Dose-Dense Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Cisplatin With or Without Panitumumab in Patients With Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: Multicenter, Randomized, French Unicancer GETUG/AFU 19 Study.

This study looked at whether epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition by the monoclonal antibody panitumumab could increase the efficacy of standard chemotherapy in advanced urothelial cancer. Results were disappointing, with higher toxicity and no improvement in efficacy in the combination arm. BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) overexpression is frequent and associated with poor outcome in urothelial carcinoma. EGFR inhibition could improve the antitumor activity of chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced, treatment-naïve, histologically confirmed advanced urothelial carcinoma and no HRAS or KRAS mutation in the primary tumor received dose-dense methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (dd-MVAC) without or with the anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody panitumumab (Pmab). A randomized (1:2) phase II design was used with progression-free survival (PFS) as the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Ninety-seven eligible patients were randomized; 96 patients were evaluable for toxicity and 87 for efficacy. The median PFS were 6.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.3-9.2) for dd-MVAC and 5.7 months (95% CI, 4.6-6.4 months) for dd-MVAC+Pmab. For both immunohistochemical and molecular definition of basal/squamous-like (BASQ) tumors, no difference was observed in objective response rates or PFS between the two arms in BASQ and non-BASQ tumors. CONCLUSION: dd-MVAC+Pmab was associated with more serious adverse events and no improvement in efficacy outcomes.

Impact of Patient- and Clinician-Reported Cumulative Toxicity on Quality of Life in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Naïve Prostate Cancer.

Background: Current toxicity evaluation is primarily focused on high-grade adverse events (AEs) reported by clinicians. However, the cumulative effect of multiple lower-grade AEs may also impact patients' quality of life (QoL). Further, patient-reported toxicity may be more representative of patients' treatment experiences. This study aimed to determine whether cumulative toxicity comprising all-grade AEs is more associated with QoL than cumulative toxicity comprising high-grade AEs only, and whether patient-reported cumulative toxicity is more associated with QoL than clinician-reported cumulative toxicity. Methods: Patients with metastatic castration-naïve prostate cancer participating in the phase III GETUG-AFU 15 trial completed questionnaires on AEs (at 3 and 6 months) and QoL (at baseline and 3 and 6 months). Clinicians reported AEs during clinical visits. Cumulative toxicity scores were calculated for clinicians and patients in 3 ways: total number of high-grade AEs, total number of all-grade AEs, and total number of all AEs multiplied by their grade (severity score). Relationships between cumulative toxicity scores and QoL were studied using longitudinal regression analyses; unstandardized (B) and standardized regression coefficients (ß) are reported. Results: Of 385 patients, 184 with complete QoL and toxicity data were included. Clinician-reported all-grade AEs (B, -2.2; 95% CI, -3.3 to -1.1; P<.01) and severity score (B, -1.4; 95% CI, -2.2 to -0.7; P<.01) were associated with deteriorated physical QoL, whereas the total number of high-grade AEs was not. All patient-reported scores were significantly (P<.01 for all) associated with deteriorated physical and global QoL. Standardized regression coefficients indicated that patient-reported toxicity scores were more associated with QoL outcomes than clinician-reported scores, with the strongest association found for the all-grade AEs and severity cumulative toxicity scores. Conclusions: Patient- and clinician-based cumulative toxicity scores comprising all-grade AEs better reflect impact on patient QoL than toxicity scores comprising high-grade AEs only. To assess the effect of toxicity on QoL, patient-reported cumulative toxicity scores are preferred.

