Search

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/m 2 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]; pinteraction=0·71) or between-trial heterogeneity (I 2 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 (

Purpose Radiation therapy to the prostate and pelvic lymph nodes (PLNRT) is part of the curative treatment of high-risk prostate cancer. Yet, the broader influence of radiation therapy on patient physiology is poorly understood. We conducted comprehensive global metabolomic profiling of urine, plasma, and stools sampled from patients undergoing PLNRT for high-risk prostate cancer. Methods and Materials Samples were taken from 32 patients at 6 timepoints: baseline, 2 to 3 and 4 to 5 weeks of PLNRT; and 3, 6, and 12 months after PLNRT. We characterized the global metabolome of urine and plasma using 1H nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and ultraperformance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, and of stools with nuclear magnetic resonance. Linear mixed-effects modeling was used to investigate metabolic changes between timepoints for each biofluid and assay and determine metabolites of interest. Results Metabolites in urine, plasma and stools changed significantly after PLNRT initiation. Metabolic profiles did not return to baseline up to 1 year post-PLNRT in any biofluid. Molecules associated with cardiovascular risk were increased in plasma. Pre-PLNRT fecal butyrate levels directly associated with increasing gastrointestinal side effects, as did a sharper fall in those levels during and up to 1 year postradiation therapy, mirroring our previous results with metataxonomics. Conclusions We showed for the first time that an overall metabolic effect is observed in patients undergoing PLNRT up to 1 year posttreatment. These metabolic changes may effect on long-term morbidity after treatment, which warrants further investigation.

145 Background: Studies are conflicting regarding the association between statin use and biochemical recurrence after surgery or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. A handful of studies have observed favorable associations between statins and prostate cancer-specific (PCSM) and overall mortality (OS), however, this has not been studied in an advanced disease cohort nor has the combination of statins and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) been specifically studied. Methods: Patients with PSA >3 ng/mL after >1 year following primary or salvage radiotherapy (RT) were enrolled in a randomized trial of intermittent (IAD) vs. continuous (CAD) ADT (NCT00003653). Statin use at baseline and during the study was captured and modeled as a time-dependent covariate. The primary end-point was OS. Models were adjusted for age, time from RT to ADT and PSA at baseline. As results were nearly identical between the IAD and CAD arms they are reported as aggregates unless otherwise indicated. Results: Of 1,364 patients enrolled, 585 (43%) reported statin use during the study. Statin users were younger (72.7 vs. 73.8, p=0.001) and less likely to have PSA >15 (20 vs. 25%, p=0.04). Median follow-up was 6.9 years and 524 deaths occurred. Statin use was associated with a reduced risk of overall death (HR: 0.64; 95% C.I. 0.53 – 0.78, p

Purpose Reducing margins during treatment planning to decrease dose to healthy organs surrounding the prostate can risk inadequate treatment of subclinical disease. This study aimed to investigate whether lack of dose to subclinical disease is associated with increased disease progression by using high-quality prostate radiation therapy clinical trial data to identify anatomically localized regions where dose variation is associated with prostate-specific antigen progression (PSAP). Methods and Materials Planned dose distributions for 683 patients of the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 03.04 Randomized Androgen Deprivation and Radiotherapy (RADAR) trial were deformably registered onto a single exemplar computed tomography data set. These were divided into high-risk and intermediate-risk subgroups for analysis. Three independent voxel-based statistical tests, using permutation testing, Cox regression modeling, and least absolute shrinkage selection operator feature selection, were applied to identify regions where dose variation was associated with PSAP. Results from the intermediate-risk RADAR subgroup were externally validated by registering dose distributions from the RT01 (n = 388) and Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer Trial (CHHiP) (n = 253) trials onto the same exemplar and repeating the tests on each of these data sets. Results Voxel-based Cox regression revealed regions where reduced dose was correlated with increased prostate-specific androgen progression. Reduced dose in regions associated with coverage at the posterior prostate, in the immediate periphery of the posterior prostate, and in regions corresponding to the posterior oblique beams or posterior lateral beam boundary, was associated with increased PSAP for RADAR and RT01 patients, but not for CHHiP patients. Reduced dose to the seminal vesicle region was also associated with increased PSAP for RADAR intermediate-risk patients. Conclusions Ensuring adequate dose coverage at the posterior prostate and immediately surrounding posterior region (including the seminal vesicles), where aggressive cancer spread may be occurring, may improve tumor control. It is recommended that particular care be taken when defining margins at the prostate posterior, acknowledging the trade-off between quality of life due to rectal dose and the preferences of clinicians and patients.

External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with neoadjuvant/adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is an established treatment option to prolong survival for patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Relugolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist, was evaluated in this clinical setting in comparison with degarelix, an injectable GnRH antagonist.To evaluate the safety and efficacy of relugolix to achieve and maintain castration.A phase 2 open-label study was conducted in 103 intermediate-risk PCa patients undergoing primary EBRT and neoadjuvant/adjuvant ADT between June 2014 and December 2015.Patients randomly assigned (3:2) to 24-wk treatment with either daily oral relugolix or 4-wk subcutaneous depot degarelix (reference control).The primary endpoint was the rate of effective castration (testosterone1.73nmol/l) in relugolix patients between 4 and 24 wk of treatment. Secondary endpoints included rate of profound castration (testosterone0.7nmol/l), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, prostate volume, quality of life (QoL) assessed using the Aging Males' Symptoms scale, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life (30-item EORTC core questionnaire [EORTC QLQ-C30] and 25-item EORTC prostate cancer module [EORTC QLQ-PR25]) questionnaires, and safety. No formal statistical comparisons with degarelix were planned.Castration rates during treatment were 95% and 82% with relugolix and 89% and 68% with degarelix for 1.73 and 0.7nmol/l thresholds, respectively. Median time to castration in the relugolix arm was 4 d. During treatment, PSA levels and prostate volumes were reduced in both groups. Three months after discontinuing treatment, 52% of men on relugolix and 16% on degarelix experienced testosterone recovery (statistical significance of differences not tested). Mean and median QoL scores improved following treatment discontinuation. The most common adverse event was hot flush (relugolix 57%; degarelix 61%). Lack of blinding was a potential limitation.Relugolix achieved testosterone suppression to castrate levels within days and maintained it over 24 wk with a safety profile consistent with its mechanism of action.Oral once-daily relugolix may be a novel oral alternative to injectable androgen deprivation therapies.

