Timing of radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy (RP): long-term outcomes in the RADICALS-RT trial (NCT00541047).

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer has been uncertain. RADICALS-RT compared efficacy and safety of adjuvant RT versus an observation policy with salvage RT for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: RADICALS-RT was a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with ≥1 risk factor (pT3/4, Gleason 7-10, positive margins, preoperative PSA≥10 ng/ml) for recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Patients were randomised 1:1 to adjuvant RT ('Adjuvant-RT') or an observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure ('Salvage-RT') defined as PSA≥0.1 ng/ml or three consecutive rises. Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned RT schedule (52.5 Gy/20 fractions or 66 Gy/33 fractions) and treatment centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom-from-distant-metastasis (FFDM), designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with Salvage-RT (control) to 95% at 10 years with Adjuvant-RT. Secondary outcome measures were biochemical progression-free survival, freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy, safety and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used; hazard ratio (HR)<1 favours Adjuvant-RT. RESULTS: Between October 2007 and December 2016, 1396 participants from UK, Denmark, Canada and Ireland were randomised: 699 Salvage-RT, 697 Adjuvant-RT. Allocated groups were balanced with a median age of 65 years. Ninety-three percent (649/697) Adjuvant-RT reported RT within 6 months after randomisation; 39% (270/699) Salvage-RT reported RT during follow-up. Median follow-up was 7.8 years. With 80 distant metastasis events, 10-year FFDM was 93% for Adjuvant-RT and 90% for Salvage-RT: HR=0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-1.07, P=0.095]. Of 109 deaths, 17 were due to prostate cancer. Overall survival was not improved (HR=0.980, 95% CI 0.667-1.440, P=0.917). Adjuvant-RT reported worse urinary and faecal incontinence 1 year after randomisation (P=0.001); faecal incontinence remained significant after 10 years (P=0.017). CONCLUSION: Long-term results from RADICALS-RT confirm adjuvant RT after radical prostatectomy increases the risk of urinary and bowel morbidity, but does not meaningfully improve disease control. An observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy. TRIAL IDENTIFICATION: RADICALS, RADICALS-RT, ISRCTN40814031, NCT00541047.

Anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity in patients with early-stage breast cancer: the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) MA.21 experience.

PURPOSE: Anthracyclines are frequently used in adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer (ESBC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate cardiotoxic effects in the first five years after treatment with different anthracycline-based regimens. METHODS: CCTG MA.21 (NCT000142) was a phase III trial in ESBC that compared cyclophosphamide (75 mg/m2) orally for 14 days, epirubicin (60 mg/m2) and fluorouracil, IV days one and eight (CEF) for six cycles; dose-dense epirubicin (120 mg/m2) and cyclophosphamide, IV every 2 weeks for six cycles with concurrent G-CSF then paclitaxel every 2 weeks for four cycles (ddEC/T); doxorubicin (60 mg/m2) and cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m2) every 3 weeks for four cycles then four cycles q3 weekly paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) (AC/T). ENDPOINTS: LVEF decline; LV function changes (heart failure), or Grade 3-4 cardiac ischemia/infarction. A competing risk analysis was performed with endpoints of cardiotoxicity or recurrence in first 5 years after completion of chemotherapy. RESULTS: 2104 women were randomized. Compliance with cardiac LVEF assessments was 70% at 5 years in all arms. The 5-year cumulative risks of any cardiac event for CEF, ddECT, and AC/T were 22.3% (95%CI 18.9 to 25.7), 14.2% (95%CI 11.0 to 17.3), and 8.1% (95%CI 5.8 to 10.4), respectively, p < 0.0001. At 5 years, women in the ddEC/T and AC/T group had significantly lower risk of cardiotoxicity than those given CEF (HR 0.599 and 0.371, respectively). Most events were asymptomatic drop in LVEF. CONCLUSIONS: Asymptomatic changes in LVEF accounted for most of the cardiotoxicity. The majority of cardiac events occurred in year one although occurrence of cardiotoxicity over time highlights the need for improved risk stratification to guide cardiac surveillance strategies.

Randomised Phase II Feasibility Trial of Image-guided External Beam Radiotherapy With or Without High Dose Rate Brachytherapy Boost in Men with Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer (CCTG PR15/ NCT01982786).

