Timing of radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy (RP): long-term outcomes in the RADICALS-RT trial (NCT00541047).

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer has been uncertain. RADICALS-RT compared efficacy and safety of adjuvant RT versus an observation policy with salvage RT for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: RADICALS-RT was a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with ≥1 risk factor (pT3/4, Gleason 7-10, positive margins, preoperative PSA≥10 ng/ml) for recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Patients were randomised 1:1 to adjuvant RT ('Adjuvant-RT') or an observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure ('Salvage-RT') defined as PSA≥0.1 ng/ml or three consecutive rises. Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned RT schedule (52.5 Gy/20 fractions or 66 Gy/33 fractions) and treatment centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom-from-distant-metastasis (FFDM), designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with Salvage-RT (control) to 95% at 10 years with Adjuvant-RT. Secondary outcome measures were biochemical progression-free survival, freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy, safety and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used; hazard ratio (HR)<1 favours Adjuvant-RT. RESULTS: Between October 2007 and December 2016, 1396 participants from UK, Denmark, Canada and Ireland were randomised: 699 Salvage-RT, 697 Adjuvant-RT. Allocated groups were balanced with a median age of 65 years. Ninety-three percent (649/697) Adjuvant-RT reported RT within 6 months after randomisation; 39% (270/699) Salvage-RT reported RT during follow-up. Median follow-up was 7.8 years. With 80 distant metastasis events, 10-year FFDM was 93% for Adjuvant-RT and 90% for Salvage-RT: HR=0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-1.07, P=0.095]. Of 109 deaths, 17 were due to prostate cancer. Overall survival was not improved (HR=0.980, 95% CI 0.667-1.440, P=0.917). Adjuvant-RT reported worse urinary and faecal incontinence 1 year after randomisation (P=0.001); faecal incontinence remained significant after 10 years (P=0.017). CONCLUSION: Long-term results from RADICALS-RT confirm adjuvant RT after radical prostatectomy increases the risk of urinary and bowel morbidity, but does not meaningfully improve disease control. An observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy. TRIAL IDENTIFICATION: RADICALS, RADICALS-RT, ISRCTN40814031, NCT00541047.

Validation of metastasis-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in localized prostate cancer in the era of docetaxel for castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prior work from the Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate (ICECaP) consortium (ICECaP-1) demonstrated that metastasis-free survival (MFS) is a valid surrogate for overall survival (OS) in localized prostate cancer (PCa). This was based on data from patients treated predominantly before 2004, prior to docetaxel being available for the treatment of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We sought to validate surrogacy in a more contemporary era (ICECaP-2) with greater availability of docetaxel and other systemic therapies for mCRPC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible trials for ICECaP-2 were those providing individual patient data (IPD) after publication of ICECaP-1 and evaluating adjuvant/salvage therapy for localized PCa, and which collected MFS and OS data. MFS was defined as distant metastases or death from any cause, and OS was defined as death from any cause. Surrogacy was evaluated using a meta-analytic two-stage validation model, with an R2 ≥ 0.7 defined a priori as clinically relevant. RESULTS: A total of 15 164 IPD from 14 trials were included in ICECaP-2, with 70% of patients treated after 2004. The median follow-up was 8.3 years and the median postmetastasis survival was 3.1 years in ICECaP-2, compared with 1.9 years in ICECaP-1. For surrogacy condition 1, Kendall's tau was 0.92 for MFS with OS at the patient level, and R2 from weighted linear regression (WLR) of 8-year OS on 5-year MFS was 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.53-0.82) at the trial level. For condition 2, R2 was 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.64-0.89) from WLR of log[hazard ratio (HR)]-OS on log(HR)-MFS. The surrogate threshold effect on OS was an HR(MFS) of 0.81. CONCLUSIONS: MFS remained a valid surrogate for OS in a more contemporary era, where patients had greater access to docetaxel and other systemic therapies for mCRPC. This supports the use of MFS as the primary outcome measure for ongoing adjuvant trials in localized PCa.

A Repurposing Programme Evaluating Transdermal Oestradiol Patches for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer Within the PATCH and STAMPEDE Trials: Current Results and Adapting Trial Design.

