratory disorder), and four in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with enzalutamide group (two events each of septic shock and sudden death). INTERPRETATION: Among men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer, combination therapy is associated with significantly higher rates of metastasis-free survival compared with ADT alone. Abiraterone acetate with prednisolone should be considered a new standard treatment for this population. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone for metastatic patients starting hormone therapy: 5-year follow-up results from the STAMPEDE randomised trial (NCT00268476).

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (AAP) previously demonstrated improved survival in STAMPEDE, a multiarm, multistage platform trial in men starting long-term hormone therapy for prostate cancer. This long-term analysis in metastatic patients was planned for 3 years after the first results. Standard-of-care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy. The comparison randomised patients 1:1 to SOC-alone with or without daily abiraterone acetate 1000 mg + prednisolone 5 mg (SOC + AAP), continued until disease progression. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Metastatic disease risk group was classified retrospectively using baseline CT and bone scans by central radiological review and pathology reports. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, accounting for baseline stratification factors. One thousand and three patients were contemporaneously randomised (November 2011 to January 2014): median age 67 years; 94% newly-diagnosed; metastatic disease risk group: 48% high, 44% low, 8% unassessable; median PSA 97 ng/mL. At 6.1 years median follow-up, 329 SOC-alone deaths (118 low-risk, 178 high-risk) and 244 SOC + AAP deaths (75 low-risk, 145 high-risk) were reported. Adjusted HR = 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50-0.71; P = 0.31 × 10-9 ) favoured SOC + AAP, with 5-years survival improved from 41% SOC-alone to 60% SOC + AAP. This was similar in low-risk (HR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41-0.76) and high-risk (HR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.43-0.69) patients. Median and current maximum time on SOC + AAP was 2.4 and 8.1 years. Toxicity at 4 years postrandomisation was similar, with 16% patients in each group reporting grade 3 or higher toxicity. A sustained and substantial improvement in overall survival of all metastatic prostate cancer patients was achieved with SOC + abiraterone acetate + prednisolone, irrespective of metastatic disease risk group.

Radiotherapy to the prostate for men with metastatic prostate cancer in the UK and Switzerland: Long-term results from the STAMPEDE randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: STAMPEDE has previously reported that radiotherapy (RT) to the prostate improved overall survival (OS) for patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer with low metastatic burden, but not those with high-burden disease. In this final analysis, we report long-term findings on the primary outcome measure of OS and on the secondary outcome measures of symptomatic local events, RT toxicity events, and quality of life (QoL). METHODS AND FINDINGS: Patients were randomised at secondary care sites in the United Kingdom and Switzerland between January 2013 and September 2016, with 1:1 stratified allocation: 1,029 to standard of care (SOC) and 1,032 to SOC+RT. No masking of the treatment allocation was employed. A total of 1,939 had metastatic burden classifiable, with 42% low burden and 58% high burden, balanced by treatment allocation. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses used Cox regression and flexible parametric models (FPMs), adjusted for stratification factors age, nodal involvement, the World Health Organization (WHO) performance status, regular aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use, and planned docetaxel use. QoL in the first 2 years on trial was assessed using prospectively collected patient responses to QLQ-30 questionnaire. Patients were followed for a median of 61.3 months. Prostate RT improved OS in patients with low, but not high, metastatic burden (respectively: 202 deaths in SOC versus 156 in SOC+RT, hazard ratio (HR) = 0·64, 95% CI 0.52, 0.79, p < 0.001; 375 SOC versus 386 SOC+RT, HR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.96, 1.28, p = 0·164; interaction p < 0.001). No evidence of difference in time to symptomatic local events was found. There was no evidence of difference in Global QoL or QLQ-30 Summary Score. Long-term urinary toxicity of grade 3 or worse was reported for 10 SOC and 10 SOC+RT; long-term bowel toxicity of grade 3 or worse was reported for 15 and 11, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate RT improves OS, without detriment in QoL, in men with low-burden, newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer, indicating that it should be recommended as a SOC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00268476, ISRCTN.com ISRCTN78818544.

The early evolutionary landscape of osteosarcoma provides clues for targeted treatment strategies.

