Stereotactic radiotherapy for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (STAR): a pivotal, randomised, double-masked, sham-controlled device trial.

BACKGROUND: Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is a leading cause of blindness. The first-line therapy is anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents delivered by intravitreal injection. Ionising radiation mitigates key pathogenic processes underlying nAMD, and therefore has therapeutic potential. STAR aimed to assess whether stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) reduces the number of anti-VEGF injections required, without sacrificing visual acuity. METHODS: This pivotal, randomised, double-masked, sham-controlled trial enrolled participants with pretreated chronic active nAMD from 30 UK hospitals. Participants were randomly allocated in a 2:1 ratio to 16-Gray (Gy) SRT delivered using a robotically controlled device or sham SRT, stratified by treatment centre. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older and had chronic active nAMD, with at least three previous anti-VEGF injections, including at least one in the last 4 months. Participants and all trial and image reading centre staff were masked to treatment allocation, except one unmasked statistician. The primary outcome was the number of intravitreal ranibizumab injections required over 2 years, tested for superiority (fewer injections). The main secondary outcome was Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study visual acuity at two years, tested for non-inferiority (five-letter margin). The primary analysis used the intention-to-treat principle, and safety was analysed per-protocol on participants with available data. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02243878) and is closed for recruitment. FINDINGS: 411 participants enrolled between Jan 1, 2015, and Dec 27, 2019, and 274 were randomly allocated to the 16-Gy SRT group and 137 to the sham SRT group. 240 (58%) of all participants were female, and 171 (42%) of all participants were male. 241 participants in the 16-Gy SRT group and 118 participants in the sham group were included in the final analysis, and 409 patients were treated and formed the safety population, of whom two patients allocated to sham treatment erroneously received 16-Gy SRT. The SRT group received a mean of 10·7 injections (SD 6·3) over 2 years versus 13·3 injections (5·8) with sham, a reduction of 2·9 injections after adjusting for treatment centre (95% CI -4·2 to -1·6, p<0·0001). The SRT group best-corrected visual acuity change was non-inferior to sham (adjusted mean letter loss difference between groups, -1·7 letters [95% CI -4·2 to 0·8]). Adverse event rates were similar across groups, but reading centre-detected microvascular abnormalities occurred in 77 SRT-treated eyes (35%) and 13 (12%) sham-treated eyes. Overall, eyes with microvascular abnormalities tended to have better best-corrected visual acuity than those without. Fewer ranibizumab injections offset the cost of SRT, saving a mean of £565 per participant (95% CI -332 to 1483). INTERPRETATION: SRT can reduce ranibizumab treatment burden without compromising vision. FUNDING: Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme.

The ratio of soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor predicts time to delivery and mode of birth in patients with suspected preeclampsia: a secondary analysis of the INSPIRE trial.

