Duration of androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of long-course versus short-course androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence supports androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with primary radiotherapy as initial treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the use and optimal duration of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. METHODS: RADICALS-HD was a randomised controlled trial of ADT duration within the RADICALS protocol. Here, we report on the comparison of short-course versus long-course ADT. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after previous radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to add 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT) or 24 months of ADT (long-course ADT) to radiotherapy, using subcutaneous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (monthly in the short-course ADT group and 3-monthly in the long-course ADT group), daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. The comparison had more than 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 75% to 81% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72). Standard time-to-event analyses were used. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. FINDINGS: Between Jan 30, 2008, and July 7, 2015, 1523 patients (median age 65 years, IQR 60-69) were randomly assigned to receive short-course ADT (n=761) or long-course ADT (n=762) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 138 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 8·9 years (7·0-10·0), 313 metastasis-free survival events were reported overall (174 in the short-course ADT group and 139 in the long-course ADT group; HR 0·773 [95% CI 0·612-0·975]; p=0·029). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 71·9% (95% CI 67·6-75·7) in the short-course ADT group and 78·1% (74·2-81·5) in the long-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 105 (14%) of 753 participants in the short-course ADT group and 142 (19%) of 757 participants in the long-course ADT group (p=0·025), with no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Compared with adding 6 months of ADT, adding 24 months of ADT improved metastasis-free survival in people receiving postoperative radiotherapy. For individuals who can accept the additional duration of adverse effects, long-course ADT should be offered with postoperative radiotherapy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society.

Getting our ducks in a row: The need for data utility comparisons of healthcare systems data for clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Better use of healthcare systems data, collected as part of interactions between patients and the healthcare system, could transform planning and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Multiple challenges to widespread use include whether healthcare systems data captures sufficiently well the data traditionally captured on case report forms. "Data Utility Comparison Studies" (DUCkS) assess the utility of healthcare systems data for RCTs by comparison to data collected by the trial. Despite their importance, there are few published UK examples of DUCkS. METHODS-AND-RESULTS: Building from ongoing and selected recent examples of UK-led DUCkS in the literature, we set out experience-based considerations for the conduct of future DUCkS. Developed through informal iterative discussions in many forums, considerations are offered for planning, protocol development, data, analysis and reporting, with comparisons at "patient-level" or "trial-level", depending on the item of interest and trial status. DISCUSSION: DUCkS could be a valuable tool in assessing where healthcare systems data can be used for trials and in which trial teams can play a leading role. There is a pressing need for trials to be more efficient in their delivery and research waste must be reduced. Trials have been making inconsistent use of healthcare systems data, not least because of an absence of evidence of utility. DUCkS can also help to identify challenges in using healthcare systems data, such as linkage (access and timing) and data quality. We encourage trial teams to incorporate and report DUCkS in trials and funders and data providers to support them.

Mortality Risk for Docetaxel-Treated, High-Grade Prostate Cancer With Low PSA Levels: A Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Patients with high-grade prostate cancer with low levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA; <4 ng/mL) are at high risk of mortality, necessitating an improved treatment paradigm. Objective: To assess for these patients whether adding docetaxel to standard of care (SOC) treatment is associated with decreased prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) and all-cause mortality (ACM). Data Sources: PubMed search from 2000 to 2022. Study Selection: Five prospective randomized clinical trials (RCTs) performed in the US, France, and the United Kingdom evaluating SOC treatment with radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or with radical prostatectomy vs SOC plus docetaxel. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Individual data were included from patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer, a PSA level of less than 4 ng/mL, and a Gleason score of 8 to 10. Patients initiated treatment between February 21, 2006, and December 31, 2015 (median follow-up, 7.1 [IQR, 5.4-9.9] years). Data were analyzed on December 16, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hazard ratio (HR) of ACM and subdistribution HR (sHR) of PCSM adjusted for performance status (1 vs 0 or good health), Gleason score (9 or 10 vs 8), tumor category (T3-T4 vs T1-T2 or TX), and duration of ADT (2 years vs 4-6 months). Results: From a cohort of 2184 patients, 145 patients (6.6%) in 4 RCTs were eligible (median age, 63 [IQR, 46-67] years). Thirty-one patients died, and of these deaths, 22 were due to prostate cancer. Performance status was 0 for 139 patients (95.9%) and 1 for 6 patients (4.1%). A reduced but nonsignificant risk of ACM (HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.24-1.09]) and PCSM (sHR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.17-1.02]) was associated with patients randomized to SOC plus docetaxel compared with SOC. The risk reduction in ACM (HR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.21-1.02]) was more pronounced among patients with a performance status of 0 and was significant for PCSM (sHR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.11-0.86]). Conclusions and Relevance: Adding docetaxel to SOC treatment for patients who are in otherwise good health with a PSA level of less than 4 ng/mL and a Gleason score of 8 to 10 was associated with a significant reduction in PCSM and therefore has the potential to improve prognosis.

