Tolerability of Olaparib Combined with Abiraterone in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: Further Results from the Phase 3 PROpel Trial.

BACKGROUND: The PROpel study (NCT03732820) demonstrated a statistically significant progression-free survival benefit with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in the first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) setting, irrespective of homologous recombination repair mutation status. OBJECTIVE: We report additional safety analyses from PROpel to increase clinical understanding of the adverse-event (AE) profiles of olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomised (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 126 centres in 17 countries (October 2018-January 2020). Patients had mCRPC and no prior systemic mCRPC treatment. INTERVENTION: Olaparib (300 mg bid) or placebo with abiraterone (1000 mg od) plus prednisone/prednisolone (5 mg bid). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The data cut-off date was July 30, 2021. Safety was assessed by AE reporting (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03) and analysed descriptively. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The most common AEs (all grades) for olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone were anaemia (46.0% vs 16.4%), nausea (28.1% vs 12.6%), and fatigue (27.9% vs 18.9%). Grade ≥3 anaemia occurred in 15.1% versus 3.3% of patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone arm. The incidences of the most common AEs for olaparib plus abiraterone peaked early, within 2 mo, and were managed typically by dose modifications or standard medical practice. Overall, 13.8% versus 7.8% of patients discontinued treatment with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone because of an AE; 3.8% versus 0.8% of patients discontinued because of anaemia. More venous thromboembolism events were observed in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 7.3%; grade ≥3, 6.8%) than in the placebo plus abiraterone arm (any grade, 3.3%; grade ≥3, 2.0%), most commonly pulmonary embolism (6.5% vs 1.8% for olaparib plus abiraterone vs placebo plus abiraterone). CONCLUSIONS: Olaparib plus abiraterone has a manageable and predictable safety profile. PATIENT SUMMARY: The PROpel trial showed that in patients who had not received any previous treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, olaparib combined with abiraterone was more effective in delaying progression of the disease than abiraterone alone. Most side effects caused by combining olaparib with abiraterone could be managed with supportive care methods, by pausing olaparib administration for a short period of time and/or by reducing the dose of olaparib.

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.

Cardiovascular Effects of GnRH Antagonists Compared With Agonists in Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Background: Androgen deprivation therapy is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with advanced prostate cancer. Meta-analysis of small, oncology-focused trials suggest gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists may be associated with fewer adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared with GnRH agonists. Objectives: This study sought to determine whether GnRH antagonists were associated with fewer major adverse cardiovascular events compared with GnRH agonists. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for all prospective, randomized trials comparing GnRH antagonists with agonists. The primary outcome was a major adverse cardiovascular event as defined by the following standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms: "myocardial infarction," "central nervous system hemorrhages and cerebrovascular conditions," and all-cause mortality. Bayesian meta-analysis models with random effects were fitted. Results: A total of 11 eligible studies of a maximum duration of 3 to 36 months (median = 12 months) enrolling 4,248 participants were included. Only 1 trial used a blinded, adjudicated event process, whereas potential bias persisted in all trials given their open-label design. A total of 152 patients with primary outcome events were observed, 76 of 2,655 (2.9%) in GnRH antagonist-treated participants and 76 of 1,593 (4.8%) in agonist-treated individuals. Compared with GnRH agonists, the pooled OR of GnRH antagonists for the primary endpoint was 0.57 (95% credible interval: 0.37-0.86) and 0.58 (95% credible interval: 0.32-1.08) for all-cause death. Conclusions: Despite the addition of the largest, dedicated cardiovascular outcome trial, the volume and quality of available data to definitively answer this question remain suboptimal. Notwithstanding these limitations, the available data suggest that GnRH antagonists are associated with fewer cardiovascular events, and possibly mortality, compared with GnRH agonists.

Olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PROpel): final prespecified overall survival results of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: PROpel met its primary endpoint showing statistically significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in patients with first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) unselected by homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) status, with benefit observed in all prespecified subgroups. Here we report the final prespecified overall survival analysis. METHODS: This was a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial done at 126 centres in 17 countries worldwide. Patients with mCRPC aged at least 18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, a life expectancy of at least 6 months, with no previous systemic treatment for mCRPC and unselected by HRRm status were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by means of an interactive voice response system-interactive web response system to abiraterone acetate (orally, 1000 mg once daily) plus prednisone or prednisolone with either olaparib (orally, 300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The patients, the investigator, and study centre staff were masked to drug allocation. Stratification factors were site of metastases and previous docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive cancer stage. Radiographic progression-free survival was the primary endpoint and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint with alpha-control (alpha-threshold at prespecified final analysis: 0·0377 [two-sided]), evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03732820, and is completed and no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Oct 31, 2018 and March 11, 2020, 1103 patients were screened, of whom 399 were randomly assigned to olaparib plus abiraterone and 397 to placebo plus abiraterone. Median follow-up for overall survival in patients with censored data was 36·6 months (IQR 34·1-40·3) for olaparib plus abiraterone and 36·5 months (33·8-40·3) for placebo plus abiraterone. Median overall survival was 42·1 months (95% CI 38·4-not reached) with olaparib plus abiraterone and 34·7 months (31·0-39·3) with placebo plus abiraterone (hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·67-1·00; p=0·054). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was anaemia reported in 64 (16%) of 398 patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone and 13 (3%) of 396 patients in the placebo plus abiraterone group. Serious adverse events were reported in 161 (40%) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and 126 (32%) in the placebo plus abiraterone group. One death in the placebo plus abiraterone group, from interstitial lung disease, was considered treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Overall survival was not significantly different between treatment groups at this final prespecified analysis. FUNDING: Supported by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

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.

Prostate cancer outcomes following whole-gland and focal high-intensity focused ultrasound.

OBJECTIVE: To report the 5-year failure-free survival (FFS) following high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational cohort study used linked National Cancer Registry data, radiotherapy data, administrative hospital data and mortality records of 1381 men treated with HIFU for clinically localised prostate cancer in England. The primary outcome, FFS, was defined as freedom from local salvage treatment and cancer-specific mortality. Secondary outcomes were freedom from repeat HIFU, prostate cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Cox regression was used to determine whether baseline characteristics, including age, treatment year, T stage and International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group were associated with FFS. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) follow-up was 37 (20-62) months. The median (IQR) age was 65 (59-70) years and 81% had an ISUP Grade Group of 1-2. The FFS was 96.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 95.4%-97.4%) at 1 year, 86.0% (95% CI 83.7%-87.9%) at 3 years and 77.5% (95% CI 74.4%-80.3%) at 5 years. The 5-year FFS for ISUP Grade Groups 1-5 was 82.9%, 76.6%, 72.2%, 52.3% and 30.8%, respectively (P < 0.001). Freedom from repeat HIFU was 79.1% (95% CI 75.7%-82.1%), CSS was 98.8% (95% CI 97.7%-99.4%) and OS was 95.9% (95% CI 94.2%-97.1%) at 5 years. CONCLUSION: Four in five men were free from local salvage treatment at 5 years but treatment failure varied significantly according to ISUP Grade Group. Patients should be appropriately informed with respect to salvage radical treatment following HIFU.

Treatment-related toxicity using prostate bed versus prostate bed and pelvic lymph node radiation therapy following radical prostatectomy: A national population-based study.