BACKGROUND: The ratio of soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor is a useful biomarker for preeclampsia. Since it is a measure of placental dysfunction, it could also be a predictor of clinical deterioration and fetal tolerance to intrapartum stress. OBJECTIVE: We tested the hypothesis that soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor ratio predicts time to delivery. Secondary objectives were to examine associations between the soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor ratio and mode of birth, fetal distress, need for labor induction, and birthweight z score. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the INSPIRE trial, a randomized interventional study on prediction of preeclampsia/eclampsia in which women with suspected preeclampsia were recruited and their blood soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor ratio was assessed. We stratified participants into 3 groups according to the ratio result: category 1 (soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor ≤38); category 2 (soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor >38 and <85); and category 3 (soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor ≥85). We modeled time from soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor determination to delivery using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared the 3 ratio categories adjusting for gestational age at soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor determination and trial arm with Cox regression. The association between ratio category and mode of delivery, induction of labor, and fetal distress was assessed using a multivariable logistic regression adjusting for gestational age at sampling and trial arm. The association between birthweight z score and soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor ratio was evaluated using multiple linear regression. Subgroup analysis was conducted in women with no preeclampsia and spontaneous onset of labor; women with preeclampsia; and participants in the nonreveal arm. RESULTS: Higher ratio categories were associated with a shorter latency from soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor determination to delivery (37 vs 13 vs 10 days for ratios categories 1-3 respectively), hazards ratio for category 3 ratio of 5.64 (95% confidence interval 4.06-7.84, P<.001). A soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor ratio ≥85 had specificity of 92.7% (95% confidence interval 89.0%-95.1%) and sensitivity of 54.72% (95% confidence interval, 41.3-69.5) for prediction of preeclampsia indicated delivery within 2 weeks. A ratio category 3 was also associated with decreased odds of spontaneous vaginal delivery (Odds ratio [OR] 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.25-0.89); an almost 6-fold increased risk of emergency cesarean section (OR 5.89, 95% confidence interval 3.05-11.21); and a 2-fold increased risk for intrapartum fetal distress requiring operative delivery or cesarean section (OR 3.04, 95% confidence interval 1.53-6.05) when compared to patients with ratios ≤38. Higher ratio categories were also associated with higher odds of induction of labor when compared to ratios category 1 (category 2, OR 2.20, 95% confidence interval 1.02-4.76; category 3, OR 6.0, 95% confidence interval 2.01-17.93); and lower median birthweight z score. Within subgroups of women a) without preeclampsia and with spontaneous onset of labor and b) women with preeclampsia, the log ratio was significantly higher in patients requiring intervention for fetal distress or failure to progress compared to those who delivered vaginaly without intervention. In the subset of women with no preeclampsia and spontaneous onset of labor, those who required intervention for fetal distress or failure to progress had a significantly higher log ratio than those who delivered vaginaly without needing intervention. CONCLUSION: The soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 to placental growth factor ratio might be helpful in risk stratification of patients who present with suspected preeclampsia regarding clinical deterioration, intrapartum fetal distress, and mode of birth (including the need for intervention in labor).

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.

Integrating radium-223 therapy into the management of metastatic prostate cancer care: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Few life-prolonging treatment options are available for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This article provides an overview of the current systemic treatments available for mCRPC and reviews studies that investigate the optimal timing for the use of radium-223. The aim is to illustrate possible systemic treatment sequences to maximize benefit from radium-223 therapy. WHAT IS METASTATIC CASTRATION-RESISTANT PROSTATE CANCER & HOW IS IT TREATED?: Prostate cancer is called mCRPC when it spreads to organs outside of the prostate (such as the lymph nodes, bones, liver, or lungs) and no longer responds to hormonal therapy. There are several treatment options available for mCRPC, such as abiraterone, enzalutamide, radium-223, docetaxel, cabazitaxel, olaparib, rucaparib, sipuleucel-T, and 177Lu-PSMA. It is important to understand the risks and benefits associated with each treatment and whether current use may have an impact on future treatment options, including eligibility in certain clinical trials. Maintaining bone health is also an important part of prostate cancer care. WHAT IS RADIUM-223?: Radium-223 is a radioactive molecule that releases strong radiation within a very small range around itself. It mainly travels to the bone where the prostate cancer has spread and kills the cancer cells in that area. Results from a clinical study named ALSYMPCA showed that men who received radium-223 lived longer in addition to having less bone pain. The most common side effects of radium-223 are nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Radium-223 minimally suppresses the bone marrow, which means that it slightly reduces the levels of red and white blood cells.

Feasibility of home-based exercise training during adjuvant treatment for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer patients treated with an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (EXACT).