Background Abiraterone acetate received licencing for use in only "high-risk" metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer (mHNPC) following the LATITUDE trial findings. However, a "risk"-related effect was not seen in the STAMPEDE trial. There remains uncertainty as to whether men with LATITUDE "low-risk" M1 disease benefit from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with abiraterone acetate and prednisolone (AAP). Objective Evaluation of heterogeneity of effect between LATITUDE high- and low-risk M1 prostate cancer patients receiving ADT + AAP in the STAMPEDE trial. Design, setting, and participants A post hoc subgroup analysis of the 2017 STAMPEDE "abiraterone comparison". Staging scans for M1 patients contemporaneously randomised to ADT or ADT + AAP within the STAMPEDE trial were evaluated centrally and blind to treatment assignment. Stratification was by risk according to the criteria set out in the LATITUDE trial. Exploratory subgroup stratification incorporated the CHAARTED criteria. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS) and the secondary outcome measure was failure-free survival (FFS). Further exploratory analysis evaluated clinical skeletal-related events, progression-free survival (PFS), and prostate cancer-specific death. Standard Cox-regression and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were employed for analysis. Results and limitations A total of 901 M1 STAMPEDE patients were evaluated after exclusions. Of the patients, 428 (48%) were identified as having a low risk and 473 (52%) a high risk. Patients receiving ADT + AAP had significantly improved OS (low-risk hazard ratio [HR]: 0.66, 95% confidence interval or CI [0.44–0.98]) and FFS (low-risk HR: 0.24, 95% CI [0.17–0.33]) compared with ADT alone. Heterogeneity of effect was not seen between low- and high-risk groups for OS or FFS. For OS benefit in low risk, the number needed to treat was four times greater than that for high risk. However, this was not observed for the other measured endpoints. Conclusions Men with mHNPC gain treatment benefit from ADT + AAP irrespective of risk stratification for "risk" or "volume". Patient summary Coadministration of abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with prolonged overall survival and disease control, compared with ADT alone, in all men with metastatic disease starting hormone therapy for the first time.

Prostate bed radiotherapy is a standard treatment after radical prostatectomy. Recent evidence suggests that, for patients with a PSA 0.34 ng/ml, the radiotherapy treatment volume should include not only the prostate bed but also the pelvic lymph nodes. We describe the patterns of failure after prostate bed radiotherapy, focussing on the proportion of patients with radiologically confirmed pelvic nodal failure only, in the absence of distant disease.Patients included were men receiving prostate bed radiotherapy at the Royal Marsden Hospital between 1997 and 2013. The key outcome of interest was the pattern of radiologic failure after prostate bed radiotherapy. Baseline characteristics of patients experiencing pelvic nodal failure without distant disease were compared versus all other relapse patterns. Comparisons were by Chi-square test, with multiple testing adjusted p 0.005 significant.140 of 322 patients developed biochemical failure after salvage RT. Radiologic failure occurred in 89 patients. 35 of the 89 patients (39%) with radiologic failure had pelvic nodal failure without distant disease, with no significant differences in baseline characteristics when compared to all other patients. The rate of pelvic nodal failure was the same for patients with PSA above or below 0.34 ng/ml (16/149, 95% CI = 6-17% vs 19/171, 95% CI = 7-17%).Pelvic lymph node disease, without more distant disease, is a common site of failure in men receiving radiotherapy to the prostate bed, including those with PSA 0.34 ng/ml. This observation informs the case for including the pelvic lymph nodes in the radiotherapy treatment volume.

Aims The CHHiP trial investigated the use of moderate hypofractionation for the treatment of localised prostate cancer using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). A radiotherapy quality assurance programme was developed to assess compliance with treatment protocol and to audit treatment planning and dosimetry of IMRT. This paper considers the outcome and effectiveness of the programme. Materials and methods Quality assurance exercises included a pre-trial process document and planning benchmark cases, prospective case reviews and a dosimetry site visit on-trial and a post-trial feedback questionnaire. Results In total, 41 centres completed the quality assurance programme (37 UK, four international) between 2005 and 2010. Centres used either forward-planned (field-in-field single phase) or inverse-planned IMRT (25 versus 17). For pre-trial quality assurance exercises, 7/41 (17%) centres had minor deviations in their radiotherapy processes; 45/82 (55%) benchmark plans had minor variations and 17/82 (21%) had major variations. One hundred prospective case reviews were completed for 38 centres. Seventy-one per cent required changes to clinical outlining pre-treatment (primarily prostate apex and base, seminal vesicles and penile bulb). Errors in treatment planning were reduced relative to pre-trial quality assurance results (49% minor and 6% major variations). Dosimetry audits were conducted for 32 centres. Ion chamber dose point measurements were within ±2.5% in the planning target volume and ±8% in the rectum. 28/36 films for combined fields passed gamma criterion 3%/3 mm and 11/15 of IMRT fluence film sets passed gamma criterion 4%/4 mm using a 98% tolerance. Post-trial feedback showed that trial participation was beneficial in evolving clinical practice and that the quality assurance programme helped some centres to implement and audit prostate IMRT. Conclusion Overall, quality assurance results were satisfactory and the CHHiP quality assurance programme contributed to the success of the trial by auditing radiotherapy treatment planning and protocol compliance. Quality assurance supported the introduction of IMRT in UK centres, giving additional confidence and external review of IMRT where it was a newly adopted technique.