AIMS: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), usually achieved with luteinising hormone releasing hormone analogues (LHRHa), is central to prostate cancer management. LHRHa reduce both testosterone and oestrogen and are associated with significant long-term toxicity. Previous use of oral oestrogens as ADT was curtailed because of cardiovascular toxicity. Transdermal oestrogen (tE2) patches are a potential alternative ADT, supressing testosterone without the associated oestrogen-depletion toxicities (osteoporosis, hot flushes, metabolic abnormalities) and avoiding cardiovascular toxicity, and we here describe their evaluation in men with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PATCH (NCT00303784) adaptive trials programme (incorporating recruitment through the STAMPEDE [NCT00268476] platform) is evaluating the safety and efficacy of tE2 patches as ADT for men with prostate cancer. An initial randomised (LHRHa versus tE2) phase II study (n = 251) with cardiovascular toxicity as the primary outcome measure has expanded into a phase III evaluation. Those with locally advanced (M0) or metastatic (M1) prostate cancer are eligible. To reflect changes in both management and prognosis, the PATCH programme is now evaluating these cohorts separately. RESULTS: Recruitment is complete, with 1362 and 1128 in the M0 and M1 cohorts, respectively. Rates of androgen suppression with tE2 were equivalent to LHRHa, with improved metabolic parameters, quality of life and bone health indices (mean absolute change in lumbar spine bone mineral density of -3.0% for LHRHa and +7.9% for tE2 with an estimated difference between arms of 9.3% (95% confidence interval 5.3-13.4). Importantly, rates of cardiovascular events were not significantly different between the two arms and the time to first cardiovascular event did not differ between treatment groups (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.53; P = 0.54). Oncological outcomes are awaited. FUTURE: Efficacy results for the M0 cohort (primary outcome measure metastases-free survival) are expected in the final quarter of 2023. For M1 patients (primary outcome measure - overall survival), analysis using restricted mean survival time is being explored. Allied translational work on longitudinal samples is underway.

The STAMPEDE2 Trial: a Site Survey of Current Patterns of Care, Access to Imaging and Treatment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

AIMS: The forthcoming STAMPEDE2 trial has three comparisons in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. We aim to determine clinical practices among STAMPEDE trial investigators for access to imaging and therapeutic choices and explore their interest in participation in STAMPEDE2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The survey was developed and distributed online to 120 UK STAMPEDE trial sites. Recipients were invited to complete the survey between 16 and 30 May 2022. The survey consisted of 30 questions in five sections on access to stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR), 177lutetium-prostate-specific membrane antigen-617 (177Lu-PSMA-617), choice of systemic therapies and use of positron emission tomography/computerised tomography and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: From 58/120 (48%) sites, 64 respondents completed the survey: 55/64 (86%) respondents were interested to participate in SABR, 44/64 (69%) in 177Lu-PSMA-617 and 56/64 (87.5%) in niraparib with abiraterone comparisons; 45/64 (70%) respondents had access to bone, spine and lymph node metastases SABR delivery and 7/64 (11%) to 177Lu-PSMA-617. In addition to androgen deprivation therapy, 60/64 (94%) respondents used androgen receptor signalling inhibitors and 46/64 (72%) used docetaxel; 29/64 (45%) respondents would consider triplet therapy with androgen deprivation therapy, androgen receptor signalling inhibitors and docetaxel. Positron emission tomography/computerised tomography was available to 62/64 (97%) respondents and requested by 45/64 (70%) respondents for disease uncertainty on conventional imaging and 39/64 (61%) at disease relapse. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging was available to 24/64 (38%) respondents and requested by 13/64 (20%) respondents in highly selected patients. In low-volume disease, 38/64 (59%) respondents requested scans at baseline and disease relapse. In high-volume disease, 29/64 (45%) respondents requested scans at baseline, best response (at prostate-specific antigen nadir) and disease relapse; 54/64 (84%) respondents requested computerised tomography and bone scan for best response assessment. CONCLUSION: There is noteworthy disparity in clinical practice across current study sites, however most have expressed an interest in participation in the forthcoming STAMPEDE2 trial.