BACKGROUND: Exercise is an effective adjuvant therapy that can alleviate treatment-related toxicities for men with prostate cancer (PC). However, the feasibility of delivering exercise training to men with advanced disease and the wider impact on clinical outcomes remain unknown. The purpose of the EXACT trial was to determine the feasibility and effects of home-based exercise training in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: Patients with mCRPC receiving ADT + an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) were prescribed 12 weeks of home-based, remotely monitored, moderate intensity, aerobic and resistance exercise. Feasibility was assessed using recruitment, retention and adherence rates. Safety and adverse events were monitored throughout, with functional and patient-reported outcomes captured at baseline, post-intervention and at 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: From the 117 screened, 49 were deemed eligible and approached, with 30 patients providing informed consent (61% recruitment rate). Of those who consented, 28 patients completed baseline assessments, with 24 patients completing the intervention and 22 completing follow-up (retention rates: 86% and 79% respectively). Task completion was excellent throughout, with no intervention-related adverse events recorded. Self-reported adherence to the overall intervention was 82%. Exercise training decreased mean body mass (-1.5%), improved functional fitness (> 10%) and improved several patient-reported outcomes including clinically meaningful changes in fatigue (p = 0.042), FACT-G (p = 0.054) and FACT-P (p = 0.083), all with moderate effect sizes. CONCLUSION: Home-based exercise training, with weekly remote monitoring, was feasible and safe for men with mCRPC being treated with an ARPI. Given that treatment-related toxicities accumulate throughout the course of treatment, and as a result, negatively impact functional fitness and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), it was positive that exercise training improved or prevented a decline in these clinically important variables and could better equip patients for future treatment. Collectively, these preliminary feasibility findings support the need for a definitive, larger RCT, which downstream may lead to the inclusion of home-based exercise training as part of adjuvant care for mCRPC.

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.

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.

Management of newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: A survey of UK Uro-oncologists.

AIM: To explore the practice and views of uro-oncologists in the United Kingdom regarding their use of chemotherapy and androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTAs) in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). METHODS: An expert-devised paper or online questionnaire was completed by members of the British Uro-oncology Group. RESULTS: All respondents stated that they would offer patients with newly diagnosed mHSPC docetaxel and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) if they were sufficiently fit to receive chemotherapy (this was the only option available at the time of the survey); 64% would strongly recommend docetaxel for those with high-volume metastatic disease and 31% for those with low-volume disease. Hypothetically, if both docetaxel and ARTAs were available in the United Kingdom for mHSPC, almost 65% of respondents would recommend an ARTA with ADT to these patients in at least one-half of all cases, with the strongest recommendations to patients with high-risk disease. Imaging for the response was conducted according to suspicion of disease progression, regardless of treatment, with the minority of clinicians recommending routine imaging. If a choice of therapy was available, docetaxel would be more likely to be offered to patients with liver or lung metastases, and ARTAs to patients with bone or lymph node only metastases. Almost all respondents would offer local radiotherapy to the primary tumour in patients with low-volume disease. CONCLUSION: All the UK uro-oncologists surveyed stated that they would offer docetaxel in combination with ADT to all newly diagnosed patients with mHSPC if fit enough for chemotherapy. ARTAs would be offered to many patients if available, especially those with high-risk disease or those unfit to receive chemotherapy. Scanning was typically conducted following treatment only at the suspicion of disease progression.

Non-inferiority randomised phase 3 trial comparing two radiation schedules (single vs. five fractions) in malignant spinal cord compression.

BACKGROUND: The optimal EBRT schedule for MSCC is undetermined. Our aim was to determine whether a single fraction (SF) was non-inferior to five daily fractions (5Fx), for functional motor outcome. METHODS: Patients not proceeding with surgical decompression in this multicentre non-inferiority, Phase 3 trial were randomised to 10 Gy/SF or 20 Gy/5Fx. A change in mobility from baseline to 5 weeks for each patient, was evaluated by a Modified Tomita score: 1 = 'Walk unaided', 2 = 'With walking aid' and 3 = 'Bed-bound'. The margin used to establish non-inferiority was a detrimental change of -0.4 in the mean difference between arms. RESULTS: One-hundred and twelve eligible patients were enrolled. Seventy-three patients aged 30-87 were evaluated for the primary analysis. The 95% CI for the difference in the mean change in mobility scores between arms was -0.12 to 0.6. Since -0.4 is not included in the interval, there is evidence that 10 Gy/SF is non-inferior to 20 Gy/5Fx. One grade 3 AE was reported in the 5Fx arm. Twelve (26%) patients in the 5Fx arm had a Grade 2-3 AE compared with six (11%) patients in the SF arm (p = 0.093). CONCLUSION: For mobility preservation, one 10-Gy fraction is non-inferior to 20 Gy in five fractions, in patients with MSCC not proceeding with surgical decompression. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Cancer Trials Ireland ICORG 05-03; NCT00968643; EU-20952.