Purpose There is debate about the effectiveness and toxicity of pelvic lymph node (PLN) irradiation in addition to prostate bed radiotherapy when used to treat disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy. We compared toxicity from radiation therapy (RT) to the prostate bed and pelvic lymph nodes (PBPLN-RT) with prostatebed only radiation therapy (PBO-RT) following radical prostatectomy. Methods and Materials Patients with prostate cancer who underwent post-prostatectomy RT between 2010 and 2016 were identified by using the National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database. Follow-up data was available up to December 31, 2018. Validated outcome measures, based on a framework of procedural and diagnostic codes, were used to capture ≥Grade 2 gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity. An adjusted competing-risks regression analysis estimated subdistribution hazard ratios (sHR). A sHR > 1 indicated a higher incidence of toxicity with PBPLN-RT than with PBO-RT. Results 5-year cumulative incidences in the PBO-RT (n = 5,087) and PBPLNRT (n = 593) groups was 18.2% and 15.9% for GI toxicity, respectively. For GU toxicity it was 19.1% and 20.7%, respectively. There was no evidence of difference in GI or GU toxicity after adjustment between PBO-RT and PBPLN-RT (GI: adjusted sHR, 0.90, 95% CI, 0.67-1.19; P = 0.45); (GU: adjusted sHR, 1.19, 95% CI, 0.99-1.44; P = 0.09). Conclusions This national population-based study found that including PLNs in the radiation field following radical prostatectomy is not associated with a significant increase in rates of ≥Grade 2 GI or GU toxicity at 5 years.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for patients with metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: final results from two randomised phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (herein referred to as abiraterone) or enzalutamide added at the start of androgen deprivation therapy improves outcomes for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes and test whether combining enzalutamide with abiraterone and androgen deprivation therapy improves survival. METHODS: We analysed two open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol, with no overlapping controls, conducted at 117 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restriction) had metastatic, histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; a WHO performance status of 0-2; and adequate haematological, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computerised algorithm and a minimisation technique to either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy; docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously for six cycles with prednisolone 10 mg orally once per day allowed from Dec 17, 2015) or standard of care plus abiraterone acetate 1000 mg and prednisolone 5 mg (in the abiraterone trial) orally or abiraterone acetate and prednisolone plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once a day (in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial). Patients were stratified by centre, age, WHO performance status, type of androgen deprivation therapy, use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pelvic nodal status, planned radiotherapy, and planned docetaxel use. The primary outcome was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started treatment. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of individual patient data was used to compare differences in survival between the two trials. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN78818544). FINDINGS: Between Nov 15, 2011, and Jan 17, 2014, 1003 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=502) or standard of care plus abiraterone (n=501) in the abiraterone trial. Between July 29, 2014, and March 31, 2016, 916 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=454) or standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide (n=462) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. Median follow-up was 96 months (IQR 86-107) in the abiraterone trial and 72 months (61-74) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. In the abiraterone trial, median overall survival was 76·6 months (95% CI 67·8-86·9) in the abiraterone group versus 45·7 months (41·6-52·0) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·53-0·73]; p<0·0001). In the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, median overall survival was 73·1 months (61·9-81·3) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide group versus 51·8 months (45·3-59·0) in the standard of care group (HR 0·65 [0·55-0·77]; p<0·0001). We found no difference in the treatment effect between these two trials (interaction HR 1·05 [0·83-1·32]; pinteraction=0·71) or between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·70). In the first 5 years of treatment, grade 3-5 toxic effects were higher when abiraterone was added to standard of care (271 [54%] of 498 vs 192 [38%] of 502 with standard of care) and the highest toxic effects were seen when abiraterone and enzalutamide were added to standard of care (302 [68%] of 445 vs 204 [45%] of 454 with standard of care). Cardiac causes were the most common cause of death due to adverse events (five [1%] with standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide [two attributed to treatment] and one (<1%) with standard of care in the abiraterone trial). INTERPRETATION: Enzalutamide and abiraterone should not be combined for patients with prostate cancer starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Clinically important improvements in survival from addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy are maintained for longer than 7 years. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.

Healthcare systems data in the context of clinical trials - A comparison of cardiovascular data from a clinical trial dataset with routinely collected data.

