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.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer: 2-year patient-reported outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) might detect more toxic effects of radiotherapy than do clinician-reported outcomes. We did a quality of life (QoL) substudy to assess PROs up to 24 months after conventionally fractionated or hypofractionated radiotherapy in the Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer (CHHiP) trial. METHODS: The CHHiP trial is a randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial done in 71 centres, of which 57 UK hospitals took part in the QoL substudy. Men with localised prostate cancer who were undergoing radiotherapy were eligible for trial entry if they had histologically confirmed T1b-T3aN0M0 prostate cancer, an estimated risk of seminal vesicle involvement less than 30%, prostate-specific antigen concentration less than 30 ng/mL, and a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a standard fractionation schedule of 74 Gy in 37 fractions or one of two hypofractionated schedules: 60 Gy in 20 fractions or 57 Gy in 19 fractions. Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted block sizes of six and nine, stratified by centre and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. Treatment allocation was not masked. UCLA Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), including Short Form (SF)-36 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), or Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and SF-12 quality-of-life questionnaires were completed at baseline, pre-radiotherapy, 10 weeks post-radiotherapy, and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial completed accrual on June 16, 2011, and the QoL substudy was closed to further recruitment on Nov 1, 2009. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary endpoint of the QoL substudy was overall bowel bother and comparisons between fractionation groups were done at 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial is registered with ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN97182923. FINDINGS: 2100 participants in the CHHiP trial consented to be included in the QoL substudy: 696 assigned to the 74 Gy schedule, 698 assigned to the 60 Gy schedule, and 706 assigned to the 57 Gy schedule. Of these individuals, 1659 (79%) provided data pre-radiotherapy and 1444 (69%) provided data at 24 months after radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 50·0 months (IQR 38·4-64·2) on April 9, 2014, which was the most recent follow-up measurement of all data collected before the QoL data were analysed in September, 2014. Comparison of 74 Gy in 37 fractions, 60 Gy in 20 fractions, and 57 Gy in 19 fractions groups at 2 years showed no overall bowel bother in 269 (66%), 266 (65%), and 282 (65%) men; very small bother in 92 (22%), 91 (22%), and 93 (21%) men; small bother in 26 (6%), 28 (7%), and 38 (9%) men; moderate bother in 19 (5%), 23 (6%), and 21 (5%) men, and severe bother in four (<1%), three (<1%) and three (<1%) men respectively (74 Gy vs 60 Gy, ptrend=0.64, 74 Gy vs 57 Gy, ptrend=0·59). We saw no differences between treatment groups in change of bowel bother score from baseline or pre-radiotherapy to 24 months. INTERPRETATION: The incidence of patient-reported bowel symptoms was low and similar between patients in the 74 Gy control group and the hypofractionated groups up to 24 months after radiotherapy. If efficacy outcomes from CHHiP show non-inferiority for hypofractionated treatments, these findings will add to the growing evidence for moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules becoming the standard treatment for localised prostate cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

Volumetric modulated arc therapy in prostate cancer patients with metallic hip prostheses in a UK centre.

AIM: This study aimed to investigate whether IMRT using VMAT is a viable and safe solution in dose escalated RT in these patients. BACKGROUND: An increasing number of prostate cancer patients are elderly and have hip prostheses. These implants pose challenges in radiotherapy treatment planning. Although intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is commonly used, there is a lack of clinical studies documenting its efficacy and toxicities in this subgroup of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data from 23 patients with hip prostheses and non-metastatic prostate cancer treated with VMAT (volumetric modulated arc therapy) between 2009 and 2011, were retrospectively analyzed. Baseline characteristics, treatment details and outcome data were collected on all patients. The median follow up was 40.9 months. MRI-CT image fusion was performed and the treatment plans were created using RapidArc™ (RA) techniques utilizing 1 or 2 arcs and 10 MV photon beams. RESULTS: 96% of patients were treated with a dose of 72 Gy/32 fractions over 44 days. 21/23 plans met the PTV targets. The mean homogeneity index was 1.07. 20/23 plans met all OAR constraints (rectum, bladder). Two plans deviated from rectal constraints, four from bladder constraints; all were classed as minor deviations. One patient experienced late grade 3 genitourinary toxicity. Three other patients experienced late grade 2 or lower gastrointestinal toxicity. One patient had biochemical failure and one had a non-prostate cancer related death. CONCLUSIONS: VMAT provides an elegant solution to deliver dose escalated RT in patients with unilateral and bilateral hip replacements with minimal acute and late toxicities.

