High-dose Radiotherapy or Androgen Deprivation Therapy (HEAT) as Treatment Intensification for Localized Prostate Cancer: An Individual Patient-data Network Meta-analysis from the MARCAP Consortium.

BACKGROUND: The relative benefits of radiotherapy (RT) dose escalation and the addition of short-term or long-term androgen deprivation therapy (STADT or LTADT) in the treatment of prostate cancer are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To perform a network meta-analysis (NMA) of relevant randomized trials to compare the relative benefits of RT dose escalation ± STADT or LTADT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An NMA of individual patient data from 13 multicenter randomized trials was carried out for a total of 11862 patients. Patients received one of the six permutations of low-dose RT (64 to <74 Gy) ± STADT or LTADT, high-dose RT (≥74 Gy), or high-dose RT ± STADT or LTADT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES: Metastasis-free survival (MFS) was the primary endpoint. Frequentist and Bayesian NMAs were performed to rank the various treatment strategies by MFS and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Median follow-up was 8.8 yr (interquartile range 5.7-11.5). The greatest relative improvement in outcomes was seen for addition of LTADT, irrespective of RT dose, followed by addition of STADT, irrespective of RT dose. RT dose escalation did not improve MFS either in the absence of ADT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-1.18) or with STADT (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.8-1.23) or LTADT (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65-1.37). According to P-score ranking and rankogram analysis, high-dose RT + LTADT was the optimal treatment strategy for both BCRFS and longer-term outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Conventionally escalated RT up to 79.2 Gy, alone or in the presence of ADT, does not improve MFS, while addition of STADT or LTADT to RT alone, regardless of RT dose, consistently improves MFS. RT dose escalation does provide a high probability of improving BCRFS and, provided it can be delivered without compromising quality of life, may represent the optimal treatment strategy when used in conjunction with ADT. PATIENT SUMMARY: Using a higher radiotherapy dose when treating prostate cancer does not reduce the chance of developing metastases or death, but it does reduce the chance of having a rise in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) signifying recurrence of cancer. Androgen deprivation therapy improves all outcomes. A safe increase in radiotherapy dose in conjunction with androgen deprivation therapy may be the optimal treatment.

Global health trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise.

BACKGROUND: Methodological research into the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials is essential to optimise the process. UK specialists in the field have established a set of top priorities in aid of this research. These priorities, however, may not be reflected in the needs of similar research in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) with different healthcare provision, resources and research infrastructure. The aim of the study was to identify the top priorities for methodological research in LMICs to inform further research and ultimately to improve clinical trials in these regions. METHODS: An online, two-round survey was conducted from December 2016 to April 2017 amongst researchers and methodologists working on trials in LMICs. The first round required participants to suggest between three and six topics which they felt were priorities for trial methodological research in LMICs. The second round invited participants to grade the importance of a compulsory list of topics suggested by four or more individuals, and an optional list of the remaining topics. FINDINGS: Rounds 1 and 2 were completed by 412 and 314 participants, respectively. A wide spread of years of experience, discipline, current country of residence, origin of trials training and area of involvement in trials was reported. The topics deemed most important for methodological research were: choosing appropriate outcomes to measure and training of research staff. CONCLUSION: By presenting these top priorities we have the foundations of a global health trials methodological research agenda which we hope will foster future research in specific areas in order to increase and improve trials in LMICs.

Common genetic variation associated with increased susceptibility to prostate cancer does not increase risk of radiotherapy toxicity.

BACKGROUND: Numerous germline single-nucleotide polymorphisms increase susceptibility to prostate cancer, some lying near genes involved in cellular radiation response. This study investigated whether prostate cancer patients with a high genetic risk have increased toxicity following radiotherapy. METHODS: The study included 1560 prostate cancer patients from four radiotherapy cohorts: RAPPER (n=533), RADIOGEN (n=597), GenePARE (n=290) and CCI (n=150). Data from genome-wide association studies were imputed with the 1000 Genomes reference panel. Individuals were genetically similar with a European ancestry based on principal component analysis. Genetic risks were quantified using polygenic risk scores. Regression models tested associations between risk scores and 2-year toxicity (overall, urinary frequency, decreased stream, rectal bleeding). Results were combined across studies using standard inverse-variance fixed effects meta-analysis methods. RESULTS: A total of 75 variants were genotyped/imputed successfully. Neither non-weighted nor weighted polygenic risk scores were associated with late radiation toxicity in individual studies (P>0.11) or after meta-analysis (P>0.24). No individual variant was associated with 2-year toxicity. CONCLUSION: Patients with a high polygenic susceptibility for prostate cancer have no increased risk for developing late radiotherapy toxicity. These findings suggest that patients with a genetic predisposition for prostate cancer, inferred by common variants, can be safely treated using current standard radiotherapy regimens.