BACKGROUND: Routinely-collected healthcare systems data (HSD) are proposed to improve the efficiency of clinical trials. A comparison was undertaken between cardiovascular (CVS) data from a clinical trial database with two HSD resources. METHODS: Protocol-defined and clinically reviewed CVS events (heart failure (HF), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), thromboembolic stroke, venous and arterial thromboembolism) were identified within the trial data. Data (using pre-specified codes) was obtained from NHS Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) HF and myocardial ischaemia audits for trial participants recruited in England between 2010 and 2018 who had provided consent. The primary comparison was trial data versus HES inpatient (APC) main diagnosis (Box-1). Correlations are presented with descriptive statistics and Venn diagrams. Reasons for non-correlation were explored. RESULTS: From 1200 eligible participants, 71 protocol-defined clinically reviewed CVS events were recorded in the trial database. 45 resulted in a hospital admission and therefore could have been recorded by either HES APC/ NICOR. Of these, 27/45 (60%) were recorded by HES inpatient (Box-1) with an additional 30 potential events also identified. HF and ACS were potentially recorded in all 3 datasets; trial data recorded 18, HES APC 29 and NICOR 24 events respectively. 12/18 (67%) of the HF/ACS events in the trial dataset were recorded by NICOR. CONCLUSION: Concordance between datasets was lower than anticipated and the HSD used could not straightforwardly replace current trial practices, nor directly identify protocol-defined CVS events. Further work is required to improve the quality of HSD and consider event definitions when designing clinical trials incorporating HSD.

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.

A low prostate specific antigen predicts a worse outcome in high but not in low/intermediate-grade prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The relationship between prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and prostate cancer (PCa) grade was traditionally thought to be linear but recent reports suggest this is not true in high-grade cancers. We aimed to compare the association between PSA and PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) in clinically localised low/intermediate and high-grade PCa. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using the National Prostate Cancer Audit database in England of men treated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), EBRT and brachytherapy boost (EBRT + BT), radical prostatectomy or no radical local treatment between 2014 and 2018. Multivariable competing-risk regression was used to examine the association between PSA, Gleason, and PCSM. Multivariable restricted cubic spline regression was used to explore the non-linear associations of PSA and PCSM. RESULTS: 102,089 men were included, of whom 71,138 had low/intermediate-grade and 22,425 had high-grade PCa. In high-grade, 4-year PCSM was higher with PSA ≤5 than PSA 5.1-10 for men treated with EBRT (hazard ratio 1.96 (95% confidence interval 1.15-3.34) or no radical local treatment (hazard ratio 1.99 (95% confidence interval 1.33-2.98). Restricted cubic spline regression showed that PSA and PCSM have a non-linear association in high-grade but a linear association in low/intermediate-grade PCa. CONCLUSION: The low-PSA/high-grade combination in M0 PCa treated with EBRT has a higher PCSM than those with high-grade and intermediate PSA levels. In high-grade disease, the PSA association was non-linear; by contrast, low/intermediate-grade had a linear relationship. This confirms a more aggressive biology in low PSA secreting high-grade PCa and a worse outcome following treatment.

Hospital volume and outcomes after radical prostatectomy: a national population-based study using patient-reported urinary continence and sexual function.

BACKGROUND: Improvements in short-term outcomes have been reported for hospitals with higher radical prostatectomy (RP) volumes. However, the association with longer-term functional outcomes is unknown. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer in the English NHS between 2014 and 2016 who underwent RP (N = 10,089) were mailed a survey ≥18 months after diagnosis. Differences in patient-reported urinary continence and sexual function (EPIC-26 on scale from 0 to 100) by hospital volume group (≤60, 61-100, 101-140, >140 RPs/year) were estimated using multilevel linear regression. RESULTS: Overall, 7702 men (76.3%) responded. There were no statistically significant differences in urinary continence (p = 0.08) or sexual function scores with increasing volume group (p = 0.2). When modelled as a linear function, we found a non-significant increase of 0.70 (95% CI -0.41 to 1.80; p = 0.22) in urinary continence and a significant increase of 1.54 (0.62-2.45; p = 0.001) in sexual function scores for a 100-procedure increase in hospital volume, which did not meet the threshold for a minimal clinically important difference (10-12 points). The results were similar for robotic-assisted RP (5529 men [71.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: These results do not support further centralisation of RP services beyond levels in England where four in five hospitals perform >60 RPs/year.

