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.

What is the optimal systemic treatment of men with metastatic, hormone-naive prostate cancer? A STOPCAP systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: Our prior Systemic Treatment Options for Cancer of the Prostate systematic reviews showed improved survival for men with metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer when abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone/prednisone (AAP) or docetaxel (Doc), but not zoledronic acid (ZA), were added to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Trial evidence also suggests a benefit of combining celecoxib (Cel) with ZA and ADT. To establish the optimal treatments, a network meta-analysis (NMA) was carried out based on aggregate data (AD) from all available studies. Methods: Overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival data from completed Systemic Treatment Options for Cancer of the Prostate reviews of Doc, ZA and AAP and from recent trials of ZA and Cel contributed to this comprehensive AD-NMA. The primary outcome was OS. Correlations between treatment comparisons within one multi-arm, multi-stage trial were estimated from control-arm event counts. Network consistency and a common heterogeneity variance were assumed. Results: We identified 10 completed trials which had closed to recruitment, and one trial in which recruitment was ongoing, as eligible for inclusion. Results are based on six trials including 6204 men (97% of men randomised in all completed trials). Network estimates of effects on OS were consistent with reported comparisons with ADT alone for AAP [hazard ration (HR) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.71], Doc (HR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.87), ZA + Cel (HR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.97), ZA + Doc (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94), Cel (HR = 0.94 95% CI 0.75-1.17) and ZA (HR = 0.90 95% CI 0.79-1.03). The effect of ZA + Cel is consistent with the additive effects of the individual treatments. Results suggest that AAP has the highest probability of being the most effective treatment both for OS (94% probability) and failure-free survival (100% probability). Doc was the second-best treatment of OS (35% probability). Conclusions: Uniquely, we have included all available results and appropriately accounted for inclusion of multi-arm, multi-stage trials in this AD-NMA. Our results support the use of AAP or Doc with ADT in men with metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer. AAP appears to be the most effective treatment, but it is not clear to what extent and whether this is due to a true increased benefit with AAP or the variable features of the individual trials. To fully account for patient variability across trials, changes in prognosis or treatment effects over time and the potential impact of treatment on progression, a network meta-analysis based on individual participant data is in development.

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.

EURAMOS-1, an international randomised study for osteosarcoma: results from pre-randomisation treatment.

BACKGROUND: Four international study groups undertook a large study in resectable osteosarcoma, which included two randomised controlled trials, to determine the effect on survival of changing post-operative chemotherapy based on histological response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resectable osteosarcoma aged ≤40 years were treated with the MAP regimen, comprising pre-operatively of two 5-week cycles of cisplatin 120 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2), methotrexate 12 g/m(2) × 2 (MAP) and post-operatively two further cycles of MAP and two cycles of just MA. Patients were randomised after surgery. Those with ≥10% viable tumour in the resected specimen received MAP or MAP with ifosfamide and etoposide. Those with <10% viable tumour were allocated to MAP or MAP followed by pegylated interferon. Longitudinal evaluation of quality of life was undertaken. RESULTS: Recruitment was completed to the largest osteosarcoma study to date in 75 months. Commencing March 2005, 2260 patients were registered from 326 centres across 17 countries. About 1334 of 2260 registered patients (59%) were randomised. Pre-operative chemotherapy was completed according to protocol in 94%. Grade 3-4 neutropenia affected 83% of cycles and 59% were complicated by infection. There were three (0.13%) deaths related to pre-operative chemotherapy. At definitive surgery, 50% of patients had at least 90% necrosis in the resected specimen. CONCLUSIONS: New models of collaboration are required to successfully conduct trials to improve outcomes of patients with rare cancers; EURAMOS-1 demonstrates achievability. Considerable regulatory, financial and operational challenges must be overcome to develop similar studies in the future. The trial is registered as NCT00134030 and ISRCTN 67613327.

How should individual participant data (IPD) from publicly funded clinical trials be shared?