Burden of Metastatic Castrate Naive Prostate Cancer Patients, to Identify Men More Likely to Benefit from Early Docetaxel: Further Analyses of CHAARTED and GETUG-AFU15 Studies.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel (D) at the time of starting androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for metastatic castrate naive prostate cancer shows a clear survival benefit for patients with high-volume (HV) disease. It is unclear whether patients with low-volume (LV) disease benefit from early D. OBJECTIVE: To define the overall survival (OS) of aggregate data of patient subgroups from the CHAARTED and GETUG-AFU15 studies, defined by metastatic burden (HV and LV) and time of metastasis occurrence (at diagnosis or after prior local treatment [PRLT]). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were accessed from two independent phase III trials of ADT alone or ADT+D-GETUG-AFU15 (N=385) and CHAARTED (N=790), with median follow-ups for survivors of 83.2 and 48.2 mo, respectively. The definition of HV and LV disease was harmonized. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary end point was OS. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Meta-analysis results of the aggregate data showed significant heterogeneity in ADT+D versus ADT effect sizes between HV and LV subgroups (p=0.017), and failed to detect heterogeneity in ADT+D versus ADT effect sizes between upfront and PRLT subgroups (p=0.4). Adding D in patients with HV disease has a consistent effect in improving median OS (HV-ADT: 34.4 and 35.1 mo, HV-ADT+D: 51.2 and 39.8 mo in CHAARTED and GETUG-AFU15, respectively; pooled average hazard ratio or HR (95% confidence interval [CI]) 0.68 ([95% CI 0.56; 0.82], p<0.001). Patients with LV disease showed much longer OS, without evidence that D improved OS (LV-ADT: not reached [NR] and 83.4; LV-ADT+D: 63.5 and NR in CHAARTED and GETUG-AFU15, respectively; pooled HR (95% CI) 1.03 (95% CI 0.77; 1.38). Aggregate data showed no evidence of heterogeneity of early D in LV and HV subgroups irrespective of whether patients had PRLT or not. Post hoc subgroup analysis was based on aggregated data from two independent phase III randomized trials. CONCLUSIONS: There was no apparent survival benefit in the CHAARTED and GETUG-AFU15 studies with D for LV. Across both studies, early D showed consistent effect and improved OS in HV patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with a higher burden of metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) have a poorer prognosis and are more likely to benefit from early docetaxel. Low-volume patients have longer overall survival with ADT alone, and the toxicity of docetaxel may outweigh its benefits.

Anticancer Activity and Tolerance of Treatments Received Beyond Progression in Men Treated Upfront with Androgen Deprivation Therapy With or Without Docetaxel for Metastatic Castration-naïve Prostate Cancer in the GETUG-AFU 15 Phase 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plus docetaxel is the standard of care in fit men with metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer (mCNPC) following results from GETUG-AFU 15, CHAARTED, and STAMPEDE. No data are available on the efficacy of treatments used for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in men treated upfront with ADT plus docetaxel for mCNPC. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and tolerance of subsequent treatments in patients treated upfront with chemo-hormonal therapy for mCNPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective data from the GETUG-AFU 15 phase 3 trial were collected for treatments received for mCRPC. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: For the first three lines of salvage treatment for mCRPC we investigated the biochemical progression-free survival, maximum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline, overall survival, and tolerance. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 245 patients received at least one treatment for mCRPC. For docetaxel used in first-line, a PSA decline ≥50% was observed in 25/66 (38%) and in 4/20 patients (20%) who had received upfront ADT alone and ADT plus docetaxel (p=0.14). The median biochemical progression-free survival was 6.0 mo (95% confidence interval: 3.6-7.7) and 4.1 mo (95% confidence interval: 1.3-4.9), respectively. For docetaxel used in first- or second-line, a PSA decline ≥50% was observed in 36/80 (45%) and in 4/29 patients (14%) who had received upfront ADT alone and ADT plus docetaxel (p=0.07). PSA declines ≥50% were observed with bicalutamide in 12/28 (43%) and 4/23 patients (17%) who had received upfront ADT alone and ADT plus docetaxel. Among men treated upfront with ADT plus docetaxel who received abiraterone or enzalutamide for mCRPC, 10/19 patients (53%) achieved a PSA decline ≥50%. Few grade 3-4 events occurred. Study limitations include the observational design and retrospective characteristics of this analysis, without standardized therapeutic salvage protocols, and the limited number of patients in some of the treatment subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Docetaxel rechallenge following progression to mCRPC after upfront ADT plus docetaxel for mCNPC was active only in a limited number of patients. Available data on abiraterone and enzalutamide support maintained efficacy in this setting. The lack of standardized therapeutic protocols for men developing mCRPC limits the comparability between patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: Rechallenging docetaxel at castration-resistance was active only in a limited number of patients treated upfront with chemo-hormonal therapy for metastatic castration-naive prostate cancer. Anticancer activity was suggested with abiraterone or enzalutamide in this setting.