Impact of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy on Patient-reported Outcomes in Prostate Cancer: Results up to 5 yr in the CHHiP trial (CRUK/06/016).

BACKGROUND: Moderate hypofractionation is the recommended standard of care for localised prostate cancer following the results of trials including Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer (CHHiP). Evaluation of long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is important to confirm safety and enhance patient information. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether 5-yr PROs from the CHHiP quality of life (QoL) substudy confirm 2-yr findings and assess patterns over follow-up. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A phase III randomised controlled trial recruited from 2002 to 2011. The QoL substudy completed accrual in 2009; participants were followed up to 5 yr after radiotherapy. Analyses used data snapshot taken on August 26, 2016. A total of 71 radiotherapy centres were included in the study (UK, Republic of Ireland, Switzerland, and New Zealand); all 57 UK centres participated in the QoL substudy. CHHiP recruited 3216 men with localised prostate cancer (cT1b-T3aN0M0). INTERVENTION: Conventional (74 Gy/37 fractions/7.4 wk) or hypofractionated radiotherapy (60 Gy/20 fractions/4 wk or 57 Gy/19 fractions/3.8 wk) was delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: University of California Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index, Short Form 36 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate, or Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite and Short Form 12 questionnaires were administered at baseline, before radiotherapy, at 10 wk, and at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 60 mo after radiotherapy. The QoL primary endpoint was overall bowel bother. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The QoL substudy recruited 2100 patients; 1141 5-yr forms were available from 1957 patients still alive (58%). There were no statistically significant differences in 5-yr prevalence of overall "moderate or big" bowel bother: 19/349 (5.4%), 29/381 (7.6%), and 21/393 (5.3%) for 74, 60, and 57 Gy, respectively; overall urinary or sexual bother at 5 yr was similar between schedules. Bowel and urinary symptoms remained stable from 2 to 5 yr for all schedules. Some evidence of worsening overall sexual bother from baseline to 5 yr was less likely in the hypofractionated schedules compared with 74 Gy (odds ratios for increase in bother score vs 74 Gy: 0.55 [0.30-0.99], p = 0.009 for 60 Gy, and 0.52 [0.29-0.94], p = 0.004 for 57 Gy). General QoL scores were similar between schedules at 5 yr. CONCLUSIONS: Longer follow-up confirms earlier findings, with similar patient-reported bowel, urinary, and sexual problems between schedules overall. The continued low incidence of moderate or high bother confirms that moderate hypofractionation should be the standard of care for intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at patient-reported outcomes up to 5 yr after treatment in a trial of different radiotherapy schedules for prostate cancer. The findings confirmed that shorter radiotherapy schedules were as safe as standard radiotherapy in terms of bowel, urinary, and sexual problems. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Bowel, urinary, and sexual symptoms were similar between schedules up to 5 yr. The continued low incidence of moderate/high bother confirms that moderate hypofractionated radiotherapy should be considered the standard of care for men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Long-Term Results from the IDEAL-CRT Phase 1/2 Trial of Isotoxically Dose-Escalated Radiation Therapy and Concurrent Chemotherapy for Stage II/III Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The IDEAL-CRT phase 1/2 multicenter trial of isotoxically dose-escalated concurrent chemoradiation for stage II/III non-small cell lung cancer investigated two 30-fraction schedules of 5 and 6 weeks' duration. We report toxicity, tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) for both schedules, with long-term follow-up for the 6-week schedule. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients received isotoxically individualized tumor radiation doses of 63 to 71 Gy in 5 weeks or 63 to 73 Gy in 6 weeks, delivered concurrently with 2 cycles of cisplatin and vinorelbine. Eligibility criteria were the same for both schedules. RESULTS: One-hundred twenty patients (6% stage IIB, 68% IIIA, 26% IIIB, 1% IV) were recruited from 9 UK centers, 118 starting treatment. Median prescribed doses were 64.5 and 67.6 Gy for the 36 and 82 patients treated using the 5- and 6-week schedules. Grade ≥3 pneumonitis and early esophagitis rates were 3.4% and 5.9% overall and similar for each schedule individually. Late grade 2 esophageal toxicity occurred in 11.1% and 17.1% of 5- and 6-week patients. Grade ≥4 adverse events occurred in 17 (20.7%) 6-week patients but no 5-week patients. Four adverse events were grade 5, with 2 considered radiation therapy related. After median follow-up of 51.8 and 26.4 months for the 6- and 5-week schedules, median OS was 41.2 and 22.1 months, respectively, and median PFS was 21.1 and 8.0 months. In exploratory analyses, OS was significantly associated with schedule (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.98; P = .04) and fractional clinical/internal target volume receiving ≥95% of the prescribed dose (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77-1.00; P = .05). PFS was also significantly associated with schedule (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.86; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Toxicity in IDEAL-CRT was acceptable. Survival was promising for 6-week patients and significantly longer than for 5-week patients. Survival might be further lengthened by following the 6-week schedule with an immune agent, motivating further study of such combined optimized treatments.