Background Results from large randomised controlled trials have shown that adding docetaxel to the standard of care (SOC) for men initiating hormone therapy for prostate cancer (PC) prolongs survival for those with metastatic disease and prolongs failure-free survival for those without. To date there has been no formal assessment of whether funding docetaxel in this setting represents an appropriate use of UK National Health Service (NHS) resources. Objective To assess whether administering docetaxel to men with PC starting long-term hormone therapy is cost-effective in a UK setting. Design, setting, and participants We modelled health outcomes and costs in the UK NHS using data collected within the STAMPEDE trial, which enrolled men with high-risk, locally advanced metastatic or recurrent PC starting first-line hormone therapy. Intervention SOC was hormone therapy for ≥2 yr and radiotherapy in some patients. Docetaxel (75 mg/m2) was administered alongside SOC for six three-weekly cycles. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The model generated lifetime predictions of costs, changes in survival duration, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results and limitations The model predicted that docetaxel would extend survival (discounted quality-adjusted survival) by 0.89 yr (0.51) for metastatic PC and 0.78 yr (0.39) for nonmetastatic PC, and would be cost-effective in metastatic PC (ICER £5514/QALY vs SOC) and nonmetastatic PC (higher QALYs, lower costs vs SOC). Docetaxel remained cost-effective in nonmetastatic PC when the assumption of no survival advantage was modelled. Conclusions Docetaxel is cost-effective among patients with nonmetastatic and metastatic PC in a UK setting. Clinicians should consider whether the evidence is now sufficiently compelling to support docetaxel use in patients with nonmetastatic PC, as the opportunity to offer docetaxel at hormone therapy initiation will be missed for some patients by the time more mature survival data are available. Patient summary Starting docetaxel chemotherapy alongside hormone therapy represents a good use of UK National Health Service resources for patients with prostate cancer that is high risk or has spread to other parts of the body., Take Home Message Docetaxel is a cost-effective intervention in patients with metastatic and nonmetastatic prostate cancer starting hormone therapy. Clinicians and National Health Service funding bodies should consider whether the evidence is now sufficiently compelling to support initiating docetaxel in patients with nonmetastatic disease.

Highlights • Data linkage allows combining patient records from different healthcare settings. • Linkage to GP data can support conduct of clinical trials and long-term follow-up. • The effect of co-morbidities and medications on cancer recovery is of interest. • Co-morbidities are potential risk factors for radiotherapy-related toxicity. • Statins or antihypertensives may potentially have protective effect., Background Patients receiving cancer treatment often have one or more co-morbid conditions that are treated pharmacologically. Co-morbidities are recorded in clinical trials usually only at baseline. However, co-morbidities evolve and new ones emerge during cancer treatment. The interaction between multi-morbidity and cancer recovery is significant but poorly understood. Purpose To investigate the effect of co-morbidities (e.g. cardiovascular and diabetes) and medications (e.g. statins, antihypertensives, metformin) on radiotherapy-related toxicity and long-term symptoms in order to identify potential risk factors. The possible protective effect of medications such as statins or antihypertensives in reducing radiotherapy-related toxicity will also be explored. Methods Two datasets will be linked. (1) CHHiP (Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer) randomised control trial. CHHiP contains pelvic symptoms and radiation-related toxicity reported by patients and clinicians. (2) GP (General Practice) data from RCGP RSC (Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre). The GP records of CHHiP patients will be extracted, including cardiovascular co-morbidities, diabetes and prescription medications. Statistical analysis of the combined dataset will be performed in order to investigate the effect. Conclusions Linking two sources of healthcare data is an exciting area of big healthcare data research. With limited data in clinical trials (not all clinical trials collect information on co-morbidities or medications) and limited lengths of follow-up, linking different sources of information is increasingly needed to investigate long-term outcomes. With increasing pressures to collect detailed information in clinical trials (e.g. co-morbidities, medications), linkage to routinely collected data offers the potential to support efficient conduct of clinical trials.

We agree with Mahal and colleagues that there is considerable imprecision in estimates of the duration of androgen suppression when used in conjunction with radiotherapy. This exists because of the variable duration of testosterone suppression after cessation of parenteral androgen suppression using luteinizing hormone–releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists. This is particularly marked with longer durations of treatment (≥6 mo), use of ≥3-mo depot preparations, and patient-related factors including age and pretreatment testosterone levels [...].

Aims: The treatment of prostate cancer has evolved markedly over the last 40 years, including radiotherapy, notably with escalated dose and targeting. However, the optimal treatment for localised disease has not been established in comparative randomised trials. The aim of this article is to describe the history ofprostate radiotherapy trials, including their quality assurance processes, and to compare these with the ProtecT trial.Materials and methods: The UK ProtecT randomised trial compares external beam conformal radiotherapy, surgery and active monitoring for clinically localized prostate cancer and will report on the primary outcome (disease-specific mortality) in 2016 following recruitment between 1999 and 2009. The embedded quality assurance programme consists of on-site machine dosimetry at the nine trial centres, a retrospective review of outlining and adherence to dose constraints based on the trial protocol in 54 participants (randomly selected, around 10% of the total randomised to radiotherapy, n ¼ 545). These quality assurance processes and results were compared with prostate radiotherapy trials of a comparable era.Results: There has been an increasingly sophisticated quality assurance programme in UK prostate radiotherapy trials over the last 15 years, reflecting dose escalation and treatment complexity. In ProtecT, machine dosimetry results were comparable between trial centres and with the UK RT01 trial. The outliningreview showed that most deviations were clinically acceptable, although three (1.4%) may have been of clinical significance and were related to outlining of theprostate. Seminal vesicle outlining varied, possibly due to several prostate trials running concurrently with different protocols. Adherence to dose constraints inProtecT was considered acceptable, with 80% of randomised participants having two or less deviations and planning target volume coverage was excellent.Conclusion: The ProtecT trial quality assurance results were satisfactory and comparable with trials of its era. Future trials should aim to standardise treatment protocols and quality assurance programmes where possible to reduce complexities for centres involved in multiple trials. 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Royal College of Radiologists.