How to Compose Platform Trials.

Platform trials are adaptive randomised controlled trials that address multiple questions using a single protocol, which reduces the time taken to reach a meaningful trial endpoint. This mini review provides a description of how to conceive, design, and carry out a platform trial in urology, using experience gained in the STAMPEDE trial. PATIENT SUMMARY: Clinical trials to test how well a new drug or treatment works can take a long time before meaningful results can be assessed. Trials with a platform design can test multiple treatments using just one protocol and control, which reduces the time taken to reach a trial endpoint.

Safety and tolerability of long-term treatment with darolutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, darolutamide was well tolerated for 25 months, but minimal long-term safety data are available. METHODS: Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) for patients receiving darolutamide for a median of 38 months (n = 13) are described in this pooled analysis of individual patient data from phase 1/2 studies. RESULTS: All patients reported TEAEs (mostly grade 1/2). The most common TEAEs were diarrhea, abdominal pain, and nausea. Serious TEAEs were reported in six patients (none related to darolutamide). All treatment-related TEAEs (n = 5) were grade 1. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term darolutamide treatment was well tolerated; no new safety signals observed. In patients with mCRPC, long-term darolutamide treatment was well tolerated and no new safety signals were observed. These findings are consistent with previous reports, demonstrating a favorable safety and tolerability profile of darolutamide.

COmparing Urolift and Standard Transurethral resection of prostate Ahead of Radiotherapy in men with urinary symptoms secondary to prostate enlargement in Southwest London and North Cumbria (CO-STAR): a study protocol for a randomised feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing prostate radiotherapy with an enlarged prostate can have short-term and long-term urinary complications. Currently, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the mainstay surgical intervention for men with urinary symptoms due to an enlarged prostate prior to radiotherapy. UroLift (NeoTract, Pleasanton, CA, USA) is a recent minimally invasive alternative, widely used in benign disease but is untested in men with prostate cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, two-arm study designed in collaboration with a Patient Reference Group to assess the feasibility of randomising men with prostate cancer and coexisting urinary symptoms due to prostate enlargement to TURP or UroLift ahead of radiotherapy. 45 patients will be enrolled and randomised (1:1) using a computer-generated programme to TURP or UroLift. Recruitment and retention will be assessed over a 12 month period. Information on clinical outcomes, adverse events and costs will be collected. Clinical outcomes and patient reported outcome measures will be measured at baseline, 6 weeks postintervention and 3 months following radiotherapy. A further 12 in-depth interviews will be conducted with a subset of patients to assess acceptability using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Descriptive analysis on all outcomes will be performed using Stata (StataCorp V.2021). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) NHS Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW). The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at national meetings and disseminated to patients via social media, charity and hospital websites. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05840549.

