Acute Toxicity of Hypofractionated and Conventionally Fractionated (Chemo)Radiotherapy Regimens for Bladder Cancer: An Exploratory Analysis from the RAIDER Trial.

AIMS: Adding concurrent (chemo)therapy to radiotherapy improves outcomes for muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients. A recent meta-analysis showed superior invasive locoregional disease control for a hypofractionated 55 Gy in 20 fractions schedule compared with 64 Gy in 32 fractions. In the RAIDER clinical trial, patients undergoing 20 or 32 fractions of radical radiotherapy were randomised (1:1:2) to standard radiotherapy or to standard-dose or escalated-dose adaptive radiotherapy. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and concomitant therapy were permitted. We report exploratory analyses of acute toxicity by concomitant therapy-fractionation schedule combination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants had unifocal bladder urothelial carcinoma staged T2-T4a N0 M0. Acute toxicity was assessed (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) weekly during radiotherapy and at 10 weeks after the start of treatment. Within each fractionation cohort, non-randomised comparisons of the proportion of patients reporting treatment emergent grade 2 or worse genitourinary, gastrointestinal or other adverse events at any point in the acute period were carried out using Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Between September 2015 and April 2020, 345 (163 receiving 20 fractions; 182 receiving 32 fractions) patients were recruited from 46 centres. The median age was 73 years; 49% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy; 71% received concomitant therapy, with 5-fluorouracil/mitomycin C most commonly used: 44/114 (39%) receiving 20 fractions; 94/130 (72%) receiving 32 fractions. The acute grade 2+ gastrointestinal toxicity rate was higher in those receiving concomitant therapy compared with radiotherapy alone in the 20-fraction cohort [54/111 (49%) versus 7/49 (14%), P < 0.001] but not in the 32-fraction cohort (P = 0.355). Grade 2+ gastrointestinal toxicity was highest for gemcitabine, with evidence of significant differences across therapies in the 32-fraction cohort (P = 0.006), with a similar pattern but no significant differences in the 20-fraction cohort (P = 0.099). There was no evidence of differences in grade 2+ genitourinary toxicity between concomitant therapies in either the 20- or 32-fraction cohorts. CONCLUSION: Grade 2+ acute adverse events are common. The toxicity profile varied by type of concomitant therapy; the gastrointestinal toxicity rate seemed to be higher in patients receiving gemcitabine.

Addition of docetaxel to hormonal therapy in low- and high-burden metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer: long-term survival results from the STAMPEDE trial.

BACKGROUND: STAMPEDE has previously reported that the use of upfront docetaxel improved overall survival (OS) for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report on long-term outcomes stratified by metastatic burden for M1 patients. METHODS: We randomly allocated patients in 2 : 1 ratio to standard-of-care (SOC; control group) or SOC + docetaxel. Metastatic disease burden was categorised using retrospectively-collected baseline staging scans where available. Analysis used Cox regression models, adjusted for stratification factors, with emphasis on restricted mean survival time where hazards were non-proportional. RESULTS: Between 05 October 2005 and 31 March 2013, 1086 M1 patients were randomised to receive SOC (n = 724) or SOC + docetaxel (n = 362). Metastatic burden was assessable for 830/1086 (76%) patients; 362 (44%) had low and 468 (56%) high metastatic burden. Median follow-up was 78.2 months. There were 494 deaths on SOC (41% more than the previous report). There was good evidence of benefit of docetaxel over SOC on OS (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.95, P = 0.009) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P = 0.827). Analysis of other outcomes found evidence of benefit for docetaxel over SOC in failure-free survival (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.57-0.76, P < 0.001) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.59-0.81, P < 0.001) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P > 0.5 in each case). There was no evidence that docetaxel resulted in late toxicity compared with SOC: after 1 year, G3-5 toxicity was reported for 28% SOC and 27% docetaxel (in patients still on follow-up at 1 year without prior progression). CONCLUSIONS: The clinically significant benefit in survival for upfront docetaxel persists at longer follow-up, with no evidence that benefit differed by metastatic burden. We advocate that upfront docetaxel is considered for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients regardless of metastatic burden.

Adding abiraterone or docetaxel to long-term hormone therapy for prostate cancer: directly randomised data from the STAMPEDE multi-arm, multi-stage platform protocol.

Background: Adding abiraterone acetate with prednisolone (AAP) or docetaxel with prednisolone (DocP) to standard-of-care (SOC) each improved survival in systemic therapy for advanced or metastatic prostate cancer: evaluation of drug efficacy: a multi-arm multi-stage platform randomised controlled protocol recruiting patients with high-risk locally advanced or metastatic PCa starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). The protocol provides the only direct, randomised comparative data of SOC + AAP versus SOC + DocP. Method: Recruitment to SOC + DocP and SOC + AAP overlapped November 2011 to March 2013. SOC was long-term ADT or, for most non-metastatic cases, ADT for ≥2 years and RT to the primary tumour. Stratified randomisation allocated pts 2 : 1 : 2 to SOC; SOC + docetaxel 75 mg/m2 3-weekly×6 + prednisolone 10 mg daily; or SOC + abiraterone acetate 1000 mg + prednisolone 5 mg daily. AAP duration depended on stage and intent to give radical RT. The primary outcome measure was death from any cause. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, adjusted for stratification factors. This was not a formally powered comparison. A hazard ratio (HR) <1 favours SOC + AAP, and HR > 1 favours SOC + DocP. Results: A total of 566 consenting patients were contemporaneously randomised: 189 SOC + DocP and 377 SOC + AAP. The patients, balanced by allocated treatment were: 342 (60%) M1; 429 (76%) Gleason 8-10; 449 (79%) WHO performance status 0; median age 66 years and median PSA 56 ng/ml. With median follow-up 4 years, 149 deaths were reported. For overall survival, HR = 1.16 (95% CI 0.82-1.65); failure-free survival HR = 0.51 (95% CI 0.39-0.67); progression-free survival HR = 0.65 (95% CI 0.48-0.88); metastasis-free survival HR = 0.77 (95% CI 0.57-1.03); prostate cancer-specific survival HR = 1.02 (0.70-1.49); and symptomatic skeletal events HR = 0.83 (95% CI 0.55-1.25). In the safety population, the proportion reporting ≥1 grade 3, 4 or 5 adverse events ever was 36%, 13% and 1% SOC + DocP, and 40%, 7% and 1% SOC + AAP; prevalence 11% at 1 and 2 years on both arms. Relapse treatment patterns varied by arm. Conclusions: This direct, randomised comparative analysis of two new treatment standards for hormone-naïve prostate cancer showed no evidence of a difference in overall or prostate cancer-specific survival, nor in other important outcomes such as symptomatic skeletal events. Worst toxicity grade over entire time on trial was similar but comprised different toxicities in line with the known properties of the drugs. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00268476.