In active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer there are few data on long-term outcomes associated with novel imaging markers.To determine long-term outcomes with respect to the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) derived from diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) in a prospective AS cohort. Early results have already been published; we now present findings with long-term follow-up.A subset of patients (n=86) underwent pre-enrolment DW-MRI in a prospective AS study between 2002 and 2006. Inclusion criteria were untreated prostate cancer, clinical T1/T2a/N0M0, Gleason ≤ 3+4, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA)15 ng/ml. Protocol follow-up was by biopsy at 18-24 mo and then every 24 mo, with regular PSA measurement.Men underwent baseline DW-MRI in addition to standard sequences. ADC was measured from the index lesion on T2-weighted images. To avoid influencing treatment decisions, DW-MRI sequence results were not available to the AS study investigators.Baseline ADC was analysed with respect to time to radical treatment (TRT) and time to adverse histology (TAH). Kaplan-Meier analysis and univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed.The median follow-up was 9.5 yr (interquartile range 7.9-10.0 yr). On univariate analysis, ADC below the median was associated with shorter TAH (hazard ratio [HR] 2.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-3.89; p0.014) and TRT (HR 2.54, 95% CI 1.49-4.32; p0.001). Median TRT was 9.3 yr (95% CI 7.0-11.6 yr) for patients with ADC above the median and only 2.4 yr (95% CI 1.5-6.0 yr) for ADC below the median. For TRT, addition of ADC to a multivariate model of baseline variables resulted in a significant improvement in model fit (HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.14-1.54; p0.001). Receiver operating characteristic analysis for TRT revealed an area under the curve of 0.80 (95% CI 0.70-0.88). The number of variables included in the multivariate model was limited by sample size.Long-term follow-up for this study provides strong evidence that ADC is a useful marker when selecting patients for AS. Routine DW-MRI is now being evaluated in our ongoing AS study for initial assessment and as an alternative to repeat biopsy.Before entering a study of close monitoring for the initial management of prostate cancer, patients had a type of magnetic resonance imaging scan that looks at the movement of water within cancers. These scans may help in predicting whether patients should receive close monitoring or whether immediate treatment should be given.

Background STAMPEDE has previously reported that upfront docetaxel (Doc) improved overall survival (OS) for patients (pts) starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). We report the long-term outcomes for M1 pts using OS as the primary outcome measure. We also assessed if benefit of Doc depended on metastatic burden, as suggested by previous trials, using the CHAARTED definition of high burden (HB) and low burden (LB) baseline disease. Methods 724 SOC and 362 SOC+Doc pts were recruited with a 2:1 randomised stratified allocation. Analysis used Cox regression models, adjusted for all stratification factors, with emphasis on restricted mean survival time if hazards were non-proportional. Retrospectively-collected imaging data, blinded to trial arm, was used to categorise pts as having LB or HB disease. Results Median follow-up was ∼6.5yr, compared to ∼3.5yr when last reported. There were 494 deaths on SOC (41% increase in deaths compared to previous report), with median OS=43.1 months (m). There was good evidence of benefit of SOC+Doc on OS (median = 59.1m, HR=0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.95, P=0.009). Metastatic burden was assessable for 830/1086 (76%) pts; subgroups were representative of the full M1 cohort in terms of stratification factors. There was no evidence of heterogeneity of Doc effect between the LB and HB subgroups (interaction P=0.827; LB HR=0.76, 95%CI 0.54-1.07, P=0.107; HB HR=0.81, 95%CI 0.64-1.02, P=0.064). Analysis of other outcomes also found evidence of benefit of SOC+Doc over SOC in failure-free survival (FFS; HR=0.66, 95% CI 0.57-0.76, P Conclusions The clinically significant benefit in survival for upfront Doc persists after longer follow-up, with no evidence that the benefit differed dependent on disease burden. We advocate that upfront Doc is considered for both LB and HB M1 pts. Clinical trial identification NCT00268476. Legal entity responsible for the study University College London. Funding Cancer Research UK; Sanofi; MRC; Astellas; Clovis; Janssen; Novartis; Pfizer. Disclosure N.W. Clarke: Advisory / Consultancy: Janssen. G. Attard: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Astellas; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Medivation; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Millennium Pharmaceuticals; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Abbott Laboratories; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Essa Pharmaceuticals; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Takeda; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Sanofi-Aventis; Research grant / Funding (self): AstraZeneca; Research grant / Funding (self): Arno Therapeutics; Research grant / Funding (self): Innocrin Pharma; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Janssen; Advisory / Consultancy: Veridex; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Roche/Ventana; Advisory / Consultancy, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Pfizer; Research grant / Funding (institution), I was an employee of the ICR, where abiraterone acetate was developed, up to 8 January 2018. The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR). S. Chowdhury: Honoraria (self), Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Janssen Pharmaceutical. D. Dearnaley: Research grant / Funding (institution), Financial Support for Trial Recruitment: UK National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN); Research grant / Funding (institution), My employer, The Institute of Cancer Research, receives a royalty income from abiraterone. I receive a share of this income through the ICR's Rewards to Discoverer's Scheme: The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR); Research grant / Funding (self): Cancer Research UK; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Takeda; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Sandoz; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Janssen. S. Gillessen: Honoraria (institution): Bayer; Honoraria (institution): Curevac; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Janssen; Honoraria (institution): Astellas; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Orion; Advisory / Consultancy: MaxiVax SA; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: AAA; Honoraria (institution): Ferring; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Honoraria (institution): Innocrin Pharmaceuticals; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy: Sanofi; Honoraria (institution): Novartis; Non-remunerated activity/ies: Nectar Therapeutics; Non-remunerated activity/ies: ProteoMedix; Honoraria (institution): Cell Search; Honoraria (institution): Clovis; Honoraria (institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb. R. Jones: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Janssen; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): Astellas; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): Sanofi; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Novartis. Z. Malik: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Janssen; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Sanofi; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Astellas; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bayer. M.D. Mason: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Sanofi; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Janssen; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Bayer. C. Parker: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): Bayer; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AAA; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Janssen. A.G. Omlin: Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Astellas; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bayer; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Sanofi; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Molecular Partners; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Janssen; Research grant / Funding (institution): Teva. M.R. Sydes: Research grant / Funding (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies, Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Astellas; Research grant / Funding (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies, Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Clovis Oncology; Research grant / Funding (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies, Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Novartis; Research grant / Funding (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies, Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Pfizer; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Eli Lilly; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies, Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Janssen; Research grant / Funding (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies, Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Sanofi. M.K.B. Parmar: Research grant / Funding (self), Unrestricted grant to contribute to another comparison of STAMPEDE which supports the protocol overall, plus relevant drug and distribution.: Astellas; Research grant / Funding (self), Unrestricted grant to contribute to another comparison of STAMPEDE which supports the protocol overall, plus relevant drug and distribution.: Clovis Oncology; Research grant / Funding (self), Unrestricted grant to contribute to another comparison of STAMPEDE which supports the protocol overall, plus relevant drug and distribution.: Novartis; Research grant / Funding (self), Unrestricted grant to contribute to another comparison of STAMPEDE which supports the protocol overall, plus relevant drug and distribution.: Pfizer; Research grant / Funding (self), Unrestricted grant to contribute to another comparison of STAMPEDE which supports the protocol overall, plus relevant drug and distribution.: Sanofi. N.D. James: Advisory / Consultancy: Sanofi; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Janssen. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background Prednisolone is widely used as secondary hormonal treatment for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We hypothesised that dexamethasone, another corticosteroid, is more active. Objective To compare the activity of prednisolone and dexamethasone in CRPC. Design, setting, and participants This single-centre, randomised, phase 2 trial was performed in 82 men with chemotherapy-naive CRPC enrolled from 2006 to 2010. Intervention Prednisolone 5mg twice daily versus dexamethasone 0.5mg once daily versus intermittent dexamethasone 8mg twice daily on days 1–3 every 3 wk. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The main end point was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate. Secondary end points included time to PSA progression, radiologic response rate using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST), and safety. Results and limitations The intermittent dexamethasone arm was dropped after no response was seen in seven patients. By intention to treat, confirmed PSA response was seen in 41% versus 22% for daily dexamethasone versus prednisolone, respectively ( p =0.08). In evaluable patients, the PSA response rates were 47% versus 24% for dexamethasone and prednisolone, respectively ( p =0.05). Median time to PSA progression was 9.7 mo on dexamethasone versus 5.1 mo on prednisolone (hazard ratio: 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.9–2.8). In 43 patients with measurable disease, the response rate by RECIST was 15% and 6% for dexamethasone and prednisolone, respectively ( p =0.6). Of 23 patients who crossed over at PSA progression on prednisolone, 7 of the 19 evaluable (37%) had a confirmed PSA response to dexamethasone. Clinically significant toxicities were rare. Conclusions Dexamethasone may be more active than prednisolone in CRPC. In the absence of more definitive trials, dexamethasone should be used in preference to prednisolone. Patient summary We compared two different steroids used for treating men with advanced prostate cancer. Our results suggest that dexamethasone may be more effective than prednisolone and that both are well tolerated. Clinical trial registry EUDRAC 2005-006018-16