Selenium and Vitamin E for Prevention of Non-Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer Recurrence and Progression: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Selenium and vitamin E have been identified as promising agents for the chemoprevention of recurrence and progression of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Objective: To determine whether selenium and/or vitamin E may prevent disease recurrence in patients with newly diagnosed NMIBC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial randomized clinical trial included patients with newly diagnosed NMIBC recruited from 10 secondary or tertiary care hospitals in the UK. A total of 755 patients were screened for inclusion; 484 did not meet the inclusion criteria, and 1 declined to participate. A total of 270 patients were randomly assigned to 4 groups (selenium plus placebo, vitamin E plus placebo, selenium plus vitamin E, and placebo plus placebo) in a double-blind fashion between July 17, 2007, and October 10, 2011. Eligibility included initial diagnosis of NMIBC (stages Ta, T1, or Tis); randomization within 12 months of first transurethral resection was required. Interventions: Oral selenium (200 µg/d of high-selenium yeast) and matched vitamin E placebo, vitamin E (200 IU/d of d-alfa-tocopherol) and matched selenium placebo, selenium and vitamin E, or placebo and placebo. Main Outcome and Measures: Recurrence-free interval (RFI) on an intention-to-treat basis (analyses completed on November 28, 2022). Results: The study randomized 270 patients (mean [SD] age, 68.9 [10.4] years; median [IQR] age, 69 [63-77] years; 202 male [75%]), with 65 receiving selenium and vitamin E placebo, 71 receiving vitamin E and selenium placebo, 69 receiving selenium and vitamin E, and 65 receiving both placebos. Median overall follow-up was 5.5 years (IQR, 5.1-6.1 years); 228 patients (84%) were followed up for more than 5 years. Median treatment duration was 1.5 years (IQR, 0.9-2.5 years). The study was halted because of slow accrual. For selenium (n = 134) vs no selenium (n = 136), there was no difference in RFI (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.65-1.31; P = .65). For vitamin E (n = 140) vs no vitamin E (n = 130), there was a statistically significant detriment to RFI (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.02-2.09; P = .04). No significant differences were observed for progression-free interval or overall survival time with either supplement. Results were unchanged after Cox proportional hazards regression modeling to adjust for known prognostic factors. In total, 1957 adverse events were reported; 85 were serious adverse events, and all were considered unrelated to trial treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of selenium and vitamin E, selenium supplementation did not reduce the risk of recurrence in patients with NMIBC, but vitamin E supplementation was associated with an increased risk of recurrence. Neither selenium nor vitamin E influenced progression or overall survival. Vitamin E supplementation may be harmful to patients with NMIBC, and elucidation of the underlying biology is required. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN13889738.

Recovery of walking after paralysis by regenerating characterized neurons to their natural target region.

Axon regeneration can be induced across anatomically complete spinal cord injury (SCI), but robust functional restoration has been elusive. Whether restoring neurological functions requires directed regeneration of axons from specific neuronal subpopulations to their natural target regions remains unclear. To address this question, we applied projection-specific and comparative single-nucleus RNA sequencing to identify neuronal subpopulations that restore walking after incomplete SCI. We show that chemoattracting and guiding the transected axons of these neurons to their natural target region led to substantial recovery of walking after complete SCI in mice, whereas regeneration of axons simply across the lesion had no effect. Thus, reestablishing the natural projections of characterized neurons forms an essential part of axon regeneration strategies aimed at restoring lost neurological functions.

Which patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer benefit from docetaxel: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Adding docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, but uncertainty remains about who benefits most. We therefore aimed to obtain up-to-date estimates of the overall effects of docetaxel and to assess whether these effects varied according to prespecified characteristics of the patients or their tumours. METHODS: The STOPCAP M1 collaboration conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. We searched MEDLINE (from database inception to March 31, 2022), Embase (from database inception to March 31, 2022), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from database inception to March 31, 2022), proceedings of relevant conferences (from Jan 1, 1990, to Dec 31, 2022), and ClinicalTrials.gov (from database inception to March 28, 2023) to identify eligible randomised trials that assessed docetaxel plus ADT compared with ADT alone in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Detailed and updated individual participant data were requested directly from study investigators or through relevant repositories. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival and failure-free survival. Overall pooled effects were estimated using an adjusted, intention-to-treat, two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis, with one-stage and random-effects sensitivity analyses. Missing covariate values were imputed. Differences in effect by participant characteristics were estimated using adjusted two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis of within-trial interactions on the basis of progression-free survival to maximise power. Identified effect modifiers were also assessed on the basis of overall survival. To explore multiple subgroup interactions and derive subgroup-specific absolute treatment effects we used one-stage flexible parametric modelling and regression standardisation. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019140591. FINDINGS: We obtained individual participant data from 2261 patients (98% of those randomised) from three eligible trials (GETUG-AFU15, CHAARTED, and STAMPEDE trials), with a median follow-up of 72 months (IQR 55-85). Individual participant data were not obtained from two additional small trials. Based on all included trials and patients, there were clear benefits of docetaxel on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·70 to 0·88; p<0·0001), progression-free survival (0·70, 0·63 to 0·77; p<0·0001), and failure-free survival (0·64, 0·58 to 0·71; p<0·0001), representing 5-year absolute improvements of around 9-11%. The overall risk of bias was assessed to be low, and there was no strong evidence of differences in effect between trials for all three main outcomes. The relative effect of docetaxel on progression-free survival appeared to be greater with increasing clinical T stage (pinteraction=0·0019), higher volume of metastases (pinteraction=0·020), and, to a lesser extent, synchronous diagnosis of metastatic disease (pinteraction=0·077). Taking into account the other interactions, the effect of docetaxel was independently modified by volume and clinical T stage, but not timing. There was no strong evidence that docetaxel improved absolute effects at 5 years for patients with low-volume, metachronous disease (-1%, 95% CI -15 to 12, for progression-free survival; 0%, -10 to 12, for overall survival). The largest absolute improvement at 5 years was observed for those with high-volume, clinical T stage 4 disease (27%, 95% CI 17 to 37, for progression-free survival; 35%, 24 to 47, for overall survival). INTERPRETATION: The addition of docetaxel to hormone therapy is best suited to patients with poorer prognosis for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer based on a high volume of disease and potentially the bulkiness of the primary tumour. There is no evidence of meaningful benefit for patients with metachronous, low-volume disease who should therefore be managed differently. These results will better characterise patients most and, importantly, least likely to gain benefit from docetaxel, potentially changing international practice, guiding clinical decision making, better informing treatment policy, and improving patient outcomes. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Prostate Cancer UK.

