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.

A phase II study of retifanlimab (INCMGA00012) in patients with squamous carcinoma of the anal canal who have progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy (POD1UM-202).

BACKGROUND: Locally advanced or metastatic squamous carcinoma of the anal canal (SCAC) has poor prognosis following platinum-based chemotherapy. Retifanlimab (INCMGA00012), a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting programmed death protein-1 (PD-1), demonstrated clinical activity across a range of solid tumors in clinical trials. We present results from POD1UM-202 (NCT03597295), an open-label, single-arm, multicenter, phase II study evaluating retifanlimab in patients with previously treated advanced or metastatic SCAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients ≥18 years of age had measurable disease and had progressed following, or were ineligible for, platinum-based therapy. Retifanlimab 500 mg was administered intravenously every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) by independent central review. Secondary endpoints were duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 94 patients were enrolled. At a median follow-up of 7.1 months (range, 0.9-19.4 months), ORR was 13.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.6% to 22.5%], with one complete response (1.1%) and 12 partial responses (12.8%). Responses were observed regardless of human immunodeficiency virus or human papillomavirus status, programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, or liver metastases. Stable disease was observed in 33 patients (35.1%) for a DCR of 48.9% (95% CI 38.5% to 59.5%). Median DOR was 9.5 months (range, 5.6 months-not estimable). Median (95% CI) PFS and OS were 2.3 (1.9-3.6) and 10.1 (7.9-not estimable) months, respectively. Retifanlimab safety in this population was consistent with previous experience for the PD-(L)1 inhibitor class. CONCLUSIONS: Retifanlimab demonstrated clinically meaningful and durable antitumor activity, and an acceptable safety profile in patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic SCAC who have progressed on or are intolerant to platinum-based chemotherapy.

Multicentre Investigation of Prognostic Factors Incorporating p16 and Tumour Infiltrating Lymphocytes for Anal Cancer After Chemoradiotherapy.

AIMS: Anal squamous cell carcinomas (ASCC) are strongly associated with human papillomaviruses. Standard of care is chemoradiotherapy at uniform doses with no treatment stratification. Immunohistochemical staining for p16INK4A (p16), a surrogate for human papillomaviruses, is prognostic for outcomes. We investigated this alongside clinical-pathological factors, including tumour infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using an independent, multicentre cohort of 257 ASCC treated with chemoradiotherapy, pretreatment biopsies were stained and scored for p16 and TIL. Kaplan-Meier curves were derived for outcomes (disease-free survival [DFS], overall survival and cancer-specific survival), by stage, p16 and TIL scores and Log-rank tests were carried out to investigate prognostic effect. A multivariate analysis was carried out using Cox regression. RESULTS: Stage, sex, p16 and TILs were independently prognostic. Hazard ratios for death (overall survival) were 2.51 (95% confidence interval 1.36-4.63) for p16 negative versus p16 positive, 2.17 (1.34-3.5) for T3/4 versus T1/2, 2.42 (1.52-3.8) for males versus females and 3.30 (1.52-7.14) for TIL1 versus TIL3 (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We have refined prognostic factors in ASCC. p16 adds to stratification by stage with respect to DFS in early disease and overall survival/DFS in locally advanced cancers. Our data support the role of the host immune response in mediating outcomes. These factors will be prospectively evaluated in PLATO (ISRCTN88455282).

Digital Medicine in Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer - A Feasibility Study of Electronic Patient-reported Outcomes in Patients on Systemic Treatment.

AIMS: Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) measures have the potential to improve patient care, both at an individual level by detecting symptoms and at an organisational level to rationalise follow-up. The introduction of ePROs has many challenges, including funding, institutional rigidity and acceptability for both patients and clinicians. There are multiple examples of successful ePRO programmes but no specific feasibility studies in those who are less digitally engaged. Prostate cancer is predominantly a disease of older men and digital exclusion is associated with increased age. We assessed the feasibility of ePRO completion in older men receiving treatment for advanced prostate cancer both within the clinic and from home. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men receiving palliative systemic treatment were asked to complete ePROs on a tablet computer in the outpatient department at 0 and 3 months. Participants were also offered optional completion from home. Feasibility was assessed via a mixed methods approach. RESULTS: On-site ePRO completion was acceptable to most patients, with 90% finding it easy or straightforward and 80% preferring electronic over paper. Remote completion was more challenging, even for those who accessed e-mail daily and owned a tablet, with only 20% of participants successfully completing ePROs. Barriers to electronic completion can be categorised as technical, attitudinal and medical. Quality of life and symptom ePRO results were comparable with published data. CONCLUSIONS: On-site completion is achievable in this population with limited staff support. However, remote completion requires further work to improve systems and acceptability for patients. Remote completion is critical to add significantly to current clinical care by detecting symptoms or stratifying follow-up.