MiR-378a inhibits glucose metabolism by suppressing GLUT1 in prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the fifth leading cause of cancer related deaths worldwide, in part due to a lack of molecular stratification tools that can distinguish primary tumours that will remain indolent from those that will metastasise. Amongst potential molecular biomarkers, microRNAs (miRs) have attracted particular interest because of their high stability in body fluids and fixed tissues. These small non-coding RNAs modulate several physiological and pathological processes, including cancer progression. Herein we explore the prognostic potential and the functional role of miRs in localised PCa and their relation to nodal metastasis. We define a 7-miR signature that is associated with poor survival independently of age, Gleason score, pathological T state, N stage and surgical margin status and that is also prognostic for disease-free survival in patients with intermediate-risk localised disease. Within our 7-miR signature, we show that miR-378a-3p (hereafter miR-378a) levels are low in primary tumours compared to benign prostate tissue, and also lower in Gleason score 8-9 compared to Gleason 6-7 PCa. We demonstrate that miR-378a impairs glucose metabolism and reduces proliferation in PCa cells through independent mechanisms, and we identify glucose transporter 1 (GLUT1) messenger RNA as a direct target of miR-378a. We show that GLUT1 inhibition hampers glycolysis, leading to cell death. Our data provides a rational for a new PCa stratification strategy based on miR expression, and it reveals that miR-378a and GLUT1 are potential therapeutic targets in highly aggressive glycolytic PCa.

Barriers and facilitators to discussing HPV with head and neck cancer patients: A qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence of human papillomavirus-associated head and neck cancers (HPV-HNC) is increasing worldwide. Research in other clinical contexts has shown that healthcare professionals (HCPs) can find discussing HPV with patients challenging. However, limited research has been conducted in HNC. This study aimed to investigate barriers and facilitators to, discussing HPV among HCPs caring for patients with HNC in Ireland. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone/face-to-face interviews were conducted with HCPs. Barriers and facilitators to discussing HPV with patients were identified using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). RESULTS: 20 HCPs (8 clinicians, 3 nurses, 9 allied healthcare professionals) were interviewed. Barriers to discussing HPV included professionals' lack of HPV knowledge, difficulties in talking about sexual issues with patients and lack of privacy to discuss HPV in busy clinic settings. Facilitators included increasing public and patient awareness of the link between HPV and HNC and professional education and skills development. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first theoretically informed study to identify barriers and facilitators to discussing HPV with HNC patients. HCPs consider HPV discussions to be an essential part of HNC patient care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Understanding the issues associated with patient-provider HPV communication will help develop effective interventions to support HCPs in their HPV discussions.

Risk stratification for prostate cancer management: value of the Cambridge Prognostic Group classification for assessing treatment allocation.

BACKGROUND: The five-tiered Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) classification is a better predictor of prostate cancer-specific mortality than the traditional three-tiered classification (low, intermediate, and high risk). We investigated radical treatment rates according to CPG in men diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer in England between 2014 and 2017. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer were identified from the National Prostate Cancer Audit database. Men were risk stratified according to the CPG classification. Risk ratios (RR) were estimated for undergoing radical treatment according to CPG and for receiving radiotherapy for those treated radically. Funnel plots were used to display variation in radical treatment rates across hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 61,999 men were included with 10,963 (17.7%) in CPG1 (lowest risk group), 13,588 (21.9%) in CPG2, 9452 (15.2%) in CPG3, 12,831 (20.7%) in CPG4, and 15,165 (24.5%) in CPG5 (highest risk group). The proportion of men receiving radical treatment increased from 11.3% in CPG1 to 78.8% in CGP4, and 73.3% in CPG5. Men in CPG3 were more likely to receive radical treatment than men in CPG2 (66.3% versus 48.4%; adjusted RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.36-1.53; P < 0.001). Radically treated men in CPG3 were also more likely to receive radiotherapy than men in CPG2 (59.2% versus 43.9%; adjusted RR, 1.18; 95% CI 1.10-1.26). Although radical treatment rates were similar in CPG4 and CPG5 (78.8% versus 73.3%; adjusted RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98-1.04), more men in CPG5 had radiotherapy than men in CPG4 (79.9% versus 59.1%, adjusted RR 1.26; 95% CI 1.12-1.40). CONCLUSIONS: The CPG classification distributes men in five risk groups that are about equal in size. It reveals differences in treatment practices in men with intermediate-risk disease (CPG2 and CPG3) and in men with high-risk disease (CPG4 and CPGP5) that are not visible when using the traditional three-tiered risk classification.

