Systemic anticancer therapy for urothelial carcinoma: UK oncologists' perspective.

Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is a common cancer associated with a poor prognosis in patients with advanced disease. Platinum-based chemotherapy has remained the cornerstone of systemic anticancer treatment for many years, and recent developments in the treatment landscape have improved outcomes. In this review, we provide an overview of systemic treatment for UC, including clinical data supporting the current standard of care at each point in the treatment pathway and author interpretations from a UK perspective. Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy is recommended for eligible patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer and is preferable to adjuvant treatment. For first-line treatment of advanced UC, platinum-eligible patients should receive cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy, followed by avelumab maintenance in those without disease progression. Among patients unable to receive platinum-based chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment is an option for those with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumours. Second-line or later treatment options depend on prior treatment, and enfortumab vedotin is preferred after prior ICI and chemotherapy, although availability varies between countries. Additional options include rechallenge with platinum-based chemotherapy, an ICI, or non-platinum-based chemotherapy. Areas of uncertainty include the optimal number of first-line chemotherapy cycles for advanced UC and the value of PD-L1 testing for UC.

Talazoparib plus enzalutamide in men with first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (TALAPRO-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Co-inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) and androgen receptor activity might result in antitumour efficacy irrespective of alterations in DNA damage repair genes involved in homologous recombination repair (HRR). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of talazoparib (a PARP inhibitor) plus enzalutamide (an androgen receptor blocker) versus enzalutamide alone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: TALAPRO-2 is a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial of talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide as first-line therapy in men (age ≥18 years [≥20 years in Japan]) with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic mCRPC receiving ongoing androgen deprivation therapy. Patients were enrolled from 223 hospitals, cancer centres, and medical centres in 26 countries in North America, Europe, Israel, South America, South Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region. Patients were prospectively assessed for HRR gene alterations in tumour tissue and randomly assigned (1:1) to talazoparib 0·5 mg or placebo, plus enzalutamide 160 mg, administered orally once daily. Randomisation was stratified by HRR gene alteration status (deficient vs non-deficient or unknown) and previous treatment with life-prolonging therapy (docetaxel or abiraterone, or both: yes vs no) in the castration-sensitive setting. The sponsor, patients, and investigators were masked to talazoparib or placebo, while enzalutamide was open-label. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) by blinded independent central review, evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03395197) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2019, and Sept 17, 2020, 805 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (402 to the talazoparib group and 403 to the placebo group). Median follow-up for rPFS was 24·9 months (IQR 21·9-30·2) for the talazoparib group and 24·6 months (14·4-30·2) for the placebo group. At the planned primary analysis, median rPFS was not reached (95% CI 27·5 months-not reached) for talazoparib plus enzalutamide and 21·9 months (16·6-25·1) for placebo plus enzalutamide (hazard ratio 0·63; 95% CI 0·51-0·78; p<0·0001). In the talazoparib group, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia, neutropenia, and fatigue; the most common grade 3-4 event was anaemia (185 [46%] of 398 patients), which improved after dose reduction, and only 33 (8%) of 398 patients discontinued talazoparib due to anaemia. Treatment-related deaths occurred in no patients in the talazoparib group and two patients (<1%) in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Talazoparib plus enzalutamide resulted in clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in rPFS versus standard of care enzalutamide as first-line treatment for patients with mCRPC. Final overall survival data and additional long-term safety follow-up will further clarify the clinical benefit of the treatment combination in patients with and without tumour HRR gene alterations. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Plain language summary of the results from the TALAPRO-2 study: Talazoparib plus enzalutamide versus placebo plus enzalutamide for patients with advanced prostate cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This summary describes the results from the TALAPRO-2 research study (also known as a clinical trial). The TALAPRO-2 study tested the combination of two medicines called talazoparib plus enzalutamide. This combination of medicines was used as the first treatment for adult patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The combination of talazoparib plus enzalutamide was compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide. WHAT IS METASTATIC CASTRATION-RESISTANT PROSTATE CANCER?: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is a type of cancer that starts in the prostate and has spread to other parts of the body. Castration-resistant means that the cancer continues to grow even when testosterone levels in the blood are reduced to very low levels. Taking medicines to lower testosterone levels in the blood is a standard treatment for men with advanced prostate cancer. WHAT ARE THE AIMS OF THE TALAPRO-2 TRIAL?: TALAPRO-2 looked at if combining talazoparib plus enzalutamide would increase the length of time patients lived before their cancer got worse or they died compared with a placebo plus enzalutamide. Researchers looked at how treatment affected the size and number of tumors and the length of time before patients needed to change to a new cancer medicine. Researchers also looked at any side effects patients had during the study. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: A total of 805 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer took part in the study. Compared with patients who took a placebo plus enzalutamide, the group of patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide had a 37% reduced risk of their cancer getting worse or dying. Some patients had tumors that at the start of the study could be measured with scans. Sixty-two percent of patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide had their tumors decrease or shrink to the point that they could no longer be seen on scans versus 44% of patients who took a placebo plus enzalutamide. Patients who took talazoparib plus enzalutamide were more likely to have a longer time before they needed to change to a new cancer medicine. The most common side effects of talazoparib plus enzalutamide were low levels of red blood cells (66% of patients) and neutrophils (36% of patients), and excessive tiredness or exhaustion (34% of patients).Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03395197 (TALAPRO-2) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