Osteosarcomas are aggressive primary tumors of bone that are typically detected in locally advanced stages; however, which genetic mutations drive the cancer before its clinical detection remain unknown. To identify these events, we performed longitudinal genome-sequencing analysis of 12 patients with metastatic or refractory osteosarcoma. Phylogenetic and molecular clock analyses were carried out next to identify actionable mutations, and these were validated by integrating data from additional 153 osteosarcomas and pre-existing functional evidence from mouse PDX models. We found that the earliest and thus clinically most promising mutations affect the cell cycle G1 transition, which is guarded by cyclins D3, E1, and cyclin-dependent kinases 2, 4, and 6. Cell cycle G1 alterations originate no more than a year before the primary tumor is clinically detected and occur in >90% and 50% of patients of the discovery and validation cohorts, respectively. In comparison, other cancer driver mutations could be acquired at any evolutionary stage and often do not become pervasive. Consequently, our data support that the repertoire of actionable mutations present in every osteosarcoma cell is largely limited to cell cycle G1 mutations. Since they occur in mutually exclusive combinations favoring either CDK2 or CDK4/6 pathway activation, we propose a new genomically-based algorithm to direct patients to correct clinical trial options. © 2021 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Remote consultations: experiences of UK patients with prostate cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Aim: Explore UK prostate cancer patients' experiences and preferences for in-person and remote consultations. Materials & methods: In January-March 2021, patients completed a survey of consultation format preferences. Results: Of 971 patients, most preferred in-person consultations when receiving diagnosis and results (92.3 and 66.5%, respectively) and discussing first and further treatment options (92.0 and 84.0%, respectively). Fewer patients considered follow-up (40.9%) or side effect consultations (47.7%) should be in person. Patients with longer travel preferred telephone consultations for receiving test results post-treatment. Patients over 55 preferred in-person consultations for discussing first treatment. Conclusion: To optimize prostate cancer care in the wake of COVID-19, we recommend patients have the option of consultation format, although key decisions should be made in person.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a move away from in-person to remote consultations for patients with prostate cancer. However, it is not clear if remote consultations work well for every interaction. We surveyed UK-based men with prostate cancer about their preferences for consultation format. Patients wanted in-person consultations when receiving their diagnosis, discussing treatment options or getting test results after treatment. They were more accepting of remote consultations for regular follow-up or support with treatment side effects. Patients should ideally be offered a choice between in-person and remote consultations, although consultations should be in person when key decisions have to be made. These findings will be of value in planning care for patients with prostate cancer post pandemic.

Timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT): a randomised, controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer is uncertain. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant radiotherapy versus an observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) biochemical progression. METHODS: We did a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with at least one risk factor (pathological T-stage 3 or 4, Gleason score of 7-10, positive margins, or preoperative PSA ≥10 ng/mL) for biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT). The study took place in trial-accredited centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to adjuvant radiotherapy or an observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for PSA biochemical progression (PSA ≥0·1 ng/mL or three consecutive rises). Masking was not deemed feasible. Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned radiotherapy schedule (52·5 Gy in 20 fractions or 66 Gy in 33 fractions), and centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom from distant metastases, designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with salvage radiotherapy (control) to 95% at 10 years with adjuvant radiotherapy. We report on biochemical progression-free survival, freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used. A hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1 favoured adjuvant radiotherapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. FINDINGS: Between Nov 22, 2007, and Dec 30, 2016, 1396 patients were randomly assigned, 699 (50%) to salvage radiotherapy and 697 (50%) to adjuvant radiotherapy. Allocated groups were balanced with a median age of 65 years (IQR 60-68). Median follow-up was 4·9 years (IQR 3·0-6·1). 649 (93%) of 697 participants in the adjuvant radiotherapy group reported radiotherapy within 6 months; 228 (33%) of 699 in the salvage radiotherapy group reported radiotherapy within 8 years after randomisation. With 169 events, 5-year biochemical progression-free survival was 85% for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 88% for those in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 1·10, 95% CI 0·81-1·49; p=0·56). Freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy at 5 years was 93% for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 92% for those in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·58-1·33; p=0·53). Self-reported urinary incontinence was worse at 1 year for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group (mean score 4·8 vs 4·0; p=0·0023). Grade 3-4 urethral stricture within 2 years was reported in 6% of individuals in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 4% in the salvage radiotherapy group (p=0·020). INTERPRETATION: These initial results do not support routine administration of adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adjuvant radiotherapy increases the risk of urinary morbidity. An observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for PSA biochemical progression should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, MRC Clinical Trials Unit, and Canadian Cancer Society.