Aim To test the hypothesis that computed tomography (CT)-based signs might precede symptomatic malignant spinal cord compression (MSCC) in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Materials and methods A database was used to identify suitable mCRPC patients. Staging CT images were retrospectively reviewed for signs preceding MSCC. Signs of malignant paravertebral fat infiltration and epidural soft-tissue disease were defined and assessed on serial CT in 34 patients with MSCC and 58 control patients. The presence and evolution of the features were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results In MSCC patients, CT performed a median of 28 days prior to the diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated significant epidural soft tissue in 28 (80%) patients. The median time to MSCC from a combination of overt malignant paravertebral and epidural disease was 2.7 (0–14.6) months. Conversely, these signs were uncommon in the control cohort. Conclusions Significant malignant paravertebral and/or epidural disease at CT precede MSCC in up to 80% of mCRPC patients and should prompt closer patient follow-up and consideration of early MRI evaluation. These CT-based features require further prospective validation.

Cabazitaxel, abiraterone, and enzalutamide are survival-prolonging treatments in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) progressing following docetaxel chemotherapy. The sequential activity of these agents has not been studied and treatment sequencing remains a key dilemma for clinicians.To describe the antitumour activity of cabazitaxel after docetaxel and next-generation endocrine agents.We report on a cohort of 59 men with progressing CRPC treated with cabazitaxel, 37 of whom had received prior abiraterone and 9 of whom had received prior enzalutamide.Changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level were used to determine activity on abiraterone, enzalutamide, and cabazitaxel treatment. Radiologic tumour regressions according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and symptomatic benefit were evaluated for cabazitaxel therapy.The post-endocrine-therapy patients received abiraterone (n=32), sequential abiraterone and enzalutamide (n=5) or enzalutamide (n=4). These patients received a median of 7 mo of abiraterone and 11 mo of enzalutamide. A median of six cabazitaxel cycles (range: 1-10 cycles) were delivered, with ≥ 50% PSA declines in 16 of 41 (39%) patients, soft tissue radiologic responses in 3 of 22 (14%) evaluable patients, and symptomatic benefit in 9 of 37 evaluable patients (24%). Median overall survival and progression-free survival were 15.8 and 4.6 mo, respectively. Antitumor activity on cabazitaxel was less favourable in the abiraterone- and enzalutamide-naïve cohort (n=18), likely reflecting biologic differences in this cohort. These data were obtained from a retrospective analysis.This is the first report of cabazitaxel activity in CRPC progressing after treatment with docetaxel and abiraterone or enzalutamide. We demonstrate significant cabazitaxel activity in this setting.We looked at the antitumour activity of the chemotherapy drug cabazitaxel in men previously treated with docetaxel chemotherapy and the hormonal drugs abiraterone and enzalutamide. Cabazitaxel appeared active when given after abiraterone and enzalutamide. We can reassure men that cabazitaxel can be used after these novel endocrine treatments.