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer-metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. TWITTER SUMMARY: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer. TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here.

Clinical testing of transcriptome-wide expression profiles in high-risk localized and metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: an ancillary study of the STAMPEDE abiraterone Phase 3 trial.

Metastatic and high-risk localized prostate cancer respond to hormone therapy but outcomes vary. Following a pre-specified statistical plan, we used Cox models adjusted for clinical variables to test associations with survival of multi-gene expression-based classifiers from 781 patients randomized to androgen deprivation with or without abiraterone in the STAMPEDE trial. Decipher score was strongly prognostic (p<2×10-5) and identified clinically-relevant differences in absolute benefit, especially for localized cancers. In metastatic disease, classifiers of proliferation, PTEN or TP53 loss and treatment-persistent cells were prognostic. In localized disease, androgen receptor activity was protective whilst interferon signaling (that strongly associated with tumor lymphocyte infiltration) was detrimental. Post-Operative Radiation-Therapy Outcomes Score was prognostic in localized but not metastatic disease (interaction p=0.0001) suggesting the impact of tumor biology on clinical outcome is context-dependent on metastatic state. Transcriptome-wide testing has clinical utility for advanced prostate cancer and identified worse outcomes for localized cancers with tumor-promoting inflammation.

Highly Sensitive and Specific Detection of Bladder Cancer via Targeted Ultra-deep Sequencing of Urinary DNA.

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet need for an accurate, validated, noninvasive test for diagnosing and monitoring bladder cancer (BC). Detection of BC-associated mutations in urinary DNA via targeted deep sequencing could meet this need. OBJECTIVE: To test the ability of mutational analysis of urinary DNA to noninvasively detect BC within the context of haematuria investigations and non-muscle-invasive BC (NMIBC) surveillance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Capture-based ultra-deep sequencing was performed for 443 somatic mutations in 23 genes in 591 urine cell-pellet DNAs from haematuria clinic patients and 293 from NMIBC surveillance patients. Variant calling was optimised to minimise false positives using urine samples from 162 haematuria clinic patients without BC. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The sensitivity and specificity for BC diagnosis were determined. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Mutational analysis of urinary DNA detected 144 of the 165 haematuria patients diagnosed with incident BC from two independent cohorts, yielding overall sensitivity of 87.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 81.2-92.0%) at specificity of 84.8% (95% CI 79.9-89.0%). The sensitivity was 97.4% for grade 3, 86.5% for grade 2, and 70.8% for grade 1 BC. Among NMIBC surveillance patients, 25 out of 29 recurrent BCs were detected, yielding sensitivity of 86.2% (95% CI 70.8-97.7%) at specificity of 62.5% (95% CI 56.1-68.0%); a positive urine mutation test in the absence of clinically detectable disease was associated with a 2.6-fold increase in the risk of future recurrence. The low number of recurrences in the NMIBC surveillance cohort and the lower sensitivity for detecting grade 1 pTa BC are limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Detection of mutations in a small panel of BC-associated genes could facilitate noninvasive BC testing and expedite haematuria investigations. Following further validation, the test could also play a role in NMIBC surveillance. PATIENT SUMMARY: Identification of alterations in genes that are frequently mutated in bladder cancer appears to be a promising strategy for detecting disease from urine samples and reducing reliance on examination of the bladder via a telescopic camera inserted through the urethra.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

The neurons that restore walking after paralysis.