Experiences of Support for Sexual Dysfunction in Men With Prostate Cancer: Findings From a U.K.-Wide Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Men with prostate cancer (PCa) often experience sexual dysfunction following diagnosis and treatment, yet little is known about the support they receive to deal with this. AIM: To explore men's experiences of support for sexual dysfunction following PCa diagnosis. METHODS: This study included a U.K.-wide survey of men 18-42 months post-diagnosis of PCa, identified through cancer registries. The survey measured sexual function and the extent to which men perceived sexual dysfunction to be a problem (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26), access to and experience of medications, devices, and specialist services for sexual dysfunction, and included a free-text question for further comments. Analysis focussed on men who reported poor sexual function, which they considered a moderate or big problem. Descriptive statistics explored the characteristics of men offered intervention and those that found this helpful. Free-text responses were analyzed using thematic analysis. OUTCOME: The main outcome of this study was to assess access to and experience of medications, devices, and specialist services for sexual dysfunction. RESULTS: 39.0% of all survey respondents (13,978/35,823) reported poor sexual function, which they considered a moderate or big problem. 51.7% of these men were not offered any intervention to aid sexual functioning. 71.9% of those offered an intervention reported trying it, of whom 48.7% found the intervention helpful. Men treated with surgery or brachytherapy were most likely to be offered an intervention. Medication was the most commonly offered intervention and 39.3% of those who tried medication found this helpful. Although offered less often, approximately half of the men who tried devices or attended specialist services found the intervention helpful. Free-text responses indicated that barriers to accessing support included inadequate information and support from healthcare professionals, embarrassment, negative views about treatment options, concerns about side effects and safety, and inconsistencies between secondary and primary care. Barriers to continuing use included limited effectiveness of treatments, inadequate ongoing support, and funding constraints. Drivers of sexual recovery included patient proactivity and persistence with trying different treatment options and ongoing support from health professionals. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: There is an urgent need to ensure that all men are offered, and have equal access to, sexual care support, with referral to specialist services when required. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: This study presents data from a large, U.K.-wide, population-based study of men with PCa and includes quantitative and qualitative findings. The possibility of non-response bias should, however, be considered. CONCLUSION: There are significant shortcomings in the support offered to U.K. men with sexual dysfunction following diagnosis and treatment for PCa which need to be addressed. Watson E, Wilding S, Matheson L, et al. Experiences of Support for Sexual Dysfunction in Men With Prostate Cancer: Findings From a U.K.-Wide Mixed Methods Study. J Sex Med 2021;18:515-525.

Total Hip Arthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture: What Are the Contemporary Reasons for Failure?

BACKGROUND: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) for femoral neck fracture (FNF) appears to provide superior functional outcomes compared to hemiarthroplasty in selected active, elderly patients; however, the historical tradeoff has been higher risk of complications including dislocation. We aimed to describe implant survivorship and reasons for failure after THA for FNFs. METHODS: We identified 217 FNFs treated with THA from 2000 to 2017 from our institutional total joint registry (during the same time period 2039 FNFs were treated with hemiarthroplasty). Mean age was 70 years, and 65% were female. Cemented femoral components were utilized in 41%. Approach was anterolateral in 71%, posterior in 21%, and direct anterior in 8%. Dual-mobility constructs were utilized in 3%. A competing risk model accounting for death was used to analyze revisions and complications. Mean follow-up was 6 years. RESULTS: The 5-year cumulative incidence of any revision was 8%. Nineteen hips were revised for the following indications: postoperative periprosthetic femur fracture (6: 3 uncemented stems and 3 cemented), infection (5), aseptic loosening of the femoral component (3: 2 cemented and 1 uncemented), dislocation (3), iliopsoas impingement (1), and liner dissociation (1). The 5-year cumulative incidence of periprosthetic femur fractures was 7%, including 7 intraoperative fractures and 11 postoperative fractures. The 5-year cumulative incidence of dislocation was 1.4%. CONCLUSION: The 5-year cumulative incidence of any revision after THA for FNFs was 8%, mostly attributed to periprosthetic fracture and infection. Hip instability was not as common after FNF with contemporary patient selection, techniques, and implants compared to previous series. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level III.

How are peri-implant fractures below short versus long cephalomedullary nails different?