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.

Abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of primary results from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol.

BACKGROUND: Men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer are treated with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for 3 years, often combined with radiotherapy. We analysed new data from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials done in a multiarm, multistage platform protocol to assess the efficacy of adding abiraterone and prednisolone alone or with enzalutamide to ADT in this patient population. METHODS: These open-label, phase 3 trials were done at 113 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restrictions) had high-risk (defined as node positive or, if node negative, having at least two of the following: tumour stage T3 or T4, Gleason sum score of 8-10, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] concentration ≥40 ng/mL) or relapsing with high-risk features (≤12 months of total ADT with an interval of ≥12 months without treatment and PSA concentration ≥4 ng/mL with a doubling time of <6 months, or a PSA concentration ≥20 ng/mL, or nodal relapse) non-metastatic prostate cancer, and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Local radiotherapy (as per local guidelines, 74 Gy in 37 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles or the equivalent using hypofractionated schedules) was mandated for node negative and encouraged for node positive disease. In both trials, patients were randomly assigned (1:1), by use of a computerised algorithm, to ADT alone (control group), which could include surgery and luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists, or with oral abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and oral prednisolone (5 mg daily; combination-therapy group). In the second trial with no overlapping controls, the combination-therapy group also received enzalutamide (160 mg daily orally). ADT was given for 3 years and combination therapy for 2 years, except if local radiotherapy was omitted when treatment could be delivered until progression. In this primary analysis, we used meta-analysis methods to pool events from both trials. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was metastasis-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, biochemical failure-free survival, progression-free survival, and toxicity and adverse events. For 90% power and a one-sided type 1 error rate set to 1·25% to detect a target hazard ratio for improvement in metastasis-free survival of 0·75, approximately 315 metastasis-free survival events in the control groups was required. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety according to the treatment started within randomised allocation. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00268476, and with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN78818544. FINDINGS: Between Nov 15, 2011, and March 31, 2016, 1974 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The first trial allocated 455 to the control group and 459 to combination therapy, and the second trial, which included enzalutamide, allocated 533 to the control group and 527 to combination therapy. Median age across all groups was 68 years (IQR 63-73) and median PSA 34 ng/ml (14·7-47); 774 (39%) of 1974 patients were node positive, and 1684 (85%) were planned to receive radiotherapy. With median follow-up of 72 months (60-84), there were 180 metastasis-free survival events in the combination-therapy groups and 306 in the control groups. Metastasis-free survival was significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups (median not reached, IQR not evaluable [NE]-NE) than in the control groups (not reached, 97-NE; hazard ratio [HR] 0·53, 95% CI 0·44-0·64, p<0·0001). 6-year metastasis-free survival was 82% (95% CI 79-85) in the combination-therapy group and 69% (66-72) in the control group. There was no evidence of a difference in metatasis-free survival when enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate were administered concurrently compared with abiraterone acetate alone (interaction HR 1·02, 0·70-1·50, p=0·91) and no evidence of between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·90). Overall survival (median not reached [IQR NE-NE] in the combination-therapy groups vs not reached [103-NE] in the control groups; HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·48-0·73, p<0·0001), prostate cancer-specific survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [NE-NE]; 0·49, 0·37-0·65, p<0·0001), biochemical failure-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs 86 months [83-NE]; 0·39, 0·33-0·47, p<0·0001), and progression-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [103-NE]; 0·44, 0·36-0·54, p<0·0001) were also significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups than in the control groups. Adverse events grade 3 or higher during the first 24 months were, respectively, reported in 169 (37%) of 451 patients and 130 (29%) of 455 patients in the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone trial, respectively, and 298 (58%) of 513 patients and 172 (32%) of 533 patients of the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, respectively. The two most common events more frequent in the combination-therapy groups were hypertension (abiraterone trial: 23 (5%) in the combination-therapy group and six (1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 73 (14%) and eight (2%), respectively) and alanine transaminitis (abiraterone trial: 25 (6%) in the combination-therapy group and one (<1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 69 (13%) and four (1%), respectively). Seven grade 5 adverse events were reported: none in the control groups, three in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone group (one event each of rectal adenocarcinoma, pulmonary haemorrhage, and a respiratory disorder), and four in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with enzalutamide group (two events each of septic shock and sudden death). INTERPRETATION: Among men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer, combination therapy is associated with significantly higher rates of metastasis-free survival compared with ADT alone. Abiraterone acetate with prednisolone should be considered a new standard treatment for this population. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.

