A phase I/II study of acute and late physician assessed and patient-reported morbidity following whole pelvic radiation in high-risk prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess acute and late morbidity measured by the physician and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in high-risk prostate cancer (PC) patients receiving whole pelvic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the setting of a national clinical trial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 88 patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate and high-risk parameters were enrolled from 2011 to 2013. All patients received 78 Gy in 39 fractions of IMRT delivering simultaneous 78 Gy to the prostate and 56 Gy to the seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Physician-reported morbidity was assessed by CTCAE v.4.0. PROs were registered for gastro-intestinal (GI) by the RT-ARD score, genito-urinary (GU) by DAN-PSS, sexual and hormonal by EPIC-26, and quality of life (QoL) by EORTC QLQ-C30. RESULTS: Median follow-up (FU) time was 4.6 years. No persistent late CTCAE grade 3+ morbidity was observed. Prevalence of CTCAE grade 2+ GI morbidities varied from 0 to 6% at baseline throughout FU time, except for diarrhea, which was reported in 19% of the patients post-RT. PROs revealed increased GI morbidity (≥1 monthly episode) for "rectal urgency", "use of pads", "incomplete evacuation", "mucus in stool" and "bowel function impact on QoL" all remained significantly different (p < .05) at 60 months compared to baseline. CTCAE grade 2+ GU and sexual morbidity were unchanged. GU PROs on obstructive and irritative GU items (≥daily episode) increased during RT and normalized at 24 months. No clinically significant differences were found in sexual, hormonal, and QoL scores compared to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Whole pelvic RT resulted in a mild to the moderate burden of late GI morbidities demonstrated by a relatively high prevalence of PROs. Whereas, physician-assessed morbidity revealed a low prevalence of late GI morbidity scores. This emphasizes the importance of using both PROs and physician-reported scoring scales when reporting late morbidity in clinical trials.

Vinflunine/gemcitabine versus carboplatin/gemcitabine as first-line treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma: A randomised phase II trial (VINGEM).

BACKGROUND: The present study (VINGEM) is the first randomised trial comparing vinflunine/gemcitabine (VG) to standard carboplatin/gemcitabine (CG) in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) ineligible for treatment with cisplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with aUC, creatinine clearance 30-60 ml/min, performance status ≤1 and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease were randomised to the experimental arm (vinflunine 280 or 250 mg/m2 day 1, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, q21 days) or the control arm (carboplatin AUC 4.5 day 1, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, q21 days). Primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were randomised; a total of 59 patients were treated (29 VG, 30 CG). There was no significant difference in PFS between the treatment arms: median 6.2 months for VG versus 6.3 months for CG (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-1.28; P = 0.293). Median overall survival was 12.5 months for VG versus 10.6 months for CG. The overall response rate (ORR) was higher in the VG arm than in the CG arm (63% versus 40%) but was not statistically significant in the intention-to-treat analysis. Furthermore, VG showed a high complete response (CR) rate, 22% versus 3% in CG. In the per-protocol group, both ORR and CR were significantly higher for VG than for CG. The most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, haematological toxicities, gastrointestinal disorders and nausea/vomiting. Common grade III/IV AEs were neutropenia (VG 62%, CG 43%), thrombocytopenia (VG 7%, CG 37%) and febrile neutropenia (VG 31%, CG 7%). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of VG did not improve PFS compared with standard treatment with CG in patients unfit for cisplatin due to renal impairment. The response rate of VG indicates, however, an active regimen and warrants further studies. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV NUMBER: NCT02665039.

Prospective comparative study of 18F-sodium fluoride PET/CT and planar bone scintigraphy for treatment response assessment of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer.

AIM: To compare 18F-sodium fluoride positron emission tomography/computed tomography (NaF PET/CT) and 99mTc-labelled diphosphonate bone scan (BS) for the monitoring of bone metastases in patients with prostate cancer undergoing anti-cancer treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from 64 patients with prostate cancer were included. The patients received androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), next-generation hormonal therapy (NGH) or chemotherapy. The patients had a baseline scan and 1-3 subsequent scans during six months of treatment. Images were evaluated by experienced nuclear medicine physicians and classified for progressive disease (PD) or non-PD according to the Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 (PCWG-2) criteria. The patients were also classified as having PD/non-PD according to the clinical and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses. RESULTS: There was no difference between NaF PET/CT and BS in the detection of PD and non-PD during treatment (McNemar's test, p = .18). The agreement between BS and NaF PET/CT for PD/non-PD was moderate (Cohen's kappa 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.26-0.79). Crude agreement between BS and NaF PET/CT for the assessment of PD/non-PD was 86% (89% for ADT, n = 28; 88% for NGH, n = 16, and 80% for chemotherapy, n = 20). In most discordant cases, BS found PD when NaF PET/CT did not, or BS detected PD on an earlier scan than NaF PET/CT. Biochemical progression (27%) occurred more frequently than progression on functional imaging (BS, 22% and NaF PET/CT, 14%). Clinical progression was rare (11%), and almost exclusively seen in patients receiving chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: There was no difference between NaF PET/CT and BS in the detection of PD and non-PD; however, BS seemingly detects PD by the PCWG-2 criteria earlier than NaF-PET, which might be explained by the fact that NaF-PET is more sensitive at the baseline scan.

The Danish Prostate Cancer Database.

AIM OF DATABASE: The Danish Prostate Cancer Database (DAPROCAdata) is a nationwide clinical cancer database that has prospectively collected data on patients with incident prostate cancer in Denmark since February 2010. The overall aim of the DAPROCAdata is to improve the quality of prostate cancer care in Denmark by systematically collecting key clinical variables for the purposes of health care monitoring, quality improvement, and research. STUDY POPULATION: All Danish patients with histologically verified prostate cancer are included in the DAPROCAdata. MAIN VARIABLES: The DAPROCAdata registers clinical data and selected characteristics for patients with prostate cancer at diagnosis. Data are collected from the linkage of nationwide health registries and supplemented with online registration of key clinical variables by treating physicians at urological and oncological departments. Main variables include Gleason scores, cancer staging, prostate-specific antigen values, and therapeutic measures (active surveillance, surgery, radiotherapy, endocrine therapy, and chemotherapy). DESCRIPTIVE DATA: In total, 22,332 patients with prostate cancer were registered in DAPROCAdata as of April 2015. A key feature of DAPROCAdata is the routine collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM), including data on quality-of-life (pain levels, physical activity, sexual function, depression, urine and fecal incontinence) and lifestyle factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, and body mass index). PROM data are derived from questionnaires distributed at diagnosis and at 1-year and 3-year follow-up. Hitherto, the PROM data have been limited by low completeness (26% among newly diagnosed patients in 2014). CONCLUSION: DAPROCAdata is a comprehensive, yet still young clinical database. Efforts to improve data collection, data validity, and completeness are ongoing and of high priority.