Determinants of variation in radical local treatment for men with high-risk localised or locally advanced prostate cancer in England.

BACKGROUND: Many factors are implicated in the potential 'under-treatment' of prostate cancer but little is known about the between-hospital variation. METHODS: The National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database was used to identify high-risk localised or locally advanced prostate cancer patients in England, between January 2014 and December 2017, and the treatments received. Hospital-level variation in radical local treatment was explored visually using funnel plots. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) quantified the between-hospital variation in a random-intercept multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: 53,888 men, from 128 hospitals, were included and 35,034 (65.0%) received radical local treatment. The likelihood of receiving radical local treatment was increased in men who were younger (the strongest predictor), more affluent, those with fewer comorbidities, and in those with a non-Black ethnic background. There was more between-hospital variation (P < 0.001) for patients aged ≥80 years (ICC: 0.235) compared to patients aged 75-79 years (ICC: 0.070), 70-74 years (ICC: 0.041), and <70 years (ICC: 0.048). Comorbidity and socioeconomic deprivation did not influence the between-hospital variation. CONCLUSIONS: Radical local treatment of high-risk localised or locally advanced prostate cancer depended strongly on age and comorbidity, but also on socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity, with the between-hospital variation being highest in older patients.

Comparison of the treatment of men with prostate cancer between the US and England: an international population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of prostate cancer varies between the United States (US) and England, however this has not been well characterised using recent data. We therefore investigated the extent of the differences between US and English patients with respect to initial treatment. METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the US and the treatments they received. We also used the National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) database for the same purposes among men diagnosed with prostate cancer in England. Next, we used multivariable regression to estimate the adjusted risk ratio (aRR) of receiving radical local treatment for men with non-metastatic prostate cancer according to the country of diagnosis (US vs. England). The five-tiered Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) classification was included as an interaction term. RESULTS: We identified 109,697 patients from the SEER database, and 74,393 patients from the NPCA database, who were newly diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer between April 1st 2014 and December 31st 2016 with sufficient information for risk stratification according to the CPG classification. Men in the US were more likely to receive radical local treatment across all prognostic groups compared to men in England (% radical treatment US vs. England, CPG1: 38.1% vs. 14.3% - aRR 2.57, 95% CI 2.47-2.68; CPG2: 68.6% vs. 52.6% - aRR 1.27, 95% CI 1.25-1.29; CPG3: 76.7% vs. 67.1% - aRR 1.12, 95% CI 1.10-1.13; CPG4: 82.6% vs. 72.4% - aRR 1.09, 95% CI 1.08-1.10; CPG5: 78.2% vs. 71.7% - aRR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04-1.07) CONCLUSIONS: Treatment rates were higher in the US compared to England raising potential over-treatment concerns for low-risk disease (CPG1) in the US and under-treatment of clinically significant disease (CPG3-5) in England.

Maintaining bone health by estrogen therapy in patients with advanced prostate cancer: a narrative review.

The purpose of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in prostate cancer (PCa), using luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists (LHRHa) or gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists, is to suppress the levels of testosterone. Since testosterone is the precursor of estradiol (E2), one of the major undesired effects of ADT is the concomitant loss of E2, causing among others an increased bone turnover and bone loss and an increased risk of osteoporosis and fractures. Therefore, the guidelines for ADT indicate to combine ADT routinely with bone-sparing agents such as bisphosphonates, denosumab or selective estrogen receptor modulators. However, these compounds may have side effects and some require inconvenient parenteral administration. Co-treatment with estrogens is an alternative approach to prevent bone loss and at the same time, to avoid other side effects caused by the loss of estrogens, which is the topic explored in the present narrative review. Estrogens investigated in PCa patients include parenteral or transdermal E2, diethylstilbestrol (DES), and ethinylestradiol (EE) as monotherapy, or high-dose estetrol (HDE4) combined with ADT. Cardiovascular adverse events have been reported with parenteral E2, DES and EE. Encouraging effects on bone parameters have been obtained with transdermal E2 (tE2) and HDE4, in the tE2 development program (PATCH study), and in the LHRHa/HDE4 co-treatment study (PCombi), respectively. Confirmation of the beneficial effects of estrogen therapy with tE2 or HDE4 on bone health in patients with advanced PCa is needed, with special emphasis on bone mass and fracture rate.