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 .).

The Risk of Cardiovascular Disease in Prostate Cancer Patients Receiving Androgen Deprivation Therapies.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), with a proven role in prostate cancer management, has been associated with various cardiovascular diseases. However, few studies have investigated these associations by type of ADT, particularly for newer ADTs such as the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist degarelix. We investigated the risk of cardiovascular disease by type of ADT in a real-world setting. METHODS: We identified men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer, from 2009 to 2015, from the Scottish Cancer Registry and ADTs from the nationwide Prescribing Information System. Cardiovascular events were based upon hospitalization (from hospital records) or death from cardiovascular disease (from death records). We used Cox regression to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for cardiovascular events with time-varying ADT exposure, comparing ADT users with untreated patients, after adjusting for potential confounders, including prior cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: The cohort contained 20,216 prostate cancer patients, followed for 73,570 person-years, during which there were 3,853 cardiovascular events. ADT was associated with a 30% increase in cardiovascular events (adjusted HR = 1.3; 95% CI = 1.2, 1.4). This reflected increases in cardiovascular events associated with GnRH agonists (adjusted HR = 1.3; 95% CI = 1.2, 1.4), degarelix (adjusted HR = 1.5; 95% CI = 1.2, 1.9), but not bicalutamide monotherapy (adjusted HR = 1.0; 95% CI = 0.82, 1.3). CONCLUSIONS: There were increased risks of cardiovascular disease with the use of GnRH agonists and degarelix, but not with bicalutamide monotherapy. This is the first study to observe increased cardiovascular risks with degarelix, but the cause of this association is unclear and merits further investigation.

Use of bisphosphonates and other bone supportive agents in the management of prostate cancer-A UK perspective.

AIM: To explore the practice and views of uro-oncologists in the UK regarding their use of bone supportive agents in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: An expert-devised online questionnaire was completed by members of the British Uro-oncology Group (BUG). RESULTS: Of 160 uro-oncologists invited, 81 completed the questionnaire. Approximately 70% of respondents never use a bone supportive agent in patients with metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). However, use was more frequent in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, from first-line treatment onwards. The majority of uro-oncologists do not use a bone supportive agent to prevent skeletal-related events in men with non-metastatic disease unless the individual patient is at an increased risk of osteoporosis. In men with more advanced disease, respondents would use an oral or intravenous (IV) bisphosphonate in 41% and 61% of patients, respectively. Zoledronic acid is the first-choice bone supportive treatment in 77% of cases, with the lack of clinical data cited as a barrier to use for other IV bisphosphonates. Local guidelines also have a significant influence on the use of bone supportive agents, especially with respect to denosumab. Bone mineral density measurement is conducted in approximately 40% of men with ADT exposure of 2 years or longer, or those with metastatic prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: Uro-oncologists in the UK generally do not use bone supportive agents for men with metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer or those with non-metastatic disease. However, increasing the duration of ADT and the presence of castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer increases use.