Variables associated with survival in patients with invasive bladder cancer with and without surgery.

We recorded the survival of 141 patients assessed for radical cystectomy, which included cardiopulmonary exercise testing. The median Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were: 1540 days for the whole cohort; 2200 days after cystectomy scheduled (n = 108); and 843 days without surgery. The mortality hazard remained double that expected for a matched general population, but survival was better in patients scheduled for surgery than those who were not: the mortality hazard ratio (95%CI) after cystectomy was 0.43 (0.26-0.73) the mortality hazard without surgery, p = 0.001. The mortality hazard ratios for the three-variable Bayesian Model Averaging survival model for all 141 patients were: referral for surgery (0.5); haemoglobin concentration (0.98); and efficiency of carbon dioxide output (1.05). Efficiency of carbon dioxide output was the single variable in the postoperative model (n = 108), mortality hazard 1.08 (per unit increase). The ratio of observed to expected peak oxygen consumption associated best with mortality in 33 patients not referred for surgery, hazard ratio 0.001. Our results can inform consultations with patients with invasive bladder cancer and suggest that interventions to increase fitness and haemoglobin may improve survival in patients who do and who do not undergo radical cystectomy.

Comparison of Treatment-Related Toxicity With Hypofractionated or Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A National Population-Based Study.

AIMS: Randomised controlled trials have shown comparable early oncological outcomes after hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy in the radical treatment of prostate cancer (PCa). The effect of hypofractionation on treatment-related gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity remains uncertain, especially in older men and those with locally advanced PCa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A population-based study of all patients treated with radical conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (n = 9106) and hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 3027) in all radiotherapy centres in the English National Health Service between 2014 and 2016 was carried out. We identified severe gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity using a validated coding framework and compared conventionally fractionated and hypofractionated radiotherapy using a competing-risks proportional hazards regression analysis. RESULTS: The median age in our cohort was 72 years old and most patients had locally advanced disease (65%). There was no difference in gastrointestinal toxicity (conventionally fractionated radiotherapy: 5.0 events/100 person-years; hypofractionated radiotherapy: 5.2 events/100 person-years; adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio: 1.00, 95% confidence interval: 0.89-1.13; P = 0.95) or genitourinary toxicity (conventionally fractionated radiotherapy: 2.3 events/100 person-years; hypofractionated radiotherapy: 2.3 events/100 person-years; adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio: 0.92, 95% confidence interval: 0.77-1.10; P = 0.35) between patients who received conventionally fractionated radiotherapy and those who received hypofractionated radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: This national cohort study has shown that the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy in the radical treatment of PCa does not increase rates of severe gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity. Our findings also support the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy in older men and those with locally advanced PCa.

Addition of docetaxel to hormonal therapy in low- and high-burden metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer: long-term survival results from the STAMPEDE trial.

BACKGROUND: STAMPEDE has previously reported that the use of upfront docetaxel improved overall survival (OS) for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report on long-term outcomes stratified by metastatic burden for M1 patients. METHODS: We randomly allocated patients in 2 : 1 ratio to standard-of-care (SOC; control group) or SOC + docetaxel. Metastatic disease burden was categorised using retrospectively-collected baseline staging scans where available. Analysis used Cox regression models, adjusted for stratification factors, with emphasis on restricted mean survival time where hazards were non-proportional. RESULTS: Between 05 October 2005 and 31 March 2013, 1086 M1 patients were randomised to receive SOC (n = 724) or SOC + docetaxel (n = 362). Metastatic burden was assessable for 830/1086 (76%) patients; 362 (44%) had low and 468 (56%) high metastatic burden. Median follow-up was 78.2 months. There were 494 deaths on SOC (41% more than the previous report). There was good evidence of benefit of docetaxel over SOC on OS (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.95, P = 0.009) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P = 0.827). Analysis of other outcomes found evidence of benefit for docetaxel over SOC in failure-free survival (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.57-0.76, P < 0.001) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.59-0.81, P < 0.001) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P > 0.5 in each case). There was no evidence that docetaxel resulted in late toxicity compared with SOC: after 1 year, G3-5 toxicity was reported for 28% SOC and 27% docetaxel (in patients still on follow-up at 1 year without prior progression). CONCLUSIONS: The clinically significant benefit in survival for upfront docetaxel persists at longer follow-up, with no evidence that benefit differed by metastatic burden. We advocate that upfront docetaxel is considered for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients regardless of metastatic burden.