The 'other' big complication: how chronic kidney disease impacts on cancer risks and outcomes.

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) after cardiovascular disease. The incidence of CKD in patients with cancer is higher than in the non-cancer population. Across various populations, CKD is associated with an elevated risk of cancer incidence and cancer death compared with people without CKD, although the risks are cancer site-specific. Higher risk of cancer is detectable in mild CKD [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 60-89 mL/min/1.73 m2], although this risk is more obvious if sensitive markers of kidney disease are used, such as cystatin C. Independent of eGFR, albuminuria is associated with increased risk of site-specific cancer incidence and death. Here, we explore the potential mechanisms for the increased risk of cancer observed in CKD, including patient factors (shared risks such as cardiometabolic disease, obesity, smoking, diet, lifestyle and environment), disease (genetic, inflammatory and infective) and treatment factors. In particular, we discuss the ways in which renal adverse events associated with conventional chemotherapies and newer systemic anti-cancer therapies (including targeted and immunotherapies) may contribute to worse cancer outcomes in people with CKD. Finally, we review the potential benefits of acknowledging increased risk of cancer in risk prediction tools used for the management of CKD.

Addition of nintedanib or placebo to neoadjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin in locally advanced muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NEOBLADE): a double-blind, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence is common after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. We investigated the effect of adding nintedanib to neoadjuvant chemotherapy on response and survival in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. METHODS: NEOBLADE was a parallel-arm, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial of neoadjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy with nintedanib or placebo in locally advanced muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, were recruited from 15 hospitals in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to nintedanib or placebo using permuted blocks with random block sizes of two or four, stratified by centre and glomerular filtration rate. Treatments were allocated using an interactive web-based system, and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation throughout the study. Patients received oral nintedanib (150 mg or 200 mg twice daily for 12 weeks) or placebo, in addition to usual neoadjuvant chemotherapy with intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and intravenous cisplatin 70 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 3-weekly cycle. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response rate, assessed at cystectomy or at day 8 of cyclde 3 (plus or minus 7 days) if cystectomy did not occur. Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with EudraCT, 2012-004895-01, and ISRCTN, 56349930, and has completed planned recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Dec 4, 2014, and Sept 3, 2018, 120 patients were recruited and were randomly allocated to receive nintedanib (n=57) or placebo (n=63). The median follow-up for the study was 33·5 months (IQR 14·0-44·0). Pathological complete response in the intention-to-treat population was reached in 21 (37%) of 57 patients in the nintedanib group and 20 (32%) of 63 in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR] 1·25, 70% CI 0·84-1·87; p=0·28). Grade 3 or worse toxicities were observed in 53 (93%) of 57 participants who received nintedanib and 50 (79%) of 63 patients in the placebo group (OR 1·65, 95% CI 0·74-3·65; p=0·24). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were thromboembolic events (17 [30%] of 57 patients in the nintedanib group vs 13 [21%] of 63 patients in the placebo group [OR 1·63, 95% CI 0·71-3·76; p=0·29]) and decreased neutrophil count (22 [39%] in the nintedanib group vs seven [11%] in the placebo group [5·03, 1·95-13·00; p=0·0006]). 45 treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in the nintedanib group and 43 occurred in the placebo group. One treatment-related death occurred in the placebo group, which was due to myocardial infarction. INTERPRETATION: The addition of nintedanib to chemotherapy was safe but did not improve the rate of pathological complete response in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