Exploring the role and function of trial steering committees: results of an expert panel meeting.

BACKGROUND: The independent oversight of clinical trials, which is recommended by the Medical Research Council (MRC) Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice, is typically provided by an independent advisory Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) and an independent executive committee, to whom the DMC makes recommendations. The detailed roles and function of this executive committee, known as the Trial Steering Committee (TSC), have not previously been studied or reviewed since those originally proposed by the MRC in 1998. METHODS: An expert panel (n = 7) was convened comprising statisticians, clinicians and trial methodologists with prior TSC experience. Twelve questions about the role and responsibilities of the TSC were discussed by the panel at two full-day meetings. Each meeting was transcribed in full and the discussions were summarised. RESULTS: The expert panel reached agreement on the role of the TSC, to which it was accountable, the membership, the definition of independence, and the experience and training needed. The management of ethical issues, difficult/complex situations and issues the TSC should not ask the DMC to make recommendations on were more difficult to discuss without specific examples, but support existed for further work to help share issues and to provide appropriate training for TSC members. Additional topics discussed, which had not been identified by previous work relating to the DMCs but were pertinent to the role of the TSC, included the following: review of data sharing requests, indemnity, lifespan of the TSC, general TSC administration, and the roles of both the Funder and the Sponsor. CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents recommendations that will contribute to the revision and update of the MRC TSC terms of reference. Uncertainty remains in some areas due to the absence of real-life examples; future guidance on these issues would benefit from a repository of case studies. Notably, the role of a patient and public involvement (PPI) contributor was not discussed, and further work is warranted to explore the role of a PPI contributor in independent trial oversight.

Making randomised trials more efficient: report of the first meeting to discuss the Trial Forge platform.

Randomised trials are at the heart of evidence-based healthcare, but the methods and infrastructure for conducting these sometimes complex studies are largely evidence free. Trial Forge ( www.trialforge.org ) is an initiative that aims to increase the evidence base for trial decision making and, in doing so, to improve trial efficiency.This paper summarises a one-day workshop held in Edinburgh on 10 July 2014 to discuss Trial Forge and how to advance this initiative. We first outline the problem of inefficiency in randomised trials and go on to describe Trial Forge. We present participants' views on the processes in the life of a randomised trial that should be covered by Trial Forge.General support existed at the workshop for the Trial Forge approach to increase the evidence base for making randomised trial decisions and for improving trial efficiency. Agreed upon key processes included choosing the right research question; logistical planning for delivery, training of staff, recruitment, and retention; data management and dissemination; and close down. The process of linking to existing initiatives where possible was considered crucial. Trial Forge will not be a guideline or a checklist but a 'go to' website for research on randomised trials methods, with a linked programme of applied methodology research, coupled to an effective evidence-dissemination process. Moreover, it will support an informal network of interested trialists who meet virtually (online) and occasionally in person to build capacity and knowledge in the design and conduct of efficient randomised trials.Some of the resources invested in randomised trials are wasted because of limited evidence upon which to base many aspects of design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials. Trial Forge will help to address this lack of evidence.

Trial Steering Committees in randomised controlled trials: A survey of registered clinical trials units to establish current practice and experiences.

BACKGROUND: The Medical Research Council Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice outlines a three-committee trial oversight structure--the day-to-day Trial Management Group, the Data Monitoring Committee and the Trial Steering Committee. In this model, the Trial Steering Committee is the executive committee that oversees the trial and considers the recommendations from the Data Monitoring Committee. There is yet to be in-depth consideration establishing the Trial Steering Committee's role and functionality. METHODS: A survey to establish Trial Steering Committee's current practices, role and the use and opinion on the Medical Research Council guidelines was undertaken within UK Clinical Research Collaborative registered Clinical Trials Units. RESULTS: Completed surveys were obtained from 38 of 47 fully and partially registered Units. Individual items in the survey were analysed and reported spanning current Trial Steering Committee practices including its role, requirement and experience required for membership; methods to identify members; and meeting frequency. Terms (a document describing the committee's remit, objectives and functionality) were obtained and analysed from 21 of 33 Units with documents in place at their Unit. A total of 20 responders suggested aspects of the current Medical Research Council Guidelines that need improvement. CONCLUSION: We present the first survey reporting on practices within UK Clinical Research Collaborative registered Clinical Trials Units on the experience and remits of Trial Steering Committees. We have identified a widespread adoption of Medical Research Council Guidelines for Trial Steering Committees in the United Kingdom, but limitations in this existing provision have been identified that need to be addressed.