A spinal cord injury interrupts pathways from the brain and brainstem that project to the lumbar spinal cord, leading to paralysis. Here we show that spatiotemporal epidural electrical stimulation (EES) of the lumbar spinal cord1-3 applied during neurorehabilitation4,5 (EESREHAB) restored walking in nine individuals with chronic spinal cord injury. This recovery involved a reduction in neuronal activity in the lumbar spinal cord of humans during walking. We hypothesized that this unexpected reduction reflects activity-dependent selection of specific neuronal subpopulations that become essential for a patient to walk after spinal cord injury. To identify these putative neurons, we modelled the technological and therapeutic features underlying EESREHAB in mice. We applied single-nucleus RNA sequencing6-9 and spatial transcriptomics10,11 to the spinal cords of these mice to chart a spatially resolved molecular atlas of recovery from paralysis. We then employed cell type12,13 and spatial prioritization to identify the neurons involved in the recovery of walking. A single population of excitatory interneurons nested within intermediate laminae emerged. Although these neurons are not required for walking before spinal cord injury, we demonstrate that they are essential for the recovery of walking with EES following spinal cord injury. Augmenting the activity of these neurons phenocopied the recovery of walking enabled by EESREHAB, whereas ablating them prevented the recovery of walking that occurs spontaneously after moderate spinal cord injury. We thus identified a recovery-organizing neuronal subpopulation that is necessary and sufficient to regain walking after paralysis. Moreover, our methodology establishes a framework for using molecular cartography to identify the neurons that produce complex behaviours.

Cabazitaxel versus docetaxel for treatment of metastatic castrate refractory prostate cancer.

Objectives: To assess cabazitaxel versus docetaxel re-challenge for the treatment of metastatic castrate refractory prostate cancer (CRPC) patients previously treated with docetaxel at inception of primary hormone therapy. Patients and Methods: The CANTATA trial was a prospective, two-arm, open-label, phase II study conducted in eight UK centres. Patients over the age of 18, with histologically proven, metastatic prostate cancer who had been previously treated with up to 6 cycles of docetaxel as part of the STAMPEDE trial (or treated with the same drug outside of the trial at primary diagnosis) and had a performance status (PS) of 0-2, were eligible. Patients who progressed during primary treatment with docetaxel or had received prior systemic chemotherapy were excluded. Cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2) was administered via intravenous infusion every 3 weeks with oral prednisolone (10 mg) for up to 10 cycles, until disease progression, death or unacceptable toxicity. The primary outcome was clinical progression-free survival (PFS) as defined by either date of pain progression, date of a cancer-related skeletal-related event, or date of death from any cause. Analyses were by intention to treat. EudraCT number: 2012-003835-40. Results: Between 7 March 2013 and 4 January 2016, 15 patients with a median age of 70 years (range 54-76) were recruited; seven received cabazitaxel, eight docetaxel. The study was halted due to slow accrual. The median clinical PFS time in the cabazitaxel group was 6.2 months compared with 8.4 for the docetaxel group (95% confidence intervals were not reached due to the small number of patients). A total of 13 serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: Due to the low number of patients recruited, meaningful comparisons could not be made. However, toxicity was in line with known outcomes for these agents, demonstrating it is feasible and safe to deliver chemotherapy to men relapsing with CRPC after upfront chemotherapy.

Accumulation of copy number alterations and clinical progression across advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Genomic copy number alterations commonly occur in prostate cancer and are one measure of genomic instability. The clinical implication of copy number change in advanced prostate cancer, which defines a wide spectrum of disease from high-risk localised to metastatic, is unknown. METHODS: We performed copy number profiling on 688 tumour regions from 300 patients, who presented with advanced prostate cancer prior to the start of long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), in the control arm of the prospective randomised STAMPEDE trial. Patients were categorised into metastatic states as follows; high-risk non-metastatic with or without local lymph node involvement, or metastatic low/high volume. We followed up patients for a median of 7 years. Univariable and multivariable Cox survival models were fitted to estimate the association between the burden of copy number alteration as a continuous variable and the hazard of death or disease progression. RESULTS: The burden of copy number alterations positively associated with radiologically evident distant metastases at diagnosis (P=0.00006) and showed a non-linear relationship with clinical outcome on univariable and multivariable analysis, characterised by a sharp increase in the relative risk of progression (P=0.003) and death (P=0.045) for each unit increase, stabilising into more modest increases with higher copy number burdens. This association between copy number burden and outcome was similar in each metastatic state. Copy number loss occurred significantly more frequently than gain at the lowest copy number burden quartile (q=4.1 × 10-6). Loss of segments in chromosome 5q21-22 and gains at 8q21-24, respectively including CHD1 and cMYC occurred more frequently in cases with higher copy number alteration (for either region: Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance, 0.5; adjusted P<0.0001). Copy number alterations showed variability across tumour regions in the same prostate. This variance associated with increased risk of distant metastases (Kruskal-Wallis test P=0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Copy number alteration in advanced prostate cancer associates with increased risk of metastases at diagnosis. Accumulation of a limited number of copy number alterations associates with most of the increased risk of disease progression and death. The increased likelihood of involvement of specific segments in high copy number alteration burden cancers may suggest an order underlying the accumulation of copy number changes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00268476 , registered on December 22, 2005. EudraCT  2004-000193-31 , registered on October 4, 2004.