A prospective single arm phase II study of dacarbazine and treosulfan as first-line therapy in metastatic uveal melanoma.

Uveal melanoma is relatively uncommon accounting for fewer than 5% of all melanoma cases. Localized tumours are curable by local therapy but a significant percentage of patients go on to have a relapse with metastatic disease. Uncertainty remains concerning the level of activity of dacarbazine in uveal melanoma as opposed to that in the cutaneous form. Recently, a possible role for treosulfan in uveal disease has been reported. A phase II study was therefore undertaken to assess the objective response rate of the combination of dacarbazine and treosulfan in previously untreated patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. All patients received dacarbazine 850 mg/m and treosulfan 8 g/m(2) every 21 days up to a maximum of six cycles. Fifteen patients enrolled in the study. As expected, the major toxicities were haematological (particularly thrombocytopaenia) but the treatment was generally well tolerated. No responses were seen; however, disease stabilization was achieved in two patients. Median progression free survival from the start of chemotherapy was 12 weeks and median overall survival was 30 weeks. This study, using the combination of dacarbazine and treosulfan, while well tolerated, did not confirm earlier reports suggesting treosulfan is active in uveal melanoma.

Evolution of the treatment paradigm for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

As recently as 2004, treatment options for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) were limited, with docetaxel the only approved agent conferring a survival benefit. The therapeutic landscape is now very different, with several agents demonstrating prolonged survival since 2010. New agents for the treatment of mCRPC include sipuleucel-T, cabazitaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide and radium-223. All are now approved for use in this patient group, although the specific licensing terms vary between agents. In addition, denosumab may have utility in patients with bone metastases. A number of novel agents are also in development with promising initial results. However, because these treatment options have proliferated rapidly, there is currently a paucity of clinical evidence regarding their optimal sequencing. Selection of an appropriate treatment option should take into consideration disease characteristics, drug availability and patient choice. In summary, we discuss several new treatment options available for mCRPC and their integration into the current treatment paradigm.

Influence of dose calculation algorithms on isotoxic dose-escalation of non-small cell lung cancer radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A series of phase I/II clinical trials are being initiated in several UK centres to explore the use of dose-escalated schedules for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Among them the IDEAL-CRT trial (ISRCTN12155469) will investigate the introduction of individualised "isotoxic" treatment schedules based on the relative mean lung normalised total dose (rNTD(mean)), an estimator related to lung toxicity. Since treatment planning will be performed using different treatment planning systems (TPSs), for the quality assurance of the trial we have carried out work to quantify the influence of dose calculation algorithms based on the determination of rNTD(mean) and on the choice of individualised prescription doses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-five patient plans with stage I, II and III NSCLC were calculated, with the same prescription dose, using the Adaptive Convolve (AC) and Collapsed Cone (CC) algorithms of the Pinnacle TPS, the pencil beam convolution (PBC) and AAA algorithms of Eclipse, and the CC and pencil beam (PB) algorithms of Oncentra Masterplan (OMP). For the paired-lungs-GTV structure, dose-volume histograms were obtained and used to calculate the corresponding rNTD(mean) values and results obtained with the different algorithms were compared. RESULTS: For most (19 out of 25) of the patients studied, no algorithm-to-algorithm differences were seen in dose prescription based on rNTD(mean). For the other 6 patients differences were within 2.3 Gy, except in one case where the difference was 4 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: For the IDEAL-CRT trial no corrections need to be applied to the value of rNTD(mean) calculated using any of the more advanced convolution/superposition algorithms studied in this work. For the two pencil beam algorithms analysed, no correction is necessary for the data obtained with the Eclipse-PBC, while for OMP-PB data a small correction needs to be applied, by using a scaling factor, to make prescription doses consistent with the other algorithms investigated.