What is the incidence of late detection of developmental dysplasia of the hip in England?: a 26-year national study of children diagnosed after the age of one.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to establish the incidence of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) diagnosed after one-year of age in England, stratified by age, gender, year, and region of diagnosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A descriptive observational study was performed by linking primary and secondary care information from two independent national databases of routinely collected data: the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics. The study examined all children from 1 January 1990 to 1 January 2016 who had a new first diagnostic code for DDH aged between one and eight years old. RESULTS: The incidence of late-diagnosed DDH was 1.28 per 1000 live births. Within the study population, 754 children were identified with a diagnosis of DDH after one-year of age. Of all late diagnoses, 536 (71.1%) were detected between one to two years of age. There were 608 female patients (80.6%) and 146 male patients (19.4%), giving a female-to-male ratio of 4.2:1. Distribution was evenly spread throughout England. CONCLUSION: The incidence of late-diagnosed DDH has not been reduced from that reported 35 years ago, prior to the introduction of the national selective screening programme for DDH. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:281-287.

ESMO Consensus Conference on testicular germ cell cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) consensus conference on testicular cancer was held on 3-5 November 2016 in Paris, France. The conference included a multidisciplinary panel of 36 leading experts in the diagnosis and treatment of testicular cancer (34 panel members attended the conference; an additional two panel members [CB and K-PD] participated in all preparatory work and subsequent manuscript development). The aim of the conference was to develop detailed recommendations on topics relating to testicular cancer that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) and where the available level of evidence is insufficient. The main topics identified for discussion related to: (1) diagnostic work-up and patient assessment; (2) stage I disease; (3) stage II-III disease; (4) post-chemotherapy surgery, salvage chemotherapy, salvage and desperation surgery and special topics; and (5) survivorship and follow-up schemes. The experts addressed questions relating to one of the five topics within five working groups. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel. A consensus vote was obtained following whole-panel discussions, and the consensus recommendations were then further developed in post-meeting discussions in written form. This manuscript presents the results of the expert panel discussions, including the consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation. All participants approved the final manuscript.

What is the optimal systemic treatment of men with metastatic, hormone-naive prostate cancer? A STOPCAP systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: Our prior Systemic Treatment Options for Cancer of the Prostate systematic reviews showed improved survival for men with metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer when abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone/prednisone (AAP) or docetaxel (Doc), but not zoledronic acid (ZA), were added to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Trial evidence also suggests a benefit of combining celecoxib (Cel) with ZA and ADT. To establish the optimal treatments, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was carried out based on aggregate data (AD) from all available studies. Methods: Overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival data from completed Systemic Treatment Options for Cancer of the Prostate reviews of Doc, ZA and AAP and from recent trials of ZA and Cel contributed to this comprehensive AD-NMA. The primary outcome was OS. Correlations between treatment comparisons within one multi-arm, multi-stage trial were estimated from control-arm event counts. Network consistency and a common heterogeneity variance were assumed. Results: We identified 10 completed trials which had closed to recruitment, and one trial in which recruitment was ongoing, as eligible for inclusion. Results are based on six trials including 6204 men (97% of men randomised in all completed trials). Network estimates of effects on OS were consistent with reported comparisons with ADT alone for AAP [hazard ration (HR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.71], Doc (HR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.87), ZA + Cel (HR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.97), ZA + Doc (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94), Cel (HR = 0.94 95% CI 0.75-1.17) and ZA (HR = 0.90 95% CI 0.79-1.03). The effect of ZA + Cel is consistent with the additive effects of the individual treatments. Results suggest that AAP has the highest probability of being the most effective treatment both for OS (94% probability) and failure-free survival (100% probability). Doc was the second-best treatment of OS (35% probability). Conclusions: Uniquely, we have included all available results and appropriately accounted for inclusion of multi-arm, multi-stage trials in this AD-NMA. Our results support the use of AAP or Doc with ADT in men with metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer. AAP appears to be the most effective treatment, but it is not clear to what extent and whether this is due to a true increased benefit with AAP or the variable features of the individual trials. To fully account for patient variability across trials, changes in prognosis or treatment effects over time and the potential impact of treatment on progression, a network meta-analysis based on individual participant data is in development.