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.

Patient-reported outcomes with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Results of this double-blind, phase 2 trial showed patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer given olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone had significantly improved progression-free survival. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of pain and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial was conducted across 41 urological oncology sites in 11 countries in Europe and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and had previously received docetaxel and up to one additional line of previous chemotherapy. Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was defined as increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration or other signs of disease progression despite androgen-deprivation therapy and serum testosterone concentrations at castrate levels (≤50 ng/dL), and with at least one metastatic lesion on bone scan, CT, or MRI. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral olaparib (300 mg twice per day) plus oral abiraterone (1000 mg once a day) and oral prednisone or prednisolone (5 mg twice a day) or placebo plus abiraterone (1000 mg once a day) and prednisone or prednisolone (5 mg twice a day). Randomisation was done without stratification and by use of an interactive voice or web response system. A randomised treatment kit ID number was assigned sequentially to each patient as they became eligible. The primary endpoint (radiographic progression-free survival) has previously been reported. HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory patient-reported outcome. Patients were asked to complete the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF), single-item worst bone pain, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire, and EuroQol-5 five-dimension five level (EQ-5D-5L) assessment at baseline, at weeks 4, 8, and 12, then every 12 weeks until treatment discontinuation. Prespecified outcomes were change from baseline in BPI-SF worst pain, single-item worst bone pain and FACT-P Total Outcome Index (TOI) scale scores, time to deterioration in BPI-SF worst pain and worst bone pain, and assessment of the EQ-5D-5L pain and discomfort domain. All analyses were exploratory and done in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned patients, including patients who were randomly assigned but did not subsequently go on to receive study treatment), with the exception of mean baseline and total change from baseline analyses, for which we used the population who had a valid baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01972217, and is no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Nov 25, 2014, and July 14, 2015, 171 patients were assessed for eligibility. 29 patients were excluded, and 142 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive olaparib and abiraterone (n=71) or placebo and abiraterone (n=71). Data cutoff was Sept 22, 2017. Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 8·1-25·5) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and 24·5 months (8·1-27·6) in the placebo plus abiraterone group. Questionnaire compliance was generally high (43-100%). Least-squares mean changes from baseline in BPI-SF worst pain, single-item worst bone pain, and FACT-P TOI remained stable across all visits for patients in both treatment groups. Adjusted mean change in FACT-P TOI from baseline across all visits was -0·10 (95% CI -2·50 to 2·71) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and -1·20 (-4·15 to 1·74) in the placebo plus abiraterone group (difference 1·30, 95% CI -2·70 to 5·30; p=0·52). Time to deterioration in pain was similar in both groups (BPI-SF worst pain HR 0·90 [95% CI 0·62-1·32], p=0·30; worst bone pain HR 0·85 [0·59-1·22], p=0·18). Improvement rates in the pain and discomfort domain of the EQ-5D-5L were similar in both groups from baseline to week 48, beyond which a higher proportion of patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm reported an improvement compared to the placebo plus abiraterone group. INTERPRETATION: In these prespecified exploratory analyses, there was no significant difference in pain or HRQOL when olaparib was added to abiraterone. In this phase 2 trial, a statistically significant radiographic progression-free survival benefit was observed with the olaparib plus abiraterone combination. These results suggest that the improved survival benefits observed when combining olaparib with abiraterone does not result in different HRQOL compared with placebo plus abiraterone. Phase 3 studies are required to validate these results. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.