A Phase II study of neoadjuvant axitinib for reducing the extent of venous tumour thrombus in clear cell renal cell cancer with venous invasion (NAXIVA).

BACKGROUND: Surgery for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with venous tumour thrombus (VTT) extension into the renal vein (RV) and/or inferior vena cava (IVC) has high peri-surgical morbidity/mortality. NAXIVA assessed the response of VTT to axitinib, a potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor. METHODS: NAXIVA was a single-arm, multi-centre, Phase 2 study. In total, 20 patients with resectable clear cell RCC and VTT received upto 8 weeks of pre-surgical axitinib. The primary endpoint was percentage of evaluable patients with VTT improvement by Mayo level on MRI. Secondary endpoints were percentage change in surgical approach and VTT length, response rate (RECISTv1.1) and surgical morbidity. RESULTS: In all, 35% (7/20) patients with VTT had a reduction in Mayo level with axitinib: 37.5% (6/16) with IVC VTT and 25% (1/4) with RV-only VTT. No patients had an increase in Mayo level. In total, 75% (15/20) of patients had a reduction in VTT length. Overall, 41.2% (7/17) of patients who underwent surgery had less invasive surgery than originally planned. Non-responders exhibited lower baseline microvessel density (CD31), higher Ki67 and exhausted or regulatory T-cell phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: NAXIVA provides the first Level II evidence that axitinib downstages VTT in a significant proportion of patients leading to reduction in the extent of surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03494816.

Evaluating cancer research impact: lessons and examples from existing reviews on approaches to research impact assessment.

BACKGROUND: Performing cancer research relies on substantial financial investment, and contributions in time and effort from patients. It is therefore important that this research has real life impacts which are properly evaluated. The optimal approach to cancer research impact evaluation is not clear. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review of review articles that describe approaches to impact assessment, and to identify examples of cancer research impact evaluation within these reviews. METHODS: In total, 11 publication databases and the grey literature were searched to identify review articles addressing the topic of approaches to research impact assessment. Information was extracted on methods for data collection and analysis, impact categories and frameworks used for the purposes of evaluation. Empirical examples of impact assessments of cancer research were identified from these literature reviews. Approaches used in these examples were appraised, with a reflection on which methods would be suited to cancer research  impact evaluation going forward. RESULTS: In total, 40 literature reviews were identified. Important methods to collect and analyse data for impact assessments were surveys, interviews and documentary analysis. Key categories of impact spanning the reviews were summarised, and a list of frameworks commonly used for impact assessment was generated. The Payback Framework was most often described. Fourteen examples of impact evaluation for cancer research were identified. They ranged from those assessing the impact of a national, charity-funded portfolio of cancer research to the clinical practice impact of a single trial. A set of recommendations for approaching cancer research impact assessment was generated. CONCLUSIONS: Impact evaluation can demonstrate if and why conducting cancer research  is worthwhile. Using a mixed methods, multi-category assessment organised within a framework, will provide a robust evaluation, but the ability to perform this type of assessment may be constrained by time and resources. Whichever approach is used, easily measured, but inappropriate metrics should be avoided. Going forward, dissemination of the results of cancer research impact assessments will allow the cancer research community to learn how to conduct these evaluations.