Adding abiraterone or docetaxel to long-term hormone therapy for prostate cancer: directly randomised data from the STAMPEDE multi-arm, multi-stage platform protocol.

Background: Adding abiraterone acetate with prednisolone (AAP) or docetaxel with prednisolone (DocP) to standard-of-care (SOC) each improved survival in systemic therapy for advanced or metastatic prostate cancer: evaluation of drug efficacy: a multi-arm multi-stage platform randomised controlled protocol recruiting patients with high-risk locally advanced or metastatic PCa starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The protocol provides the only direct, randomised comparative data of SOC + AAP versus SOC + DocP. Method: Recruitment to SOC + DocP and SOC + AAP overlapped November 2011 to March 2013. SOC was long-term ADT or, for most non-metastatic cases, ADT for ≥2 years and RT to the primary tumour. Stratified randomisation allocated pts 2 : 1 : 2 to SOC; SOC + docetaxel 75 mg/m2 3-weekly×6 + prednisolone 10 mg daily; or SOC + abiraterone acetate 1000 mg + prednisolone 5 mg daily. AAP duration depended on stage and intent to give radical RT. The primary outcome measure was death from any cause. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, adjusted for stratification factors. This was not a formally powered comparison. A hazard ratio (HR) <1 favours SOC + AAP, and HR > 1 favours SOC + DocP. Results: A total of 566 consenting patients were contemporaneously randomised: 189 SOC + DocP and 377 SOC + AAP. The patients, balanced by allocated treatment were: 342 (60%) M1; 429 (76%) Gleason 8-10; 449 (79%) WHO performance status 0; median age 66 years and median PSA 56 ng/ml. With median follow-up 4 years, 149 deaths were reported. For overall survival, HR = 1.16 (95% CI 0.82-1.65); failure-free survival HR = 0.51 (95% CI 0.39-0.67); progression-free survival HR = 0.65 (95% CI 0.48-0.88); metastasis-free survival HR = 0.77 (95% CI 0.57-1.03); prostate cancer-specific survival HR = 1.02 (0.70-1.49); and symptomatic skeletal events HR = 0.83 (95% CI 0.55-1.25). In the safety population, the proportion reporting ≥1 grade 3, 4 or 5 adverse events ever was 36%, 13% and 1% SOC + DocP, and 40%, 7% and 1% SOC + AAP; prevalence 11% at 1 and 2 years on both arms. Relapse treatment patterns varied by arm. Conclusions: This direct, randomised comparative analysis of two new treatment standards for hormone-naïve prostate cancer showed no evidence of a difference in overall or prostate cancer-specific survival, nor in other important outcomes such as symptomatic skeletal events. Worst toxicity grade over entire time on trial was similar but comprised different toxicities in line with the known properties of the drugs. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00268476.

Osteonecrosis following treatment for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: The Southampton Children's Hospital experience.

Purpose: To determine the prevalence of osteonecrosis (ON) in children following treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL), characterise these cases and review treatment methods. Methods: All children diagnosed and treated for ALL between 01 January 2003 and 31 December 2013 at our centre were retrospectively reviewed. Logistic regression was used to investigate risk factors for ON occurrence. Results: Of 235 children treated for ALL, 48/235 (20.4%) children suffered musculoskeletal symptoms necessitating radiological investigation. A total of 13 (5.5%) had MRI-diagnosed ON, with a median diagnosis time of 12 months (interquartile range 10 to 14) following initiation of chemotherapy.ON affected 40 joints in 13 children. The most commonly involved joints were hips (14 joints in eight patients) and knees (12 joints in seven patients).Older age at ALL diagnosis was associated with significantly increased risk of development of ON per year (odds ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.57, p < 0.001).Eight children underwent at least one surgical intervention. Joint arthroplasty was undertaken in nine joints of four children at a mean age of 18.3 years. All patients who underwent hip arthroplasty had previously received core decompression, with a mean time of 27.8 months (18 to 33) between treatments. Conclusions: ON is a significant complication of ALL treatment. Our results suggest risk stratification for development of ON by age, and targeted monitoring of high-risk joints is possible. ON treatment is varied with little evidence base.