AIMS: We conducted a multicentre feasibility study to assess the ability to randomise patients between image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) and IGRT + high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy boost and to adhere to appropriate radiation quality assurance standards. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The primary end point was to determine the ability to randomise 60 patients over an 18 month period. Arm 1 (IGRT) patients received 78 Gy in 39 fractions or 60 Gy in 20 fractions (physician's preference), whereas arm 2 (IGRT + HDR) received 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions with HDR boost of 15 Gy. The secondary end points included >grade 3 acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 at 3 months, validation of a prospectively defined radiation oncology quality assurance to assess treatment compliance. All analyses were descriptive; no formal comparisons between treatment arms were carried out. RESULTS: Between April 2014 and September 2015, 57 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-defined intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients were randomised between IGRT alone (arm 1; n = 29) and IGRT plus HDR brachytherapy boost (arm 2; n = 28). Overall, 93% received the treatment as randomised. There were four patients (one on IGRT arm 1 and three patients on the IGRT + HDR arm 2) who were treated differently from randomisation assignment. For the 29 patients receiving IGRT (arm 1), there were 14 cases reported with minor deviations and three with major deviations. For patients on IGRT + HDR (arm 2), there were 18 cases reported with minor deviations and two with major deviations. At 3 months in the IGRT group (arm 1), one patient reported grade 3 diarrhoea, whereas in the IGRT + HDR group (arm 2), two patients reported grade 3 haematuria. No other gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities were reported. CONCLUSION: The pilot study showed the feasibility of randomisation between treatment with IGRT alone versus IGRT + HDR boost. Treatment compliance was good, including adherence to quality assurance standards.

Outcomes in women with invasive ductal or invasive lobular early stage breast cancer treated with anastrozole or exemestane in CCTG (NCIC CTG) MA.27.

BACKGROUND: Histological subtype, (invasive ductal breast cancer (IDBC)/invasive lobular breast cancer (ILBC)), might be a marker for differential response to endocrine therapy in breast cancer. METHODS: Clinical trial MA.27 compared 5 years of adjuvant anastrozole or exemestane in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor positive early breast cancer. We evaluated IDBC versus ILBC (based on original pathology reports) as predictor for event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 5709 patients (5021 with IDBC and 688 with ILBC) were included (1876 were excluded because of missing or other histological subtype). Median follow-up was 4.1 years. Overall, histological subtype did not influence OS or EFS (HR (hazard ratio) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.79-1.63], P = 0.49 and HR 1.04, 95% CI [0.77-1.41], P = 0.81, respectively). There was no significant difference in OS between treatment with exemestane versus treatment with anastrozole in the IDBC group (HR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.73-1.16], P = 0.46). In the ILBC group, a marginally significant difference in favour of treatment with anastrozole was seen (HR = 1.79, 95% CI [0.98-3.27], P = 0.055). In multivariable analysis a prognostic effect of the interaction between treatment and histological subtype on OS (but not on EFS) was noted, suggesting a better outcome for patients with ILBC on anastrozole (HR 2.1, 95% CI [0.99-4.29], P = 0.05). After stepwise selection in the multivariable model, a marginally significant prognostic effect for the interaction variable (treatment with histological subtype) on OS (but not on EFS) was noted (Ratio of HR 2.1, 95% CI [1.00-4.31], P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest an interaction effect between treatment and histology (P = 0.05) on OS. Here, patients with ILBC cancers had a better OS when treated with anastrozole versus exemestane, whereas no difference was noted for patients with IDBC. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: NCT00066573.

OV21/PETROC: a randomized Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup phase II study of intraperitoneal versus intravenous chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and optimal debulking surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Background: The purpose of this multistage, adaptively, designed randomized phase II study was to evaluate the role of intraperitoneal (i.p.) chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and optimal debulking surgery in women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Patients and methods: We carried out a multicenter, two-stage, phase II trial. Eligible patients with stage IIB-IVA EOC treated with platinum-based intravenous (i.v.) NACT followed by optimal (<1 cm) debulking surgery were randomized to one of the three treatment arms: (i) i.v. carboplatin/paclitaxel, (ii) i.p. cisplatin plus i.v./i.p. paclitaxel, or (iii) i.p. carboplatin plus i.v./i.p. paclitaxel. The primary end point was 9-month progressive disease rate (PD9). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). Results: Between 2009 and 2015, 275 patients were randomized; i.p. cisplatin containing arm did not progress beyond the first stage of the study after failing to meet the pre-set superiority rule. The final analysis compared i.v. carboplatin/paclitaxel (n = 101) with i.p. carboplatin, i.v./i.p. paclitaxel (n = 102). The intention to treat PD9 was lower in the i.p. carboplatin arm compared with the i.v. carboplatin arm: 24.5% (95% CI 16.2% to 32.9%) versus 38.6% (95% CI 29.1% to 48.1%) P = 0.065. The study was underpowered to detect differences in PFS: HR PFS 0.82 (95% CI 0.57-1.17); P = 0.27 and OS HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.47-1.35) P = 0.40. The i.p. carboplatin-based regimen was well tolerated with no reduction in QOL or increase in toxicity compared with i.v. administration alone. Conclusion: In women with stage IIIC or IVA EOC treated with NACT and optimal debulking surgery, i.p. carboplatin-based chemotherapy is well tolerated and associated with an improved PD9 compared with i.v. carboplatin-based chemotherapy. Clinical trial number: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01622543.