Spectrally pure single photons at telecommunications wavelengths using commercial birefringent optical fiber.

We report a bright and tunable source of spectrally pure heralded single photons in the telecom O-Band, based on cross-polarized four wave mixing in a commercial birefringent optical fiber. The source can achieve a purity of 85%, heralding efficiency of 30% and a coincidence-to-accidentals ratio of 108. Furthermore, through the measurements of joint spectral intensities, we find that the fiber is homogeneous over at least 45 centimeters and thus can potentially realize 4 sources that can produce identical quantum states of light. This paves the way for a cost-effective fiber-optic approach to implement multi-photon quantum optics experiments.

Use of record linkage to evaluate treatment outcomes and trial eligibility in a real-world metastatic prostate cancer population in Scotland.

PURPOSE: New treatments are introduced into standard care based on clinical trial results. However, it is not clear if these benefits are reflected in the broader population. This study analysed the clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, treated with abiraterone and enzalutamide, within the Scottish National Health Service. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using record linkage of routinely collected healthcare data (study period: February 2012 to February 2017). Overall survival (OS) was analysed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox Proportional Hazard models; a subgroup analysis comprised potentially trial-eligible patients. RESULTS: Overall, 271 patients were included and 73.8% died during the study period. Median OS was poorer than in the pivotal trials, regardless of medication and indication: 10.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.6-15.1) and 20.9 months (95% CI 14.9-29.0) for abiraterone, and 12.6 months (95% CI 10.5-18.2) and 16.0 months (95% CI 9.8-not reached) for enzalutamide, post and pre chemotherapy, respectively. Only 46% of patients were potentially "trial eligible" and in this subgroup OS improved. Factors influencing survival included baseline performance status, and baseline prostate-specific antigen, alkaline phosphatase, and albumin levels. CONCLUSIONS: Poorer prognostic features of non-trial eligible patients impact real-world outcomes of cancer medicines. Electronic record linkage of routinely collected healthcare data offers an opportunity to report outcomes on cancer medicines at scale and describe population demographics. The availability of such observational data to supplement clinical trial results enables patients and clinicians to make more informed treatment decisions, and policymakers to contextualise trial findings.