Background and purpose This study was designed to identify common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with toxicity 2years after radiotherapy. Materials and methods A genome wide association study was performed in 1850 patients from the RAPPER study: 1217 received adjuvant breast radiotherapy and 633 had radical prostate radiotherapy. Genotype associations with both overall and individual endpoints of toxicity were tested via univariable and multivariable regression. Replication of potentially associated SNPs was carried out in three independent patient cohorts who had radiotherapy for prostate (516 RADIOGEN and 862 Gene-PARE) or breast (355 LeND) cancer. Results Quantile–quantile plots show more associations at the P −7 level than expected by chance (164 vs. 9 for the prostate cases and 29 vs. 4 for breast cases), providing evidence that common genetic variants are associated with risk of toxicity. Strongest associations were for individual endpoints rather than an overall measure of toxicity in all patients . However, in general, significant associations were not validated at a nominal 0.05 level in the replication cohorts. Conclusions This largest GWAS to date provides evidence of true association between common genetic variants and toxicity. Associations with toxicity appeared to be tumour site-specific. Future GWAS require higher statistical power, in particular in the validation stage, to test clinically relevant effect sizes of SNP associations with individual endpoints, but the required sample sizes are achievable.

New gastrointestinal symptoms are frequent after pelvic radiotherapy and can greatly affect the quality of life of cancer survivors. The effect of radiation on the intestinal microbiota, and the clinical implications of a modified microbial balance after radiotherapy are now beginning to emerge. In this Personal View, we show the importance of the microbiota for intestinal homoeostasis, and discuss the similarity between inflammatory bowel disease, which has been extensively researched, and radiation-induced gastrointestinal toxicity. By use of microbiota profiles for risk assessment and manipulation of the intestinal flora for prevention and treatment of radiation, enteropathy could become a reality and would be of substantial relevance to the increasing numbers of long-term cancer survivors.

Background STAMPEDE previously reported that adding upfront docetaxel (Doc) improved overall survival (OS) for locally advanced and metastatic patients (pts) starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). We report the long-term outcomes for M0 pts using metastatic progression-free survival (mPFS) as primary outcome, previously shown to be a surrogate for OS in M0 pts. Methods Standard-of-care (SOC) was ADT +/- radical radiotherapy (RT) to the prostate. 460 SOC and 230 SOC+Doc pts were recruited with 2:1 randomised stratified allocation. Standard survival intention-to-treatment analysis methods used Cox regression models adjusted for all stratification factors, with emphasis on restricted mean survival time (RMST) for non-proportional (non-PH) hazards. There was 70% power (2-sided α = 0.05) to detect HR = 0.70 for mPFS (= new metastases, skeletal related events or PCa death). Secondary outcome measures included failure free survival (FFS) and progression free survival (PFS = mPFS or locoregional progression). Results Median follow-up was ∼6.5yr compared to ∼3.5yr when last reported, with 142 mPFS events (a 54% increase) on SOC. There was no good evidence of an advantage of SOC+Doc over SOC on mPFS (HR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.66-1.19, P = 0.425); with 5yr mPFS 82% in SOC+Doc vs. 77% SOC. Secondary outcomes showed evidence that SOC+Doc improved FFS (HR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.55-0.88, P = 0.002) and PFS (non-PH P = 0.033, RMST difference=5.8 months, 95% CI 0.5-11.2, P = 0.031). There was no good evidence of a benefit of SOC+Doc on OS (125 SOC deaths; HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.64-1.21, P = 0.442). There was no evidence that SOC+Doc increased late toxicity compared to SOC: after 1yr, G3-5 toxicity reported for 29% SOC and 30% SOC+Doc. The impact of SOC RT (nominated prior to randomisation) with and without SOC+Doc will also be detailed by subgroup. Conclusions There is robust evidence SOC+Doc improves FFS and PFS (which we have previously shown increases Quality Adjusted Life Years). There is however no good evidence that this translates into benefit for longer-term outcomes (OS or mPFS). The benefits of upfront SOC+Doc for improved FFS and PFS with no excess late toxicity may contribute to treatment discussions. Clinical trial identification NCT00268476. Legal entity responsible for the study University College London. Funding Cancer Research UK; Sanofi; MRC; Astellas; Clovis; Janssen; Novartis; Pfizer. Disclosure N.D. James: Advisory / Consultancy: Sanofi; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Janssen. N.W. Clarke: Advisory / Consultancy: Janssen. G. Attard: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Astellas; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Medivation; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Millennium Pharmaceuticals; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Abbott Laboratories; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Essa Pharmaceuticals; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Takeda; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Sanofi-Aventis; Research grant / Funding (self): AstraZeneca; Research grant / Funding (self): Arno Therapeutics; Research grant / Funding (self): Innocrin Pharma; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Janssen; Advisory / Consultancy: Veridex; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Roche/Ventana; Advisory / Consultancy, Non-remunerated activity/ies: Pfizer; Research grant / Funding (self), I was an employee of the ICR, where abiraterone acetate was developed, up to 8 January 2018. : The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR). W. Cross: Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Janssen; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Bayer. D. Dearnaley: Research grant / Funding (institution), Financial Support for Trial Recruitment: UK National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN); Research grant / Funding (institution): The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR); Research grant / Funding (self), C46/A3976, C46/A10588 and C33589/A19727. : Cancer Research UK; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Takeda; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Amgen; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Astellas; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Sandoz; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Janssen. R. Jones: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Janssen; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): Astellas; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): Sanofi; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Novartis. M.D. Mason: Honoraria (self), Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Sanofi; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Janssen; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Bayer. C. Parker: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self): Bayer; Honoraria (self): AAA; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Janssen. M.K.B. Parmar: Research grant / Funding (self), Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Astellas; Research grant / Funding (self), Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Clovis Oncology; Research grant / Funding (self), Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Novartis; Research grant / Funding (self), Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Pfizer; Research grant / Funding (self), Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Sanofi. M.R. Sydes: Research grant / Funding (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies, Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Astellas; Research grant / Funding (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies, Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Clovis Oncology; Research grant / Funding (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies, Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Novartis; Research grant / Funding (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies, Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Pfizer; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Eli Lilly; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Non-remunerated activity/ies, Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Janssen; Research grant / Funding (self), Non-remunerated activity/ies, Unrestricted grant to contribute to STAMPEDE overall: Sanofi. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background Active surveillance (AS) aims to allow men with favourable-risk, localised prostate cancer to avoid unnecessary treatment. Objective To describe the clinical outcomes of a prospective study of AS. Design, setting, and participants A single-centre, prospective cohort study. Eligibility criteria included histologically proven prostate adenocarcinoma, age 50–80 yr, stage T1/T2, prostate-specific antigen level (PSA) 65 yr), and percent positive biopsy cores (PPC) ≤50%. Intervention Patients were assessed by serum PSA level, and digital rectal examination at 3-mo intervals in year 1, 4-mo intervals in year 2, and at 6-mo intervals thereafter. Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy was performed after 18–24 mo and every 2 yr thereafter. Treatment was recommended for PSA velocity (PSAV) >1 ng/ml per year or adverse histology, defined as GS ≥4+3 or PPC >50%. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Outcomes described, using Kaplan-Meier methods, were rate of adverse histology on repeat biopsy, freedom from treatment, biochemical control after deferred treatment, and overall survival. Analyses using Cox regression were performed to determine predictors of deferred treatment and adverse histology. Results and limitations The study enrolled 471 eligible patients from 2002 to 2011. Median age was 66 yr and median initial PSA value was 6.4 ng/ml. Eighty-eight percent of patients had T1 disease and 93% had GS ≤3+3. At median follow-up of 5.7 yr, the 5-yr rate of adverse histology and treatment-free probability was 22% (95% confidence interval [CI], 16–29%) and 70% (95% CI, 65–75%), respectively. There were two deaths from prostate cancer. Predictors of time to adverse histology were GS 7, PSAV >1 ng/ml per year, low ratio of free PSA to total PSA, and PPC >25%. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the safety of this strategy. Conclusions This study demonstrates satisfactory medium-term outcomes for AS in selected men with localised prostate cancer.