UK national cohort of anal cancer treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy: One-year oncological and patient-reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard treatment for anal cancer. Following national UK implementation of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), this prospective, national cohort evaluates the one-year oncological outcomes and patient-reported toxicity outcomes (PRO) after treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A national cohort of UK cancer centers implementing IMRT was carried out between February to July 2015. Cancer centers provided data on oncological outcomes, including survival, and disease and colostomy status at one-year. EORTC-QLQ core (C30) and colorectal (CR29) questionnaires were completed at baseline and one-year followup. The PRO scores at baseline and one year were compared. RESULTS: 40 UK Cancer Centers returned data with a total of 187 patients included in the analysis. 92% received mitomycin with 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine. One-year overall survival was 94%; 84% were disease-free and 86% colostomy-free at one-year followup. At one year, PRO results found significant improvements in buttock pain, blood and mucus in stools, pain, constipation, appetite loss, and health anxiety compared to baseline. No significant deteriorations were reported in diarrhea, bowel frequency, and flatulence. Urinary symptom scores were low at one year. Moderate impotence symptoms at baseline remained at one year, and a moderate deterioration in dyspareunia reported. CONCLUSIONS: With national anal cancer IMRT implementation, at this early pre-defined time point, one-year oncological outcomes were reassuring and resulted in good disease-related symptom control. one-year symptomatic complications following CRT for anal cancer using IMRT techniques appear to be relatively mild. These PRO results provide a basis to benchmark future studies.

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.

Innovative Solutions for Clinical Trial Follow-up: Adding Value from Nationally Held UK Data.

Clinical trials provide the data that underpin evidence-based oncological practice. Over and above their primary outcome measures, collected and analysed by the clinical trials unit, trials provide an opportunity to generate a wide range of additional information over a prolonged period of time. Nationally held data have potential to facilitate longer term follow-up and explore associated toxicities and downstream consequences and in the UK include data from secondary care, including hospital episode statistics, national chemotherapy and radiotherapy datasets and primary care records. Specific to use in oncological practice, the National Cancer Data Repository contains linked data from a variety of sources for patients with a diagnosis of cancer, both cancer and non-cancer related. The challenge of using these data in clinical trials relates to the need to extract identifiable patient data, with the associated ethical and legal issues. The data access processes are time consuming and require evidence of information governance compliance. This overview article reviews the current data available, the current and potential uses both within and outside clinical trials and the challenges encountered in the process of acquiring data. We focus specifically on the use of nationally held data for non-cancer outcomes, including toxicity and associated conditions.

Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Men Aged 70 Years or Older with Localised Prostate Cancer Undergoing Radical Radiotherapy.

AIMS: Treatment decisions for men aged 70 years or over with localised prostate cancer need to take into account the risk of death from competing causes and fitness for the proposed treatment. Objective assessments such as those included in a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) might help to inform the decision-making process. The aim of this study was to describe the CGA scores of a cohort of older men with prostate cancer, evaluate potential screening tools in this population and assess whether any CGA component predicts significant acute radiotherapy toxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study undertaking pretreatment CGA, Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13) and G8 assessment in patients aged 70 years and over with localised prostate cancer planned to undergo radical external beam radiotherapy. RESULTS: In total, 178 participants were recruited over a 3 year period and underwent a CGA. Fifty-five (30.1%) participants were defined as having health needs identified by their CGA. Both VES-13 and G8 screening tools showed a statistically significant association with CGA needs (P < 0.001 and X2 = 15.02, P < 0.001, respectively), but their sensitivity was disappointing. There was no association between a CGA (or its components) and significant acute radiotherapy toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Many older men with localised prostate cancer are vulnerable according to a CGA. The screening tools evaluated were not sufficiently sensitive to identify this group. CGA outcome does not predict for significant acute radiotherapy toxicity.

Initial Results from the Royal College of Radiologists' UK National Audit of Anal Cancer Radiotherapy 2015.

AIMS: UK guidance was recently developed for the treatment of anal cancer using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). We audited the current use of radiotherapy in UK cancer centres for the treatment of anal cancer against such guidance. We describe the acute toxicity of IMRT in comparison with patient population in the audit treated with two-phase conformal radiotherapy and the previous published data from two-phase conformal radiotherapy, in the UK ACT2 trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Royal College of Radiologists' prospective national audit of patients treated with radiotherapy in UK cancer centres was carried out over a 6 month period between February and July 2015. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-two cases were received from 40/56 cancer centres (71%). In total, 231 (95%) underwent full dose radiotherapy with prophylactic nodal irradiation. Of these, 180 (78%) received IMRT or equivalent, 52 (22%) two-phase conformal (ACT2) technique. The number of interruptions in radiotherapy treatment in the ACT2 trial was 15%. Interruptions were noted in 7% (95% confidence interval 0-14%) of courses receiving two-phase conformal and 4% (95% confidence interval 1-7%) of those receiving IMRT. The percentage of patients completing the planned radiotherapy dose, irrelevant of gaps, was 90% (95% confidence interval 82-98%) and 96% (95% confidence interval 93-99%), in two-phase conformal and IMRT respectively. The toxicity reported in the ACT2 trial, in patients receiving two-phase conformal in the audit and in patients receiving IMRT in the audit was: any toxic effect 71%, 54%, 48%, non-haematological 62%, 49%, 40% and haematological 26%, 13%, 18%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: IMRT implementation for anal cancer is well underway in the UK with most patients receiving IMRT delivery, although its usage is not yet universal. This audit confirms that IMRT results in reduced acute toxicity and minimised treatment interruptions in comparison with previous two-phase conformal techniques.