Radiotherapy to the primary tumour for newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Based on previous findings, we hypothesised that radiotherapy to the prostate would improve overall survival in men with metastatic prostate cancer, and that the benefit would be greatest in patients with a low metastatic burden. We aimed to compare standard of care for metastatic prostate cancer, with and without radiotherapy. METHODS: We did a randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 117 hospitals in Switzerland and the UK. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. We randomly allocated patients open-label in a 1:1 ratio to standard of care (control group) or standard of care and radiotherapy (radiotherapy group). Randomisation was stratified by hospital, age at randomisation, nodal involvement, WHO performance status, planned androgen deprivation therapy, planned docetaxel use (from December, 2015), and regular aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. Standard of care was lifelong androgen deprivation therapy, with up-front docetaxel permitted from December, 2015. Men allocated radiotherapy received either a daily (55 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks) or weekly (36 Gy in six fractions over 6 weeks) schedule that was nominated before randomisation. The primary outcome was overall survival, measured as the number of deaths; this analysis had 90% power with a one-sided α of 2·5% for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·75. Secondary outcomes were failure-free survival, progression-free survival, metastatic progression-free survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, and symptomatic local event-free survival. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, adjusted for stratification factors. The primary outcome analysis was by intention to treat. Two prespecified subgroup analyses tested the effects of prostate radiotherapy by baseline metastatic burden and radiotherapy schedule. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00268476. FINDINGS: Between Jan 22, 2013, and Sept 2, 2016, 2061 men underwent randomisation, 1029 were allocated the control and 1032 radiotherapy. Allocated groups were balanced, with a median age of 68 years (IQR 63-73) and median amount of prostate-specific antigen of 97 ng/mL (33-315). 367 (18%) patients received early docetaxel. 1082 (52%) participants nominated the daily radiotherapy schedule before randomisation and 979 (48%) the weekly schedule. 819 (40%) men had a low metastatic burden, 1120 (54%) had a high metastatic burden, and the metastatic burden was unknown for 122 (6%). Radiotherapy improved failure-free survival (HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·68-0·84; p<0·0001) but not overall survival (0·92, 0·80-1·06; p=0·266). Radiotherapy was well tolerated, with 48 (5%) adverse events (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 3-4) reported during radiotherapy and 37 (4%) after radiotherapy. The proportion reporting at least one severe adverse event (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or worse) was similar by treatment group in the safety population (398 [38%] with control and 380 [39%] with radiotherapy). INTERPRETATION: Radiotherapy to the prostate did not improve overall survival for unselected patients with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Astellas, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Real-world uptake, safety profile and outcomes of docetaxel in newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the uptake, safety and efficacy of docetaxel chemotherapy in hormone-naïve metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) in the first year of use outside of a clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients in the West of Scotland Cancer Network with newly diagnosed mPC were identified from the regional multidisciplinary team meetings and their treatment details were collected from electronic patient records. The rate of febrile neutropenia, hospitalisations, time to progression, and overall survival were compared between those patients who received docetaxel and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), or ADT alone using survival analysis. RESULTS: Of the 270 eligible patients, 103 received docetaxel (38.1%). 35 patients (34%) were hospitalised and there were 17 episodes of febrile neutropenia (16.5%). Two patients (1.9%) died within 30 days of chemotherapy. Patients who received ADT alone had an increased risk of progression (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27-3.25; log-rank test, P = 0.002) and had an increased risk of death (HR 5.88, 95% CI: 2.52-13.72; log-rank test, P = 0.001) compared to the docetaxel group. The risk of febrile neutropenia was nine-times greater if chemotherapy was started within 3 weeks of ADT initiation (95% CI: 1.22-77.72; P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: Docetaxel chemotherapy in hormone-naïve mPC has significant toxicities, but has a similar effect on time to progression and overall survival as seen in randomised trials. Chemotherapy should be started at ≥3 weeks after ADT.

ProCAID: a phase I clinical trial to combine the AKT inhibitor AZD5363 with docetaxel and prednisolone chemotherapy for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer.

Background Docetaxel and prednisolone chemotherapy (DP) extends survival in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). However, emergent clinical resistance is almost inevitable. AKT pathway activation is highly prevalent in mCRPC contributing to disease progression and DP resistance. AZD5363 is a potent oral pan-AKT inhibitor with pre-clinical data indicating activity in mCRPC and synergy with docetaxel. Methods This phase I trial was to determine an AZD5363 recommended phase II dose (RP2D) for combination with DP. Eligibility criteria included chemotherapy naive mCRPC, PSA or radiographic disease progression and ECOG performance status 0 or 1. Treatment comprised DP (75 mg/m2, IV, day 1 and 5 mg BID, PO, day 1-21 respectively for ten cycles) and AZD5363 to disease progression for all patients. We utilised a 3 + 3 dose escalation design to determine a maximum tolerated dose according to defined dose limiting toxicity criteria assessed using CTCAE version 4.03. Planned AZD5363 dose levels were 320 mg (DL1), 400 mg (DL2) and 480 mg (DL3), BID, PO, 4 days on/3 days off, from day 2 of each cycle. Results 10 patients were treated. Dose limiting toxicities affected 2 patients (grade 3 rash ≥5 days; grade 3 diarrhoea) in DL2. The commonest grade 3 or 4, AZD5363 related, symptomatic adverse events were rash and diarrhoea. Hyperglycaemia affected all patients but was self-limiting. PSA reduction to <50% at 12 weeks occurred in 7 patients. Conclusions The RP2D for AZD5363 is 320 mg BID, 4 days on/3 days off, in combination with full dose DP for mCRPC.