Docetaxel for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Survival Outcomes in the STAMPEDE Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: STAMPEDE previously reported adding upfront docetaxel improved overall survival for prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report long-term results for non-metastatic patients using, as primary outcome, metastatic progression-free survival (mPFS), an externally demonstrated surrogate for overall survival. METHODS: Standard of care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy with or without radical prostate radiotherapy. A total of 460 SOC and 230 SOC plus docetaxel were randomly assigned 2:1. Standard survival methods and intention to treat were used. Treatment effect estimates were summarized from adjusted Cox regression models, switching to restricted mean survival time if non-proportional hazards. mPFS (new metastases, skeletal-related events, or prostate cancer death) had 70% power (α = 0.05) for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.70. Secondary outcome measures included overall survival, failure-free survival (FFS), and progression-free survival (PFS: mPFS, locoregional progression). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 6.5 years with 142 mPFS events on SOC (3 year and 54% increases over previous report). There was no good evidence of an advantage to SOC plus docetaxel on mPFS (HR = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 1.19; P = .43); with 5-year mPFS 82% (95% CI = 78% to 87%) SOC plus docetaxel vs 77% (95% CI = 73% to 81%) SOC. Secondary outcomes showed evidence SOC plus docetaxel improved FFS (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.88; P = .002) and PFS (nonproportional P = .03, restricted mean survival time difference = 5.8 months, 95% CI = 0.5 to 11.2; P = .03) but no good evidence of overall survival benefit (125 SOC deaths; HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.21; P = .44). There was no evidence SOC plus docetaxel increased late toxicity: post 1 year, 29% SOC and 30% SOC plus docetaxel grade 3-5 toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: There is robust evidence that SOC plus docetaxel improved FFS and PFS (previously shown to increase quality-adjusted life-years), without excess late toxicity, which did not translate into benefit for longer-term outcomes. This may influence patient management in individual cases.

TUXEDO: A phase I/II trial of cetuximab with chemoradiotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To assess feasibility and preliminary efficacy of adding cetuximab to standard chemoradiotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: TUXEDO was a prospective, single-arm, open-label, phase I/II trial conducted in six UK hospitals. Cetuximab was administered with an initial loading dose of 400mg/m2 on day 1 of week -1, and then 7-weekly doses of 250mg/m2 . Radiotherapy schedule was 64Gy/32F with day 1 mitomycin C (12g/m2 ) and 5-fluorouracil (500mg/m2 /day) over days 1-5 and 22-26. Patients with T2-4aN0M0 urothelial cancer and a performance status (PS) of 0-1 were eligible. Prior neoadjuvant therapy was permitted. The phase I primary outcome was impact on radiotherapy treatment completion and toxicity experienced during treatment. The phase II primary outcome was local control at three-months post-treatment. ISRCTN identifier: 80733590. RESULTS: Between Sept-2012 and Oct-2016, 33 patients were recruited; 7 in phase I, 26 in phase II. Three patients in phase II were subsequently deemed ineligible and received no trial therapy. Eight patients discontinued cetuximab due to adverse effects. Median age of patients was 70.1 years (range 60.6-75.1), 20 were PS 0, 27 male and 26 had already received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In phase I, all patients completed planned radiotherapy, with no delays or dose reductions. Of the 30 evaluable patients in phase II, 25 had confirmed local control 3-months post treatment (77%, 95% CI: 58-90). During the trial there were 18 serious adverse events. The study was halted due to slow accrual. CONCLUSION: Phase I data demonstrate it is feasible and safe to add cetuximab to chemoradiotherapy. Exploratory analysis of phase II data provides evidence to consider further clinical evaluation of cetuximab in this setting.