BACKGROUND: Cephalomedullary nails are a commonly used implant for the treatment of many pertrochanteric femur fractures and are available in short and long configurations. There is no consensus on ideal nail length. Relative advantages can be ascribed to short and long intramedullary nails, yet both implant styles share the potentially devastating complication of peri-implant fracture. Determining the clinical sequelae after fractures below nails of different lengths would provide valuable information for surgeons choosing between short or long nails. Thus, the purpose of the study was to compare injury patterns and treatment outcomes following peri-implant fractures below short or long cephalomedullary nails. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study that identified 33 patients referred for treatment of peri-implant fractures below short and long cephalomedullary nails (n = 19 short, n = 14 long). We compared fracture pattern, treatment strategy, complications, and outcomes between these two groups. RESULTS: Short nails were associated with more diaphyseal fractures (odds ratio [OR] 13.75, CI 2.2-57.9, p 0.002), which were treated more commonly with revision intramedullary nailing (OR, infinity; p 0.01), while long nails were associated with distal metaphyseal fractures (OR 13.75, CI 2.2-57.9, p 0.002), which were treated with plate and screw fixation (p 0.002). After peri-implant fracture, there were no differences in blood loss, operative time, weight bearing status, or complication rates based on the length of the initial nail. In patients treated with revision nailing, there was greater estimated blood loss (EBL, median 300 cc, interquartile range [IQR] 250-1200 vs median 200 cc, IQR 100-300, p 0.03), blood product utilization and complication rates (OR 11.1, CI 1.1-135.7, p 0.03), but a trend toward unrestricted post-operative weight-bearing compared to patients treated with plate and screw constructs. CONCLUSION: Understanding fracture patterns and patient outcomes after fractures below nails of different lengths will help surgeons make more informed implant choices when treating intertrochanteric hip fractures. Revision to a long nail for the treatment of fractures at the tip of a short nail may be associated with increased patient morbidity.

Abiraterone for Prostate Cancer Not Previously Treated with Hormone Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone improves survival in men with relapsed prostate cancer. We assessed the effect of this combination in men starting long-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), using a multigroup, multistage trial design. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive ADT alone or ADT plus abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and prednisolone (5 mg daily) (combination therapy). Local radiotherapy was mandated for patients with node-negative, nonmetastatic disease and encouraged for those with positive nodes. For patients with nonmetastatic disease with no radiotherapy planned and for patients with metastatic disease, treatment continued until radiologic, clinical, or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression; otherwise, treatment was to continue for 2 years or until any type of progression, whichever came first. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. The intermediate primary outcome was failure-free survival (treatment failure was defined as radiologic, clinical, or PSA progression or death from prostate cancer). RESULTS: A total of 1917 patients underwent randomization from November 2011 through January 2014. The median age was 67 years, and the median PSA level was 53 ng per milliliter. A total of 52% of the patients had metastatic disease, 20% had node-positive or node-indeterminate nonmetastatic disease, and 28% had node-negative, nonmetastatic disease; 95% had newly diagnosed disease. The median follow-up was 40 months. There were 184 deaths in the combination group as compared with 262 in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.76; P<0.001); the hazard ratio was 0.75 in patients with nonmetastatic disease and 0.61 in those with metastatic disease. There were 248 treatment-failure events in the combination group as compared with 535 in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.34; P<0.001); the hazard ratio was 0.21 in patients with nonmetastatic disease and 0.31 in those with metastatic disease. Grade 3 to 5 adverse events occurred in 47% of the patients in the combination group (with nine grade 5 events) and in 33% of the patients in the ADT-alone group (with three grade 5 events). CONCLUSIONS: Among men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer, ADT plus abiraterone and prednisolone was associated with significantly higher rates of overall and failure-free survival than ADT alone. (Funded by Cancer Research U.K. and others; STAMPEDE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00268476 , and Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN78818544 .).

Decision regret in men living with and beyond nonmetastatic prostate cancer in the United Kingdom: A population-based patient-reported outcome study.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical options for managing nonmetastatic prostate cancer (PCa) vary. Each option has side effects associated with it, leading to difficulty in decision-making. This study aimed to assess the relationship between patient involvement in treatment decision-making and subsequent decision regret (DR), and quantify the impact of health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes on DR. METHODS: Men living in the United Kingdom, 18 to 42 months after diagnosis of PCa, were identified from cancer registration data and sent a questionnaire. Measures included the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), Expanded Prostate cancer Index Composite short form (EPIC-26), EQ-5D-5L, and an item on involvement in treatment decision-making. Multivariable ordinal regression was utilized, with DR categorized as none, mild, or moderate/severe regret. RESULTS: A total of 17 193 men with stage I-III PCa completed the DRS: 36.6% reported no regret, 43.3% mild regret, and 20.0% moderate/severe regret. The odds of reporting DR were greater if men indicated their views were not taken into account odds ratio ([OR] = 6.42, 95% CI: 5.39-7.64) or were involved "to some extent" in decision-making (OR = 4.63, 95% CI: 4.27-5.02), compared with men who were "definitely" involved. After adjustment, including for involvement, men reporting moderate/big problems with urinary, bowel, or sexual function were more likely to experience regret compared with men with no/small problems. Better HRQL scores were associated with lower levels of DR. CONCLUSIONS: This large-scale study demonstrates the benefit of patient involvement in treatment decision-making for nonmetastatic PCa. However, men experiencing side effects and poorer HRQL report greater DR. Promoting engagement in clinical decision-making represents good practice and may reduce the risk of subsequent regret.