Salvage radiotherapy with or without short-term hormone therapy for rising prostate-specific antigen concentration after radical prostatectomy (GETUG-AFU 16): a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: How best to treat rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration after radical prostatectomy is an urgent clinical question. Salvage radiotherapy delays the need for more aggressive treatment such as long-term androgen suppression, but fewer than half of patients benefit from it. We aimed to establish the effect of adding short-term androgen suppression at the time of salvage radiotherapy on biochemical outcome and overall survival in men with rising PSA following radical prostatectomy. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, phase 3, randomised controlled trial, was done in 43 French study centres. We enrolled men (aged ≥18 years) who had received previous treatment for a histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate (but no previous androgen deprivation therapy or pelvic radiotherapy), and who had stage pT2, pT3, or pT4a (bladder neck involvement only) in patients who had rising PSA of 0·2 to less than 2·0 µg/L following radical prostatectomy, without evidence of clinical disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally via an interactive web response system to standard salvage radiotherapy (three-dimensional [3D] conformal radiotherapy or intensity modulated radiotherapy, of 66 Gy in 33 fractions 5 days a week for 7 weeks) or radiotherapy plus short-term androgen suppression using 10·8 mg goserelin by subcutaneous injection on the first day of irradiation and 3 months later. Randomisation was stratified using a permuted block method according to investigational site, radiotherapy modality, and prognosis. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00423475. FINDINGS: Between Oct 19, 2006, and March 30, 2010, 743 patients were randomly assigned, 374 to radiotherapy alone and 369 to radiotherapy plus goserelin. Patients assigned to radiotherapy plus goserelin were significantly more likely than patients in the radiotherapy alone group to be free of biochemical progression or clinical progression at 5 years (80% [95% CI 75-84] vs 62% [57-67]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·50, 95% CI 0·38-0·66; p<0·0001). No additional late adverse events occurred in patients receiving short-term androgen suppression compared with those who received radiotherapy alone. The most frequently occuring acute adverse events related to goserelin were hot flushes, sweating, or both (30 [8%] of 366 patients had a grade 2 or worse event; 30 patients [8%] had hot flushes and five patients [1%] had sweating in the radiotherapy plus goserelin group vs none of 372 patients in the radiotherapy alone group). Three (8%) of 366 patients had grade 3 or worse hot flushes and one patient had grade 3 or worse sweating in the radiotherapy plus goserelin group versus none of 372 patients in the radiotherapy alone group. The most common late adverse events of grade 3 or worse were genitourinary events (29 [8%] in the radiotherapy alone group vs 26 [7%] in the radiotherapy plus goserelin group) and sexual disorders (20 [5%] vs 30 [8%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Adding short-term androgen suppression to salvage radiotherapy benefits men who have had radical prostatectomy and whose PSA rises after a postsurgical period when it is undetectable. Radiotherapy combined with short-term androgen suppression could be considered as a reasonable option in this population. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health, AstraZeneca, and La Ligue Contre le Cancer.

Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) Plus Docetaxel Versus ADT Alone in Metastatic Non castrate Prostate Cancer: Impact of Metastatic Burden and Long-term Survival Analysis of the Randomized Phase 3 GETUG-AFU15 Trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of chemotherapy in metastatic non castrate prostate cancer (mNCPC) is debated. Survival benefits of docetaxel (D) added to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) were shown in the CHAARTED trial in patients with metastatic high-volume disease (HVD). OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of metastatic burden and to update overall survival (OS) data of the GETUG-AFU15 study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized phase 3 trial of ADT plus D versus ADT alone in 385 mNCPC patients; median follow-up of 7 yr. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary end point was OS. Secondary end points were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). Retrospective analysis was by tumor volume. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After a median follow-up of 83.9 mo, median OS in the overall population was 62.1 mo (95% confidence interval [CI], 49.5-73.7) and 48.6 mo (95% CI, 40.9-60.6) for ADT plus D and ADT arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.88 [95% CI, 0.68-1.14]; p=0.3). Median OS in ADT plus D and ADT arms, respectively, was for HVD patients: 39.8 mo (95% CI, 28.0-53.4) versus 35.1 mo (95% CI, 29.9-43.6) (HR: 0.78 [95% CI, 0.56-1.09]; p=0.14), for low-volume disease (LVD) patients; median was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 69.5-NR) and 83.4 mo (95% CI, 61.8-NR) (HR: 1.02 [95% CI, 0.67-1.55]; p=0.9). For upfront metastatic patients, OS was 52.6 mo (95% CI, 43.3-66.8) and 41.5 mo (95% CI, 36.3-54.5), respectively (HR: 0.93 [95% CI, 0.69-1.25]; p=0.6). The bPFS (HR: 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.94]; p=0.014) and rPFS (HR: 0.75 [95% CI, 0.58-0.97]; p=0.030) were significantly longer in the ADT plus D arm. Limitations included the retrospective analysis of metastatic extent and the lack of statistical power to detect a significant difference in subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The post hoc analyses of the GETUG-AFU15 study demonstrated a nonsignificant 20% reduction in the risk of death in the HVD subgroup. Patients with LVD had no survival improvement with early D. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, docetaxel added to castration did not improve survival in patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, partly due to methodological issues. However, early chemotherapy should be discussed with all patients, given the data of three randomized trials including GETUG-AFU15.

Outcome According to Elective Pelvic Radiation Therapy in Patients With High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the GETUG 12 Phase 3 Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: The role of pelvic elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in the management of prostate cancer is controversial. This study analyzed the role of pelvic radiation therapy (RT) on the outcome in high-risk localized prostate cancer patients included in the Groupe d'Etude des Tumeurs Uro-Genitales (GETUG) 12 trial. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with a nonpretreated high-risk localized prostate cancer and a staging lymphadenectomy were randomly assigned to receive either goserelin every 3 months for 3 years and 4 cycles of docetaxel plus estramustine or goserelin alone. Local therapy was administered 3 months after the start of systemic treatment. Performance of pelvic ENI was left to the treating physician. Only patients treated with primary RT were included in this analysis. The primary endpoint was biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS). RESULTS: A total of 413 patients treated from 2002 to 2006 were included, of whom 358 were treated using primary RT. A total of 208 patients received pelvic RT and 150 prostate-only RT. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration, Gleason score, or T stage did not differ according to performance of pelvic RT; pN+ patients more frequently received pelvic RT than pN0 patients (P<.0001). Median follow-up was 8.8 years. In multivariate analysis, bPFS was negatively impacted by pN stage (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.52 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.78-3.54], P<.0001), Gleason score 8 or higher (HR: 1.41 [95% CI: 1.03-1.93], P=.033) and PSA higher than 20 ng/mL (HR: 1.41 [95% CI: 1.02-1.96], P=.038), and positively impacted by the use of chemotherapy (HR: 0.66 [95% CI: 0.48-0.9], P=.009). There was no association between bPFS and use of pelvic ENI in multivariate analysis (HR: 1.10 [95% CI: 0.78-1.55], P=.60), even when analysis was restricted to pN0 patients (HR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.59-1.31], P=.53). Pelvic ENI was not associated with increased acute or late patient reported toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: This unplanned analysis of a randomized trial failed to demonstrate a benefit of pelvic ENI on bPFS in high-risk localized prostate cancer patients.

Definition of lymph node areas for radiotherapy of prostate cancer: A critical literature review by the French Genito-Urinary Group and the French Association of Urology (GETUG-AFU).