Dose distributions for prostate radiotherapy are difficult to predict in patients with bilateral hip prostheses in situ, due to image distortions and difficulty in dose calculation. The feasibility of delivering curative doses to prostate using intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in patients with bilateral hip prostheses was evaluated. Planning target volumes for prostate only (PTV1) and pelvic nodes (PTV2) were generated from data on 5 patients. PTV1 and PTV2 dose prescriptions were 70 Gy and 60 Gy, respectively, in 35 fractions, and an additional nodal boost of 65 Gy was added for 1 plan. Rectum, bladder, and bowel were also delineated. Beam angles and segments were chosen to best avoid entering through the prostheses. Dose-volume data were assessed with respect to clinical objectives. The plans achieved the required prescription doses to the PTVs. Five-field IMRT plans were adequate for patients with relatively small prostheses (head volumes < 60 cm(3)) but 7-field plans were required for patients with larger prostheses. Bowel and bladder doses were clinically acceptable for all patients. Rectal doses were deemed clinically acceptable, although the V-50 Gy objective was not met for 4/5 patients. We describe an IMRT solution for patients with bilateral hip prostheses of varying size and shape, requiring either localized or whole pelvic radiotherapy for prostate cancer. (C) 2013 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists.

To the Editor: We were very interested in Wedlake et al.’s recent article evaluating the efficacy of statins and ACE-inhibitors in reducing gastrointestinal toxicity in patients receiving radiotherapy for pelvic malignancies. This paper has enhanced existing literature in this area by taking an important next step and retrospectively collecting data on type, dose and duration of statin and ACE use. We have investigated a potential reduction in normal tissue toxicity following radiotherapy in patients who reported hypertension at entry to the CHHiP (Conventional or Hypofractionated High-dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer) trial [CRUK/ 06/016]. CHHiP is a multistage, multicentre randomised phase III trial which closed to recruitment in June 2011 with 3216 patients. A pre-planned safety analysis was carried out in stage 1 and 2 patients (n = 457) summarising 2 year toxicity by randomised radiotherapy dose group. We have carried out exploratory analyses of the relationship between hypertension (which was pro

Summary Background Long-term hormone therapy alone is standard care for metastatic or high-risk, non-metastatic prostate cancer. STAMPEDE—an international, open-label, randomised controlled trial—uses a novel multiarm, multistage design to assess whether the early additional use of one or two drugs (docetaxel, zoledronic acid, celecoxib, zoledronic acid and docetaxel, or zoledronic acid and celecoxib) improves survival in men starting first-line, long-term hormone therapy. Here, we report the preplanned, second intermediate analysis comparing hormone therapy plus celecoxib (arm D) with hormone therapy alone (control arm A). Methods Eligible patients were men with newly diagnosed or rapidly relapsing prostate cancer who were starting long-term hormone therapy for the first time. Hormone therapy was given as standard care in all trial arms, with local radiotherapy encouraged for newly diagnosed patients without distant metastasis. Randomisation was done using minimisation with a random element across seven stratification factors. Patients randomly allocated to arm D received celecoxib 400 mg twice daily, given orally, until 1 year or disease progression (including prostate-specific antigen [PSA] failure). The intermediate outcome was failure-free survival (FFS) in three activity stages; the primary outcome was overall survival in a subsequent efficacy stage. Research arms were compared pairwise against the control arm on an intention-to-treat basis. Accrual of further patients was discontinued in any research arm showing safety concerns or insufficient evidence of activity (lack of benefit) compared with the control arm. The minimum targeted activity at the second intermediate activity stage was a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·92. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00268476, and with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN78818544. Findings 2043 patients were enrolled in the trial from Oct 17, 2005, to Jan 31, 2011, of whom 584 were randomly allocated to receive hormone therapy alone (control group; arm A) and 291 to receive hormone therapy plus celecoxib (arm D). At the preplanned analysis of the second intermediate activity stage, with 305 FFS events (209 in arm A, 96 in arm D), there was no evidence of an advantage for hormone therapy plus celecoxib over hormone therapy alone: HR 0·94 (95% CI 0·74–1·20). 2-year FFS was 51% (95% CI 46–56) in arm A and 51% (95% CI 43–58) in arm D. There was no evidence of differences in the incidence of adverse events between groups (events of grade 3 or higher were noted at any time in 123 [23%, 95% CI 20–27] patients in arm A and 64 [25%, 19–30] in arm D). The most common grade 3–5 events adverse effects in both groups were endocrine disorders (55 [11%] of patients in arm A vs 19 [7%] in arm D) and musculoskeletal disorders (30 [6%] of patients in arm A vs 15 [6%] in arm D). The independent data monitoring committee recommended stopping accrual to both celecoxib-containing arms on grounds of lack of benefit and discontinuing celecoxib for patients currently on treatment, which was endorsed by the trial steering committee. Interpretation Celecoxib 400 mg twice daily for up to 1 year is insufficiently active in patients starting hormone therapy for high-risk prostate cancer, and we do not recommend its use in this setting. Accrual continues seamlessly to the other research arms and follow-up of all arms will continue to assess effects on overall survival. Funding Cancer Research UK, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Medical Research Council (London, UK).