BACKGROUND: Individual participant data (IPD) from completed clinical trials should be responsibly shared to support efficient clinical research, generate new knowledge and bring benefit to patients. The Medical Research Council (MRC) Hubs for Trials Methodology Research (HTMR) has developed guidance to facilitate the sharing of IPD from publicly funded clinical trials. METHODS: Development of the guidance was completed over four phases which included a focussed review of policy documents, a web-based survey of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration (CRC) Registered Clinical Trials Units (CTU) Network, participation of an expert committee and an open consultation with the UKCRC Registered CTU Network. The project was funded by the MRC HTMR (MR/L004933/1-R39). RESULTS: Good practice principles include: (i) the use of a controlled access approach, using a transparent and robust system to review requests and provide secure data access; (ii) seeking consent for sharing IPD from trial participants in all future clinical trials with adequate assurance that patient privacy and confidentiality can be maintained; and (iii) establishing an approach to resource the sharing of IPD which would include support from trial funders, sponsor organisations and users of IPD. The guidance has been endorsed by Cancer Research UK, MRC Methodology Research Programme Advisory Group, Wellcome Trust and the Executive Group of the UKCRC Registered CTU Network. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has confirmed it is supportive of the application of this guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of these principles will improve transparency, increase the coherent sharing of IPD from publicly funded trials, and help publicly funded trials to adhere to trial funder and journal requirements for data sharing.

No socioeconomic inequalities in ovarian cancer survival within two randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death among cancers of the female genital tract, with poor outcomes despite chemotherapy. There was a persistent socioeconomic gradient in 1-year survival in England and Wales for more than 3 decades (1971-2001). Inequalities in 5-year survival persisted for more than 20 years but have been smaller for women diagnosed around 2000. We explored one possible explanation. METHODS: We analysed data on 1406 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer during 1991-1998 and recruited to one of two randomised clinical trials. In the second International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm (ICON2) trial, women diagnosed between 1991 and 1996 were randomised to receive either the three-drug combination cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and cisplatin (CAP) or single-agent carboplatin given at optimal dose. In the ICON3 trial, women diagnosed during 1995-1998 were randomised to receive either the same treatments as ICON2, or paclitaxel plus carboplatin.Relative survival at 1, 5 and 10 years was estimated for women in five categories of socioeconomic deprivation. The excess hazard of death over and above background mortality was estimated by fitting multivariable regression models with Poisson error structure and a dedicated link function in a generalised linear model framework, adjusting for the duration of follow-up and the confounding effects of age, Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage and calendar period. RESULTS: Unlike women with ovarian cancer in the general population, no statistically significant socioeconomic gradient was seen for women with ovarian cancer treated in the two randomised controlled trials. The deprivation gap in 1-year relative survival in the general population was statistically significant at -6.7% (95% CI (-8.1, -5.3)), compared with -3.6% (95% CI (-10.4, +3.2)) in the trial population. CONCLUSIONS: Although ovarian cancer survival is significantly lower among poor women than rich women in England and Wales, there was no evidence of an association between socioeconomic deprivation and survival among women with ovarian cancer who were treated and followed up consistently in two well-conducted randomised controlled trials. We conclude that the persistent socioeconomic gradient in survival among women with ovarian cancer, at least for 1-year survival, may be due to differences in access to treatment and standards of care.

A Repurposing Programme Evaluating Transdermal Oestradiol Patches for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer Within the PATCH and STAMPEDE Trials: Current Results and Adapting Trial Design.