PURPOSE: Recommendations for pelvic lymph node (LN) contouring rely on relatively dated studies that defined the Clinical Target Volume (CTV) of interest proposed for radiotherapy. The aim of this article was to review these recommendations with a critical analysis of published data on prostate cancer drainage. METHODS: We performed a review of data on LN drainage in prostate cancer, based on anatomy texts and studies on lymphography, pelvic LN dissections, sentinel LN techniques, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography and functional imaging. We also present the GETUG experts' opinion, based on a survey on nodal CTV definition. RESULTS: For lymphatic drainage of prostate cancers, pelvic LN areas classically considered are: distal common iliac, external iliac, internal iliac and obturator regions. Recently published data allow a mapping of sites at risk of pathological LN invasion. In 10-70% of cases, these sites are not included in the pelvic LN CTVs defined in consensuses. In accordance with other cooperative groups, the GETUG experts' survey showed that proximal common iliac, para-aortic, para-rectal and pre-sacral regions could include sites at risk of invasion in extended LN CTV, but were not considered in CTV contouring common practice. New recommendations are needed for nodal CTV in radiotherapy of prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment of the efficacy and safety of LN radiotherapy is still the subject of several randomised studies. Whether or not meaningful results are obtained depends directly on the quality and homogeneity of the data analysed. A new consensus for delineation of LN regions appears necessary.

Androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel and estramustine versus androgen deprivation therapy alone for high-risk localised prostate cancer (GETUG 12): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Early risk-stratified chemotherapy is a standard treatment for breast, colorectal, and lung cancers, but not for high-risk localised prostate cancer. Combined docetaxel and estramustine improves survival in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. We assessed the effects of combined docetaxel and estramustine on relapse in patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer. METHODS: We did this randomised phase 3 trial at 26 hospitals in France. We enrolled patients with treatment-naive prostate cancer and at least one risk factor (ie, stage T3-T4 disease, Gleason score of ≥8, prostate-specific antigen concentration >20 ng/mL, or pathological node-positive). All patients underwent a staging pelvic lymph node dissection. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either androgen deprivation therapy (ADT; goserelin 10·8 mg every 3 months for 3 years) plus four cycles of docetaxel on day 2 at a dose of 70 mg/m(2) and estramustine 10 mg/kg per day on days 1-5, every 3 weeks, or ADT only. The randomisation was done centrally by computer, stratified by risk factor. Local treatment was administered at 3 months. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Follow-up for other endpoints is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00055731. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 207 patients to the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group and 206 to the ADT only group. Median follow-up was 8·8 years (IQR 8·1-9·7). 88 (43%) of 207 patients in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group had an event (relapse or death) versus 111 (54%) of 206 in the ADT only group. 8-year relapse-free survival was 62% (95% CI 55-69) in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group versus 50% (44-57) in the ADT only group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·54-0·94, p=0·017). Of patients who were treated with radiotherapy and had data available, 31 (21%) of 151 in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group versus 26 (18%) of 143 in the ADT only group reported a grade 2 or higher long-term side-effect (p=0·61). We recorded no excess second cancers (26 [13%] of 207 vs 22 [11%] of 206; p=0·57), and there were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Docetaxel-based chemotherapy improves relapse-free survival in patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to assess whether this benefit translates into improved metastasis-free survival and overall survival. FUNDING: Ligue Contre le Cancer, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Institut National du Cancer.

Prognostic Factors for Survival in Noncastrate Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Validation of the Glass Model and Development of a Novel Simplified Prognostic Model.

BACKGROUND: The Glass model developed in 2003 uses prognostic factors for noncastrate metastatic prostate cancer (NCMPC) to define subgroups with good, intermediate, and poor prognosis. OBJECTIVE: To validate NCMPC risk groups in a more recently diagnosed population and to develop a more sensitive prognostic model. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: NCMPC patients were randomized to receive continuous androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without docetaxel in the GETUG-15 phase 3 trial. Potential prognostic factors were recorded: age, performance status, Gleason score, hemoglobin (Hb), prostate-specific antigen, alkaline phosphatase (ALP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), metastatic localization, body mass index, and pain. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: These factors were used to develop a new prognostic model using a recursive partitioning method. Before analysis, the data were split into learning and validation sets. The outcome was overall survival (OS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: For the 385 patients included, those with good (49%), intermediate (29%), and poor (22%) prognosis had median OS of 69.0, 46.5 and 36.6 mo (p=0.001), and 5-yr survival estimates of 60.7%, 39.4%, and 32.1%, respectively (p=0.001). The most discriminatory variables in univariate analysis were ALP, pain intensity, Hb, LDH, and bone metastases. ALP was the strongest prognostic factor in discriminating patients with good or poor prognosis. In the learning set, median OS in patients with normal and abnormal ALP was 69.1 and 33.6 mo, and 5-yr survival estimates were 62.1% and 23.2%, respectively. The hazard ratio for ALP was 3.11 and 3.13 in the learning and validation sets, respectively. The discriminatory ability of ALP (concordance [C] index 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.71) was superior to that of the Glass risk model (C-index 0.59, 95% CI 0.52-0.66). The study limitations include the limited number of patients and low values for the C-index. CONCLUSION: A new and simple prognostic model was developed for patients with NCMPC, underlying the role of normal or abnormal ALP. PATIENT SUMMARY: We analyzed clinical and biological factors that could affect overall survival in noncastrate metastatic prostate cancer. We showed that normal or abnormal alkaline phosphatase at baseline might be useful in predicting survival.