Radiotherapy to the primary tumour for newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Based on previous findings, we hypothesised that radiotherapy to the prostate would improve overall survival in men with metastatic prostate cancer, and that the benefit would be greatest in patients with a low metastatic burden. We aimed to compare standard of care for metastatic prostate cancer, with and without radiotherapy. METHODS: We did a randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 117 hospitals in Switzerland and the UK. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. We randomly allocated patients open-label in a 1:1 ratio to standard of care (control group) or standard of care and radiotherapy (radiotherapy group). Randomisation was stratified by hospital, age at randomisation, nodal involvement, WHO performance status, planned androgen deprivation therapy, planned docetaxel use (from December, 2015), and regular aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. Standard of care was lifelong androgen deprivation therapy, with up-front docetaxel permitted from December, 2015. Men allocated radiotherapy received either a daily (55 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks) or weekly (36 Gy in six fractions over 6 weeks) schedule that was nominated before randomisation. The primary outcome was overall survival, measured as the number of deaths; this analysis had 90% power with a one-sided α of 2·5% for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·75. Secondary outcomes were failure-free survival, progression-free survival, metastatic progression-free survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, and symptomatic local event-free survival. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, adjusted for stratification factors. The primary outcome analysis was by intention to treat. Two prespecified subgroup analyses tested the effects of prostate radiotherapy by baseline metastatic burden and radiotherapy schedule. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00268476. FINDINGS: Between Jan 22, 2013, and Sept 2, 2016, 2061 men underwent randomisation, 1029 were allocated the control and 1032 radiotherapy. Allocated groups were balanced, with a median age of 68 years (IQR 63-73) and median amount of prostate-specific antigen of 97 ng/mL (33-315). 367 (18%) patients received early docetaxel. 1082 (52%) participants nominated the daily radiotherapy schedule before randomisation and 979 (48%) the weekly schedule. 819 (40%) men had a low metastatic burden, 1120 (54%) had a high metastatic burden, and the metastatic burden was unknown for 122 (6%). Radiotherapy improved failure-free survival (HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·68-0·84; p<0·0001) but not overall survival (0·92, 0·80-1·06; p=0·266). Radiotherapy was well tolerated, with 48 (5%) adverse events (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 3-4) reported during radiotherapy and 37 (4%) after radiotherapy. The proportion reporting at least one severe adverse event (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or worse) was similar by treatment group in the safety population (398 [38%] with control and 380 [39%] with radiotherapy). INTERPRETATION: Radiotherapy to the prostate did not improve overall survival for unselected patients with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Astellas, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Radium-223 in asymptomatic patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases treated in an international early access program.

BACKGROUND: Radium-223, a targeted alpha therapy, is used to treat symptomatic patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and bone metastases. Data for radium-223 in asymptomatic CRPC patients with bone metastases are lacking. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-arm phase 3b study. Patients with metastatic CRPC (malignant lymphadenopathy not exceeding 6 cm was allowed, visceral disease was excluded) received radium-223, 55 kBq/kg intravenously, every 4 weeks for up to 6 cycles. Co-primary endpoints were safety and overall survival. Post hoc analyses were performed according to baseline asymptomatic or symptomatic disease status. Asymptomatic status was defined as no pain and no opioid use at baseline. RESULTS: Seven hundred eight patients received ≥1 radium-223 injection: 548 (77%) were symptomatic to various degrees, and 135 (19%) were asymptomatic. Asymptomatic patients had more favorable baseline disease characteristics than symptomatic. A lower proportion of asymptomatic versus symptomatic patients had received prior abiraterone (25% vs 35%) and prior docetaxel (52% vs 62%). A higher proportion of asymptomatic (71%) versus symptomatic (55%) patients completed radium-223 treatment. Overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.486), time to disease progression (HR 0.722) and time to first symptomatic skeletal event (HR 0.328) were better in asymptomatic than symptomatic patients. Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) response rates were similar (46% vs 47%), and ALP normalization (44% vs 25%) and prostate-specific antigen response rates (21% vs 13%) were higher in asymptomatic than symptomatic patients. A lower proportion of asymptomatic patients reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs, 61% vs 79%), grade 3-4 TEAEs (29% vs 40%) and drug-related TEAEs (28% vs 44%). There were two treatment-related deaths, both in patients with baseline symptomatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: Using radium-223 earlier in the disease course, when patients are asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic, may enable patients to complete treatment and optimize treatment outcome compared to symptomatic patients, and therefore may allow sequencing with other life-prolonging therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01618370 on June 13, 2012 and the European Union Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2012-000075-16 on April 4, 2012.