AIMS: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), usually achieved with luteinising hormone releasing hormone analogues (LHRHa), is central to prostate cancer management. LHRHa reduce both testosterone and oestrogen and are associated with significant long-term toxicity. Previous use of oral oestrogens as ADT was curtailed because of cardiovascular toxicity. Transdermal oestrogen (tE2) patches are a potential alternative ADT, supressing testosterone without the associated oestrogen-depletion toxicities (osteoporosis, hot flushes, metabolic abnormalities) and avoiding cardiovascular toxicity, and we here describe their evaluation in men with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PATCH (NCT00303784) adaptive trials programme (incorporating recruitment through the STAMPEDE [NCT00268476] platform) is evaluating the safety and efficacy of tE2 patches as ADT for men with prostate cancer. An initial randomised (LHRHa versus tE2) phase II study (n = 251) with cardiovascular toxicity as the primary outcome measure has expanded into a phase III evaluation. Those with locally advanced (M0) or metastatic (M1) prostate cancer are eligible. To reflect changes in both management and prognosis, the PATCH programme is now evaluating these cohorts separately. RESULTS: Recruitment is complete, with 1362 and 1128 in the M0 and M1 cohorts, respectively. Rates of androgen suppression with tE2 were equivalent to LHRHa, with improved metabolic parameters, quality of life and bone health indices (mean absolute change in lumbar spine bone mineral density of -3.0% for LHRHa and +7.9% for tE2 with an estimated difference between arms of 9.3% (95% confidence interval 5.3-13.4). Importantly, rates of cardiovascular events were not significantly different between the two arms and the time to first cardiovascular event did not differ between treatment groups (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.53; P = 0.54). Oncological outcomes are awaited. FUTURE: Efficacy results for the M0 cohort (primary outcome measure metastases-free survival) are expected in the final quarter of 2023. For M1 patients (primary outcome measure - overall survival), analysis using restricted mean survival time is being explored. Allied translational work on longitudinal samples is underway.

e-Consent in UK academic-led clinical trials: current practice, challenges and the need for more evidence.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person healthcare visits were reduced. Consequently, trial teams needed to consider implementing remote methods for conducting clinical trials, including e-Consent. Although some clinical trials may have implemented e-Consent prior to the pandemic, anecdotes of uptake for this method increased within academic-led trials. When the increased use of this process emerged, representatives from several large academic clinical trial groups within the UK collaborated to discuss ways in which trialists can learn from one another when implementing e-Consent. METHODS: A survey of UKCRC-registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) was undertaken in April-June 2021 to understand the implementation of and their views on the use of e-Consent and experiences from the perspectives of systems programmers and quality assurance staff on the use of e-Consent. CTUs not using e-Consent were asked to provide any reasons/barriers (including no suitable trials) and any plans for implementing it in the future. Two events for trialists and patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives were then held to disseminate findings, foster discussion, share experiences and aid in the identification of areas that the academic CTU community felt required more research. RESULTS: Thirty-four (64%) of 53 CTUs responded to the survey, with good geographical representation across the UK. Twenty-one (62%) of the responding CTUs had implemented e-Consent in at least one of their trials, across different types of trials, including CTIMPs (Clinical Trial of Investigational Medicinal Product), ATIMPs (Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products) and non-CTIMPs. One hundred ninety-seven participants attended the two workshops for wide-ranging discussions. CONCLUSION: e-Consent is increasingly used in academic-led trials, yet uncertainties remain amongst trialists, patients and members of the public. Uncertainties include a lack of formal, practical guidance and a lack of evidence to demonstrate optimal or appropriate methods to use. We strongly encourage trialists to continue to share their own experiences of the implementation of e-Consent.

Survival from high-grade localised extremity osteosarcoma: combined results and prognostic factors from three European Osteosarcoma Intergroup randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves outcome in osteosarcoma. Determination of optimum regimens for survival, toxicity and prognostic factors requires randomised controlled trials to be conducted. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1983 and 2002, the European Osteosarcoma Intergroup recruited 1067 patients with localised extremity osteosarcoma to three randomised controlled trials. Standard treatment in each was doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2). Comparators were addition of methotrexate (BO02/80831), a multidrug regimen (BO03/80861) and a dose-intense schedule (BO06/80931). Standard survival analysis methods were used to identify prognostic factors, temporal and other influences on outcome. RESULTS: Five- and 10-year survival were 56% (95% confidence interval 53% to 59%) and 52%, respectively (49% to 55%), with no difference between trials or treatment arms. Median follow-up was 9.4 years. Age range was 3-40 years (median 15). Limb salvage was achieved in 69%. Five hundred and thirty-three patients received the standard arm, 79% completing treatment. Good histological response to preoperative chemotherapy, distal tumour location (all sites other than proximal humerus/femur) and female gender were associated with improved survival. CONCLUSIONS: Localised osteosarcoma will be cured in 50% of patients with cisplatin and doxorubicin. Large randomised trials can be conducted in this rare cancer. Failure to improve survival over 20 years argues for concerted collaborative international efforts to identify and rapidly test new treatments.