Personalised chemotherapy based on tumour marker decline in poor prognosis germ-cell tumours (GETUG 13): a phase 3, multicentre, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Poor prognosis germ-cell tumours are only cured in about half of patients. We aimed to assess whether treatment intensification based on an early tumour marker decline will improve progression-free survival for patients with germ-cell tumours. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicentre, randomised trial, patients were enrolled from France (20 centres), USA (one centre), and Slovakia (one centre). Patients were eligible if they were older than 16 years, had evidence of testicular, retroperitoneal, or mediastinal non-seminomatous germ cell tumours based on histological findings or clinical evidence and highly elevated serum human chorionic gonadotropin or alfa-fetoprotein concentrations that matched International Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group poor prognosis criteria. After one cycle of BEP (intravenous cisplatin [20 mg/m(2) per day for 5 days], etoposide [100 mg/m(2) per day for 5 days], and intramuscular or intravenous bleomycin [30 mg per day on days 1, 8, and 15]), patients' human chorionic gonadotropin and alfa-fetoprotein concentrations were measured at day 18-21. Patients with a favourable decline in human chorionic gonadotropin and alfa-fetoprotein continued BEP (Fav-BEP group) for 3 additonal cycles, whereas patients with an unfavourable decline were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either BEP (Unfav-BEP group) or a dose-dense regimen (Unfav-dose-dense group), consisting of intravenous paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) over 3 h on day 1) before BEP plus intravenous oxaliplatin (130 mg/m(2) over 3 h on day 10; two cycles), followed by intravenous cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) over 2 h on day 1), intravenous ifosfamide (2 g/m(2) over 3 h on days 10, 12, and 14), plus mesna (500 mg/m(2) at 0, 3, 7 and 11 h), and bleomycin (25 units per day, by continuous infusion for 5 days on days 10-14; two cycles), with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (lenograstim) support. Centrally blocked computer-generated randomisation stratified by centre was used. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival and the efficacy analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. The planned trial accrual was completed in May, 2012, and follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00104676. FINDINGS: Between Nov 28, 2003, and May 16, 2012, 263 patients were enrolled and 254 were available for tumour marker assessment. Of these 51 (20%) had a favourable marker assessment, and 203 (80%) had an unfavourable tumour marker decline; 105 were randomly assigned to the Unfav-dose-dense group and 98 to the Unfav-BEP group. 3-year progression-free survival was 59% (95% CI 49-68) in the Unfav-dose-dense group versus 48% (38-59) in the Unfav-BEP group (HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·44-1·00, p=0·05). 3-year progression-free survival was 70% (95% CI 57-81) in the Fav-BEP group (HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·49-0·88, p=0·01 for progression-free survival compared with the Unfav-BEP group). More grade 3-4 neurotoxic events (seven [7%] vs one [1%]) and haematotoxic events occurred in the Unfav-dose-dense group compared with in the Unfav-BEP group; there was no difference in grade 1-2 febrile neutropenia (18 [17%] vs 18 [18%]) or toxic deaths (one [1%] in both groups). Salvage high-dose chemotherapy plus a stem-cell transplant was required in six (6%) patients in the Unfav-dose-dense group and 16 (16%) in the Unfav-BEP group. INTERPRETATION: Personalised treatment with chemotherapy intensification reduces the risk of progression or death in patients with poor prognosis germ-cell tumours and an unfavourable tumour marker decline. FUNDING: Institut National du Cancer (Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique).