Sorafenib dose escalation in treatment-naïve patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a non-randomised, open-label, Phase 2b study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib dose escalation in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Intra-patient dose escalation may enhance the clinical benefit of targeted anticancer agents in metastatic disease. In this non-randomised, open-label, Phase 2b study, treatment-naïve patients with mRCC were initially treated with the standard oral sorafenib dose [400 mg twice daily (BID)]. Two dose escalations were planned, each 200 mg BID after 28 days at the prior level. Dose reductions, interruptions, or delayed escalations were used to manage adverse events (AEs). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population, which comprised patients with ≥6 months of treatment including ≥4 months of therapy at their highest tolerated dose. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. RESULTS: In all, 83 patients received sorafenib. The dose received for the longest duration was 400, 600, and 800 mg BID in 48.2%, 15.7%, and 24.1% of patients, respectively. The ORR was 44.4% [n = 8/18; 95% confidence interval (CI) 21.5-69.2] and 17.9% (n = 12/67; 95% CI 9.6-29.2) in the mITT and ITT populations, respectively. The median (95% CI) PFS was 7.4 (6.0-11.7) months (ITT). The most common AEs of any grade were hand-foot skin reaction (66.3%) and diarrhoea (63.9%). CONCLUSION: Sorafenib demonstrated clinical benefit in treatment-naïve patients with mRCC. However, relatively few patients could sustain doses of >400 mg BID. There was evidence that, where tolerated, escalation from the standard sorafenib dose may have enhanced clinical benefit. However, this study does not support dose escalation for most patients with treatment-naïve mRCC. Alternative protocols for sorafenib dose escalation could be explored.

Everolimus versus sunitinib for patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ASPEN): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas are histologically and genetically diverse kidney cancers with variable prognoses, and their optimum initial treatment is unknown. We aimed to compare the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: We enrolled patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma with no history of previous systemic treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive everolimus (10 mg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day; 6-week cycles of 4 weeks with treatment followed by 2 weeks without treatment) administered orally until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and papillary histology. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population using the RECIST 1.1 criteria. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01108445. FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2010, and Oct 28, 2013, 108 patients were randomly assigned to receive either sunitinib (n=51) or everolimus (n=57). As of December, 2014, 87 progression-free survival events had occurred with two remaining active patients, and the trial was closed for the primary analysis. Sunitinib significantly increased progression-free survival compared with everolimus (8·3 months [80% CI 5·8-11·4] vs 5·6 months [5·5-6·0]; hazard ratio 1·41 [80% CI 1·03-1·92]; p=0·16), although heterogeneity of the treatment effect was noted on the basis of histological subtypes and prognostic risk groups. No unexpected toxic effects were reported, and the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (12 [24%] of 51 patients in the sunitinib group vs one [2%] of 57 patients in the everolimus group), infection (six [12%] vs four [7%]), diarrhoea (five [10%] vs one [2%]), pneumonitis (none vs five [9%]), stomatitis (none vs five [9%]), and hand-foot syndrome (four [8%] vs none). INTERPRETATION: In patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib improved progression-free survival compared with everolimus. Future trials of novel agents should account for heterogeneity in disease outcomes based on genetic, histological, and prognostic factors. FUNDING: Novartis and Pfizer.

Characterisation of longitudinal variation in photonic crystal fibre.