PROState Pathway Embedded Comparative Trial: The IP3-PROSPECT study.

INTRODUCTION: The traditional double blind RCT is the 'gold standard' trial design. For a variety of reasons, these designs often fail to accrue enough participants to conclude. This is particularly challenging in localized prostate cancer. The cohort multiple randomised controlled trial (cmRCT) trial design may represent an alternative approach to delivering robust comparative data in prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: IP3-PROSPECT is a cmRCT designed to test multiple prostate cancer interventions from eligible men in one cohort. Key to the design is two points of consent. First, at point of consent one, men referred for prostate cancer investigations are invited to join the cohort. They may then be randomly invited at a later date to consider an intervention at point of consent two. In the pilot phase we will test the acceptability and feasibility of developing the cohort. RESULTS: Acceptability and feasibility of the study will be measured by a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. The primary outcome measure is the rate of consent to inclusion to the IP3-PROSPECT cohort. Secondary outcome measures include the completeness of data collection at sites and return rates of patient questionnaires. We will also interview patients and healthcare professionals to explore their thoughts on the implementation, practicality and efficiency of IP3-PROSPECT. CONCLUSION: The IP3-PROSPECT study will evaluate the cmRCT design in prostate cancer. Initially we will pilot the design, assessing for acceptability and feasibility. The cmRCT is an innovative design that offers potential for building a modern comparative evidence base for prostate cancer.

Initial dose intensity has limited impact on the outcome of ABVD chemotherapy for advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (HL): data from UKLG LY09 (ISRCTN97144519).

BACKGROUND: This analysis was undertaken to assess the relationship between the dose intensity (DI) of initial chemotherapy and outcome in a large cohort of patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma treated in a randomised controlled trial, in which detailed dose data were collected prospectively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three-hundred and eighty patients randomly assigned to receive standard doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine who underwent at least two cycles of treatment were studied. With a median follow-up of 6.9 years, progression-free survival (PFS) from the end of cycle 2 was analysed according to DI during those cycles. RESULTS: During the first two cycles, 25% of patients received >97% of planned DI, 37% received between 86% and 97% and 38% received <86%. DI during the first two cycles was correlated with DI during the remainder of the course, but there was no evidence that early DI influenced PFS (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.67-1.11; P = 0.265). Multivariate analysis also failed to confirm the influence of early DI on PFS or overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: At the range of DI delivered in a multicentre trial using conventional therapy, there is no clear evidence that early DI influences outcome. This should be tested in a prospective study.

Understanding and optimising patient and public involvement in trial oversight: an ethnographic study of eight clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Trial oversight is important for trial governance and conduct. Patients and/or lay members of the public are increasingly included in trial oversight committees, influenced by international patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives to improve the quality and relevance of research. However, there is a lack of guidance on how to undertake PPI in trial oversight and tokenistic PPI remains an issue. This paper explores how PPI functions in existing trial oversight committees and provides recommendations to optimise PPI in future trials. This was part of a larger study investigating the role and function of oversight committees in trials facing challenges. METHODS: Using an ethnographic study design, we observed oversight meetings of eight UK trials and conducted semi-structured interviews with members of their trial steering committees (TSCs) and trial management groups (TMGs) including public contributors, trial sponsors and funders. Thematic analysis of data was undertaken, with findings integrated to provide a multi-perspective account of how PPI functions in trial oversight. RESULTS: Eight TSC and six TMG meetings from eight trials were observed, and 66 semi-structured interviews conducted with 52 purposively sampled oversight group members, including three public contributors. PPI was reported as beneficial in trial oversight, with public members contributing a patient voice and fulfilling a patient advocacy role. However, public contributors were not always active at oversight meetings and were sometimes felt to have a tokenistic role, with trialists reporting a lack of understanding of how to undertake PPI in trial oversight. To optimise PPI in trial oversight, the following areas were highlighted: the importance of planning effective strategies to recruit public contributors; considering the level of oversight and stage(s) of trial to include PPI; support for public contributors by the trial team between and during oversight meetings. CONCLUSIONS: We present evidence-based recommendations to inform future PPI in trial oversight. Consideration should be given at trial design stage on how to recruit and involve public contributors within trial oversight, as well as support and mentorship for both public contributors and trialists (in how to undertake PPI effectively). Findings from this study further strengthen the evidence base on facilitating meaningful PPI within clinical trials.