Patients' self-assessment versus investigators' evaluation in a phase III trial in non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer (GETUG-AFU 15).

BACKGROUND: Toxicity, which is a key parameter in the evaluation of cancer treatments, can be underestimated by clinicians. We investigated differences between patients and physicians in reporting adverse events of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with or without docetaxel in a multicentre phase III trial in non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer. METHODS: The 385 patients included were invited to complete a 26-symptom questionnaire 3 and 6 months after the start of treatment, among which eighteen symptoms were also assessed by physicians, reported in medical records and graded using the Common Toxicity Criteria of the National Cancer Institute. Positive and negative agreements as well as Kappa concordance coefficients were computed. FINDINGS: Data were available for 220 and 165 patients at 3 and 6 months respectively. Physicians systematically under-reported patients' symptoms. Positive agreement rates (at respectively 3 and 6 months) for the five most commonly reported symptoms were: 61.0% and 64.3% hot flushes, 50.0% and 43.6% fatigue, 29.4% and 31.1% sexual dysfunction, 24.4% and 14.4% weigh gain/loss, 16.7% and 19.3% for joint/muscle pain. For symptoms most frequently reported as disturbing or very disturbing by patients, the clinicians' failure to report them ranged from 50.8% (hot flushes) to 89.5% (joint/muscle pain) at 3 months, and from 48.2% (hot flushes) to 88.4% (joint/muscle pain) at 6 months. INTERPRETATION: Physicians often failed to report treatment-related symptoms, even the most common and disturbing ones. Patients' self-evaluation of toxicity should be used in clinical trials to improve the process of drug assessment in oncology. FUNDING: French Health Ministry and Institut National du Cancer (PHRC), Sanofi-Aventis, Astra-Zeneca, and Amgen.

Androgen-deprivation therapy alone or with docetaxel in non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer (GETUG-AFU 15): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Early chemotherapy might improve the overall outcomes of patients with metastatic non-castrate (ie, hormone-sensitive) prostate cancer. We investigated the effects of the addition of docetaxel to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for patients with metastatic non-castrate prostate cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study, we enrolled patients in 29 centres in France and one in Belgium. Eligible patients were older than 18 years and had histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the prostate and radiologically proven metastatic disease; a Karnofsky score of at least 70%; a life expectancy of at least 3 months; and adequate hepatic, haematological, and renal function. They were randomly assigned to receive to ADT (orchiectomy or luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists, alone or combined with non-steroidal antiandrogens) alone or in combination with docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) intravenously on the first day of each 21-day cycle; up to nine cycles). Patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio, with dynamic minimisation to minimise imbalances in previous systemic treatment with ADT, chemotherapy for local disease or isolated rising concentration of serum prostate-specific antigen, and Glass risk groups. Patients, physicians, and data analysts were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00104715. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2004, and Dec 31, 2008, 192 patients were randomly allocated to receive ADT plus docetaxel and 193 to receive ADT alone. Median follow-up was 50 months (IQR 39-63). Median overall survival was 58·9 months (95% CI 50·8-69·1) in the group given ADT plus docetaxel and 54·2 months (42·2-not reached) in that given ADT alone (hazard ratio 1·01, 95% CI 0·75-1·36). 72 serious adverse events were reported in the group given ADT plus docetaxel, of which the most frequent were neutropenia (40 [21%]), febrile neutropenia (six [3%]), abnormal liver function tests (three [2%]), and neutropenia with infection (two [1%]). Four treatment-related deaths occurred in the ADT plus docetaxel group (two of which were neutropenia-related), after which the data monitoring committee recommended treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. After this recommendation, no further treatment-related deaths occurred. No serious adverse events were reported in the ADT alone group. INTERPRETATION: Docetaxel should not be used as part of first-line treatment for patients with non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer. FUNDING: French Health Ministry and Institut National du Cancer (PHRC), Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, and Amgen.