Investigating the psychological impact of active surveillance or active treatment in newly diagnosed favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: A 9-month longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the psychological impact of favorable-risk prostate cancer (PCa) and associated treatment (active surveillance [AS] or active treatment [AT]), comparing prevalence and temporal variability of generalized anxiety, PCa-specific anxiety, and depression symptoms. METHODS: PCa patients were recruited at diagnosis prior to treatment decision-making and completed questionnaires assessing anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory short form [STAI-6] and Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer [MAX-PC]) and depression symptoms (Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale [CES-D]) at four timepoints for 9 months. Non-cancer controls were recruited via university staff lists and community groups. Results were analyzed using analysis of variance. RESULTS: Fifty-four PCa (AS n = 11, AT n = 43) and 53 non-cancer participants were recruited. The main effect of time or treatment group were not statistically significant for CES-D scores (P > .05). The main effect of treatment on STAI-6 scores was significant (F2,73 = 4.678, .012) with AS patients reporting highest STAI-6 scores (T1 M = 36.56; T2 M = 36.89, T3 M = 38.46; T4 M = 38.89). There was a significant main effect for time since diagnosis on MAX-PC (F3,123 = 3.68, .01); AS patient scored higher than AT at all timepoints (T1 M = 10.33 vs 10.78; T2 M = 11.11 vs 11.30; T3 M = 13.44 vs 10.55; T4 M = 11.33 vs 8.88); however, both groups declined overall with time. CONCLUSIONS: Men undergoing AS had significantly higher anxiety symptoms than AT and non-cancer participants, contradicting previous literature. This may be due to perceived inactivity of AS relative to traditional narratives of cancer treatment. Participant experiences appear to be less favorable relative to other international centers. Recommendations for future research and clinical practice include the need to improve diagnosis and treatment information provision particularly for lower risk patients.

Consensus on molecular imaging and theranostics in prostate cancer.

Rapid developments in imaging and treatment with radiopharmaceuticals targeting prostate cancer pose issues for the development of guidelines for their appropriate use. To tackle this problem, international experts representing medical oncologists, urologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, and nuclear medicine specialists convened at the European Association of Nuclear Medicine Focus 1 meeting to deliver a balanced perspective on available data and clinical experience of imaging in prostate cancer, which had been supported by a systematic review of the literature and a modified Delphi process. Relevant conclusions included the following: diphosphonate bone scanning and contrast-enhanced CT are mentioned but rarely recommended for most patients in clinical guidelines; MRI (whole-body or multiparametric) and prostate cancer-targeted PET are frequently suggested, but the specific contexts in which these methods affect practice are not established; sodium fluoride-18 for PET-CT bone scanning is not widely advocated, whereas gallium-68 or fluorine-18 prostate-specific membrane antigen gain acceptance; and, palliative treatment with bone targeting radiopharmaceuticals (rhenium-186, samarium-153, or strontium-89) have largely been replaced by radium-223 on the basis of the survival benefit that was reported in prospective trials, and by other systemic therapies with proven survival benefits. Although the advances in MRI and PET-CT have improved the accuracy of imaging, the effects of these new methods on clinical outcomes remains to be established. Improved communication between imagers and clinicians and more multidisciplinary input in clinical trial design are essential to encourage imaging insights into clinical decision making.

Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term hormone therapy has been the standard of care for advanced prostate cancer since the 1940s. STAMPEDE is a randomised controlled trial using a multiarm, multistage platform design. It recruits men with high-risk, locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent prostate cancer who are starting first-line long-term hormone therapy. We report primary survival results for three research comparisons testing the addition of zoledronic acid, docetaxel, or their combination to standard of care versus standard of care alone. METHODS: Standard of care was hormone therapy for at least 2 years; radiotherapy was encouraged for men with N0M0 disease to November, 2011, then mandated; radiotherapy was optional for men with node-positive non-metastatic (N+M0) disease. Stratified randomisation (via minimisation) allocated men 2:1:1:1 to standard of care only (SOC-only; control), standard of care plus zoledronic acid (SOC + ZA), standard of care plus docetaxel (SOC + Doc), or standard of care with both zoledronic acid and docetaxel (SOC + ZA + Doc). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) was given for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly until 2 years, and docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) for six 3-weekly cycles with prednisolone 10 mg daily. There was no blinding to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Pairwise comparisons of research versus control had 90% power at 2·5% one-sided α for hazard ratio (HR) 0·75, requiring roughly 400 control arm deaths. Statistical analyses were undertaken with standard log-rank-type methods for time-to-event data, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ControlledTrials.com (ISRCTN78818544). FINDINGS: 2962 men were randomly assigned to four groups between Oct 5, 2005, and March 31, 2013. Median age was 65 years (IQR 60-71). 1817 (61%) men had M+ disease, 448 (15%) had N+/X M0, and 697 (24%) had N0M0. 165 (6%) men were previously treated with local therapy, and median prostate-specific antigen was 65 ng/mL (IQR 23-184). Median follow-up was 43 months (IQR 30-60). There were 415 deaths in the control group (347 [84%] prostate cancer). Median overall survival was 71 months (IQR 32 to not reached) for SOC-only, not reached (32 to not reached) for SOC + ZA (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·79-1·11; p=0·450), 81 months (41 to not reached) for SOC + Doc (0·78, 0·66-0·93; p=0·006), and 76 months (39 to not reached) for SOC + ZA + Doc (0·82, 0·69-0·97; p=0·022). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect (for any of the treatments) across prespecified subsets. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported for 399 (32%) patients receiving SOC, 197 (32%) receiving SOC + ZA, 288 (52%) receiving SOC + Doc, and 269 (52%) receiving SOC + ZA + Doc. INTERPRETATION: Zoledronic acid showed no evidence of survival improvement and should not be part of standard of care for this population. Docetaxel chemotherapy, given at the time of long-term hormone therapy initiation, showed evidence of improved survival accompanied by an increase in adverse events. Docetaxel treatment should become part of standard of care for adequately fit men commencing long-term hormone therapy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen, Astellas, NIHR Clinical Research Network, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research.

Phase I/II trials of 186Re-HEDP in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: post-hoc analysis of the impact of administered activity and dosimetry on survival.

PURPOSE: To investigate the role of patient-specific dosimetry as a predictive marker of survival and as a potential tool for individualised molecular radiotherapy treatment planning of bone metastases from castration-resistant prostate cancer, and to assess whether higher administered levels of activity are associated with a survival benefit. METHODS: Clinical data from 57 patients who received 2.5-5.1 GBq of 186Re-HEDP as part of NIH-funded phase I/II clinical trials were analysed. Whole-body and SPECT-based absorbed doses to the whole body and bone lesions were calculated for 22 patients receiving 5 GBq. The patient mean absorbed dose was defined as the mean of all bone lesion-absorbed doses in any given patient. Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, Cox's proportional hazards model and Pearson's correlation coefficients were used for overall survival (OS) and correlation analyses. RESULTS: A statistically significantly longer OS was associated with administered activities above 3.5 GBq in the 57 patients (20.1 vs 7.1 months, hazard ratio: 0.39, 95 % CI: 0.10-0.58, P = 0.002). A total of 379 bone lesions were identified in 22 patients. The mean of the patient mean absorbed dose was 19 (±6) Gy and the mean of the whole-body absorbed dose was 0.33 (±0.11) Gy for the 22 patients. The patient mean absorbed dose (r = 0.65, P = 0.001) and the whole-body absorbed dose (r = 0.63, P = 0.002) showed a positive correlation with disease volume. Significant differences in OS were observed for the univariate group analyses according to disease volume as measured from SPECT imaging of 186Re-HEDP (P = 0.03) and patient mean absorbed dose (P = 0.01), whilst only the disease volume remained significant in a multivariable analysis (P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that higher administered activities led to prolonged survival and that for a fixed administered activity, the whole-body and patient mean absorbed doses correlated with the extent of disease, which, in turn, correlated with survival. This study shows the importance of patient stratification to establish absorbed dose-response correlations and indicates the potential to individualise treatment of bone metastases with radiopharmaceuticals according to patient-specific imaging and dosimetry.