International collaboration is feasible in trials for rare conditions: the EURAMOS experience.

The introduction of multi-agent chemotherapy dramatically improved the outcome for patients with osteosarcoma. However, we appear to have reached a plateau in outcome with a long-term event-free survival of 60-70%. Therefore, detection of further improvements will likely require larger numbers of patients. This goal is best achieved via randomized clinical trials (RCTs) requiring large-scale cooperation and collaboration. With this background, four multinational groups agreed on the merits of collaboration: Children's Oncology Group (COG), Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group (COSS), European Osteosarcoma Intergroup (EOI) and Scandinavian Sarcoma Group (SSG); they designed a study to determine whether altering postoperative therapy based on histological response improved the outcome. The study design includes a backbone of 10 weeks of preoperative therapy using MAP (methotrexate, Adriamycin and cisplatin). Following surgery, patients are stratified according to histological response. Patients classified as "good responders" (>or=90% necrosis) are randomized to continue MAP or to receive MAP followed by maintenance pegylated interferon, while "poor responders" (<90% necrosis) are randomized to either continue MAP or to receive MAPIE (MAP+ifosfamide, etoposide). The design includes the registration of 1,400 patients over 4 years as well as the evaluation of quality of life using two different instruments. The group has established an efficient infrastructure to ensure successful implementation of the trial. This has included the EURAMOS Intergroup Safety Desk, which has established an international system for SAE, SAR and SUSAR reporting to the relevant competent authorities and ethics committees for each participating country. The group has also developed trial site monitoring and data center audits with funding from the European Science Foundation (ESF). The ESF has also funded three training courses to familiarize institutional staff with the requirements of multinational GCP trials. We have established a successful collaboration, and as of February 2008, 901 patients have been enrolled (COG 448; COSS 226; EOI 181; SSG 46) from 249 institutions in 16 different countries. As expected, 80% of the patients are <18 years of age, and accrual into the Quality of Life sub-study is proceeding as planned with 90% of the subjects agreeing to participate. International awareness is increasing and procedures for applicant countries wishing to join the collaboration have been implemented. Details about EURAMOS can be found at www.euramos.org. International trials in rare diseases are practicable with appropriate funding, planning and support. Although the implementation of such trials is difficult and time consuming, it is a worthwhile effort to rapidly complete RCTs and identify interventions that will improve the outcome of all osteosarcoma patients.EURAMOS-1 is the fastest accruing osteosarcoma trial and is already the largest osteosarcoma study conducted.

No socioeconomic inequalities in colorectal cancer survival within a randomised clinical trial.

There is strong evidence that colorectal cancer survival differs between socioeconomic groups. We analysed data on 2481 patients diagnosed during 1989-1997 and recruited to a randomised controlled clinical trial (AXIS, ISRCTN32414363) of chemotherapy and radiotherapy for colorectal cancer. Crude and relative survival at 1 and 5 years was estimated in five categories of socioeconomic deprivation. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data on tumour stage. A multivariable fractional polynomial model was fitted to estimate the excess hazard of death in each deprivation category, adjusting for the confounding effects of age, stage, cancer site (colon, rectum) and sex, using generalised linear models. Relative survival in the trial patients was higher than in the general population of England and Wales. The socioeconomic gradient in survival was much smaller than that seen for colorectal cancer patients in the general population, both at 1 year -3.2% (95% CI -7.3 to 1.0%, P=0.14) and at 5 years -1.7% (95% CI -8.3 to 4.9%, P=0.61). Given equal treatment, colorectal cancer survival in England and Wales does not appear to depend on socioeconomic status, suggesting that the socioeconomic gradient in survival in the general population could well be due to health-care system factors.