Impact of baseline BMI and weight change in CCTG adjuvant breast cancer trials.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that increased baseline BMI and BMI change would negatively impact clinical outcomes with adjuvant breast cancer systemic therapy. METHODS: Data from chemotherapy trials MA.5 and MA.21; endocrine therapy MA.12, MA.14 and MA.27; and trastuzumab HERA/MA.24 were analyzed. The primary objective was to examine the effect of BMI change on breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) landmarked at 5 years; secondary objectives included BMI changes at 1 and 3 years; BMI changes on disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS); and effects of baseline BMI. Stratified analyses included trial therapy and composite trial stratification factors. RESULTS: In pre-/peri-/early post-menopausal chemotherapy trials (N = 2793), baseline BMI did not impact any endpoint and increased BMI from baseline did not significantly affect BCFI (P = 0.85) after 5 years although it was associated with worse BCFI (P = 0.03) and DSS (P = 0.07) after 1 year. BMI increase by 3 and 5 years was associated with better DSS (P = 0.01; 0.01) and OS (P = 0.003; 0.05). In pre-menopausal endocrine therapy trial MA.12 (N = 672), patients with higher baseline BMI had worse BCFI (P = 0.02) after 1 year, worse DSS (P = 0.05; 0.004) after 1 and 5 years and worse OS (P = 0.01) after 5 years. Increased BMI did not impact BCFI (P = 0.90) after 5 years, although it was associated with worse BCFI (P = 0.01) after 1 year. In post-menopausal endocrine therapy trials MA.14 and MA.27 (N = 8236), baseline BMI did not significantly impact outcome for any endpoint. BMI change did not impact BCFI or DSS after 1 or 3 years, although a mean increased BMI of 0.3 was associated with better OS (P = 0.02) after 1 year. With the administration of trastuzumab (N = 1395) baseline BMI and BMI change did not significantly impact outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Higher baseline BMI and BMI increases negatively affected outcomes only in pre-/peri-/early post-menopausal trial patients. Otherwise, BMI increases similar to those expected in healthy women either did not impact outcome or were associated with better outcomes. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBERS: CAN-NCIC-MA5; National Cancer Institute (NCI)-V90-0027; MA.12-NCT00002542; MA.14-NCT00002864; MA.21-NCT00014222; HERA, NCT00045032;CAN-NCIC-MA24; MA-27-NCT00066573.

Assessing the benefit-risk of new treatments using generalised pairwise comparisons: the case of erlotinib in pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Efficacy and safety are the two considerations when characterising the effects of a new therapy. We sought to apply an innovative method of assessing the benefit-risk balance using data from a completed randomised controlled trial that compared erlotinib vs placebo added to gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (NCIC CTG PA.3). METHODS: We applied generalised pairwise comparisons with several prioritised outcome measures (e.g., one or more benefit outcomes and one or more risk outcomes). Here, the first priority outcome was overall survival (OS) time. Differences in OS that exceeded 2 months were considered clinically meaningful. The second priority outcome was toxicity. The overall treatment effect was quantified using the proportion in favour of erlotinib, which can be interpreted as the net proportion of patients who have a better overall outcome with erlotinib as compared with placebo. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: In this trial 569 patients were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive gemcitabine plus either erlotinib or a matched placebo. Overall, the method indicated no statistically significant overall treatment effect in favour of erlotinib; if anything, the point estimate of the net proportion leaned in favour of the placebo group (overall proportion in favour of erlotinib=-3.6%, 95% CI, -14.2- 7.1%; P=0.51). The net proportion was never in favour of the erlotinib group throughout all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Generalised pairwise comparisons make it possible to assess the benefit-risk balance of new treatments using a single statistical test for any number of prioritised outcomes. The benefit-risk assessment was not in favour of adding erlotinib to gemcitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

Defining the optimal treatment strategy for localized prostate cancer patients: a survey of ongoing studies at the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

The designation "clinically localized prostate cancer" comprises a group of biologically heterogeneous tumours with different growth rates and risks of relapse. Because prostate cancer is primarily a disease of older men, treatment selection must take into account the prognosis of the tumour, patient age, comorbidities, side effects of treatment, and patient preferences. Clinical trials must identify the various prognostic groups and test the appropriate treatment strategies within these subgroups.