We present a method by which the degree of longitudinal variation in photonic crystal fibre (PCF) may be characterised through seeded four-wave mixing (FWM). Using an iterative numerical reconstruction, we created a theoretical model of the PCF that displays FWM phasematching properties that are similar to experiment across all measured length scales. Our results demonstrate that the structure of our PCF varies by less than ±1 % and that the characteristic length of the variations is approximately 15 cm.

Nuclear expression of Lyn, a Src family kinase member, is associated with poor prognosis in renal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: 8000 cases of renal cancer are diagnosed each year in the UK, with a five-year survival rate of 50%. Treatment options are limited; a potential therapeutic target is the Src family kinases (SFKs). SFKs have roles in multiple oncogenic processes and promote metastases in solid tumours. The aim of this study was to investigate SFKs as potential therapeutic targets for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). METHODS: SFKs expression was assessed in a tissue microarray consisting of 192 ccRCC patients with full clinical follow-up. SFK inhibitors, dasatinib and saracatinib, were assessed in early ccRCC cell lines, 786-O and 769-P and a metastatic ccRCC cell line, ACHN (± Src) for effects on protein expression, apoptosis, proliferation and wound healing. RESULTS: High nuclear expression of Lyn and the downstream marker of activation, paxillin, were associated with decreased patient survival. Conversely, high cytoplasmic expression of other SFK members and downstream marker of activation, focal adhesion kinase (FAK) were associated with increased patient survival. Treatment of non-metastatic 786-O and 769-P cells with dasatinib, dose dependently reduced SFK activation, shown via SFK (Y(419)) and FAK (Y(861)) phosphorylation, with no effect in metastatic ACHN cells. Dasatinib also increased apoptosis, while decreasing proliferation and migration in 786-O and 769-P cell lines, both in the presence and absence of Src protein. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggests that nuclear Lyn is a potential therapeutic target for ccRCC and dasatinib affects cellular functions associated with cancer progression via a Src kinase independent mechanism.

Emerging treatments for recurrent prostate cancer.

Despite radical treatment, many men with prostate cancer will develop recurrence of their disease. In an exciting era of new therapies for prostate cancer in general, we focus on how these will specifically benefit those men with recurrent disease. We consider salvage treatments aimed at those with local recurrence confined to the prostate gland, therapies for those presenting with metastatic recurrence and the approach to men presenting with a rising prostate-specific antigen but no demonstrable disease (M0). In general, men with recurrent disease are often under-represented in randomized clinical trials. Consequently, evidence to guide treatment for these men is often lacking and this needs to be addressed in order to improve and better define our approach to this problem in the future.

Abiraterone and increased survival in metastatic prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Biosynthesis of extragonadal androgen may contribute to the progression of castration-resistant prostate cancer. We evaluated whether abiraterone acetate, an inhibitor of androgen biosynthesis, prolongs overall survival among patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who have received chemotherapy. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, 1195 patients who had previously received docetaxel to receive 5 mg of prednisone twice daily with either 1000 mg of abiraterone acetate (797 patients) or placebo (398 patients). The primary end point was overall survival. The secondary end points included time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression (elevation in the PSA level according to prespecified criteria), progression-free survival according to radiologic findings based on prespecified criteria, and the PSA response rate. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 12.8 months, overall survival was longer in the abiraterone acetate-prednisone group than in the placebo-prednisone group (14.8 months vs. 10.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.54 to 0.77; P<0.001). Data were unblinded at the interim analysis, since these results exceeded the preplanned criteria for study termination. All secondary end points, including time to PSA progression (10.2 vs. 6.6 months; P<0.001), progression-free survival (5.6 months vs. 3.6 months; P<0.001), and PSA response rate (29% vs. 6%, P<0.001), favored the treatment group. Mineralocorticoid-related adverse events, including fluid retention, hypertension, and hypokalemia, were more frequently reported in the abiraterone acetate-prednisone group than in the placebo-prednisone group. CONCLUSIONS: The inhibition of androgen biosynthesis by abiraterone acetate prolonged overall survival among patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who previously received chemotherapy. (Funded by Cougar Biotechnology; COU-AA-301 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00638690.).