Accuracy and reproducibility of conformal radiotherapy using data from a randomised controlled trial of conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer (MRC RT01, ISRCTN47772397).

AIMS: The MRC RT01 trial used conformal radiotherapy to the prostate, a method that reduces the volume of normal tissue treated by 40-50%. Because of the risk of geographical miss, the trial used portal imaging to examine whether treatment delivery was within the required accuracy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In total, 843 patients were randomly assigned to receive 64 Gy in 32 fractions over 6.5 weeks or 74 Gy in 37 fractions over 7.5 weeks. Field displacements and corrections were recorded for all imaged fractions. Displacement trends and their association with time, disease and treatment set-up characteristics were examined using univariate and multivariate analyses. A Radiographer Trial Implementation Group (RTIG) was set up to inform the quality assurance process and to promote the development of best practice. RESULTS: Treatment isocentre positioning was within 5 mm in every direction on 6238 (83%) of the 7535 fractions imaged. In total, 532 (81%) of 695 included patients had at least one > or = 3 mm displacement and 415 (63%) had at least one > or = 5 mm displacement. Univariate, multivariate and stepwise models of > or =5 mm displacements showed an increased likelihood of displacement in weeks 1 and 2 with low melting point alloy (LMPA) blocks compared with multileaf collimators, film verification compared with electronic portal imaging (EPI) and increased number of fractions imaged. Except for LMPA, this was also seen for > or = 5 mm displacements in weeks 3-6. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate conformal treatment was delivered. The use of EPI was associated with increased reported accuracy. The RTIG was a crucial part of the quality assurance process.

Older Age, Early Symptoms and Physical Function are Associated with the Severity of Late Symptom Clusters for Men Undergoing Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer.

AIMS: To identify symptom clusters and predisposing factors associated with long-term symptoms and health-related quality of life after radiotherapy in men with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) data from the Medical Research Council RT01 radiotherapy with neoadjuvant androgen deprivation therapy trial of 843 patients were used. PROs were collected over 5 years with the University of California, Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI) and the 36 item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Symptom clusters were explored using hierarchical cluster analysis. The association of treatment dose, baseline patient characteristics and early symptom clusters with the change in severity of PROs over 3 years was investigated with multivariate linear mixed effects models. RESULTS: Seven symptom clusters of three or more symptoms were identified. The clusters were stable over time. The longitudinal profiles of symptom clusters showed the onset of acute symptoms during treatment for all symptom clusters and significant recovery by 6 months. Some clusters, such as physical health and sexual function, were adversely affected more than others by androgen deprivation therapy, and were less likely to return to pretreatment levels over time. Older age was significantly associated with decreased long-term physical function, physical health and sexual function (P < 0.001). Both baseline and acute symptom clusters were significant antecedents for impaired function and health-related quality of life at 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Men with poorer physical function and health before or during treatment were more likely to report poorer PROs at year 3. Early assessment using PROs and lifestyle interventions should be used to identify those with higher needs and provide targeted rehabilitation and symptom management.

Incorporating Biomarker Stratification into STAMPEDE: an Adaptive Multi-arm, Multi-stage Trial Platform.

The treatment and outcomes for advanced prostate cancer have experienced significant progress over recent years. Importantly, the additional benefits of 'up front' chemotherapy (docetaxel) and abiraterone, over and above conventional androgen deprivation, have been separately demonstrated in the multi-arm, multi-stage (MAMS) STAMPEDE protocol, which continues recruitment to other questions. Alongside this, insights into the underlying molecular biology and, inevitably, the molecular heterogeneity of prostate cancer are opening the door to new therapeutic approaches. Incorporating this understanding and testing these hypotheses within STAMPEDE brings new challenges to the MAMS approach, but has the potential to further improve the outlook for this disease.