Summary Background Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity, implying a therapeutic advantage of hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned preliminary safety analysis of side-effects in stages 1 and 2 of a randomised trial comparing standard and hypofractionated radiotherapy. Methods We did a multicentre, randomised study and recruited men with localised prostate cancer between Oct 18, 2002, and Aug 12, 2006, at 11 UK centres. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive conventional or hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy, and all were given with 3–6 months of neoadjuvant androgen suppression. Computer-generated random permuted blocks were used, with risk of seminal vesicle involvement and radiotherapy-treatment centre as stratification factors. The conventional schedule was 37 fractions of 2 Gy to a total of 74 Gy. The two hypofractionated schedules involved 3 Gy treatments given in either 20 fractions to a total of 60 Gy, or 19 fractions to a total of 57 Gy. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients with grade 2 or worse toxicity at 2 years on the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) scale. The primary analysis included all patients who had received at least one fraction of radiotherapy and completed a 2 year assessment. Treatment allocation was not masked and clinicians were not blinded. Stage 3 of this trial completed the planned recruitment in June, 2011. This study is registered, number ISRCTN97182923. Findings 153 men recruited to stages 1 and 2 were randomly assigned to receive conventional treatment of 74 Gy, 153 to receive 60 Gy, and 151 to receive 57 Gy. With 50·5 months median follow-up (IQR 43·5–61·3), six (4·3%; 95% CI 1·6–9·2) of 138 men in the 74 Gy group had bowel toxicity of grade 2 or worse on the RTOG scale at 2 years, as did five (3·6%; 1·2–8·3) of 137 men in the 60 Gy group, and two (1·4%; 0·2–5·0) of 143 men in the 57 Gy group. For bladder toxicities, three (2·2%; 0·5–6·2) of 138 men, three (2·2%; 0·5–6·3) of 137, and none (0·0%; 97·5% CI 0·0–2·6) of 143 had scores of grade 2 or worse on the RTOG scale at 2 years. Interpretation Hypofractionated high-dose radiotherapy seems equally well tolerated as conventionally fractionated treatment at 2 years. Funding Stage 1 was funded by the Academic Radiotherapy Unit, Cancer Research UK programme grant; stage 2 was funded by the Department of Health and Cancer Research UK.

Purpose To examine patterns of bladder wall motion during high-dose hypofractionated bladder radiotherapy and to validate a novel adaptive planning method, A-POLO, to prevent subsequent geographic miss. Methods and Materials Patterns of individual bladder filling were obtained with repeat computed tomography planning scans at 0, 15, and 30 minutes after voiding. A series of patient-specific plans corresponding to these time-displacement points was created. Pretreatment cone-beam computed tomography was performed before each fraction and assessed retrospectively for adaptive intervention. In fractions that would have required intervention, the most appropriate plan was chosen from the patient's “library,” and the resulting target coverage was reassessed with repeat cone-beam computed tomography. Results A large variation in patterns of bladder filling and interfraction displacement was seen. During radiotherapy, predominant translations occurred cranially (maximum 2.5 cm) and anteriorly (maximum 1.75 cm). No apparent explanation was found for this variation using pretreatment patient factors. A need for adaptive planning was demonstrated by 51% of fractions, and 73% of fractions would have been delivered correctly using A-POLO. The adaptive strategy improved target coverage and was able to account for intrafraction motion also. Conclusions Bladder volume variation will result in geographic miss in a high proportion of delivered bladder radiotherapy treatments. The A-POLO strategy can be used to correct for this and can be implemented from the first fraction of radiotherapy; thus, it is particularly suited to hypofractionated bladder radiotherapy regimens.

Background Following orchidectomy patients with stage I seminoma of the testis may be managed by either surveillance or adjuvant treatment. In view of the very high cure rate, it is important to analyse long-term outcomes. Objective : To provide data to advise patients on treatment burden and risk of recurrence associated with surveillance. Design, setting, and participants We audited the case records of 164 stage I seminoma patients registered at the Royal Marsden Hospital who were managed with a surveillance policy between 1980 and 2004 and followed for 1–20 yr (median: 13.5 yr). Measurements All treatments and patterns of relapse were documented. Results and limitations Twenty-two of 164 (13%) patients had relapsed at a median of 15.5 mo (range: 6–55 mo) from orchidectomy. Eighteen relapses appeared to be confined to the para-aortic nodes, but 6 of the 13 (46%) men treated with only para-aortic radiotherapy suffered a further relapse at another site. The disease-specific mortality was 1.3%. In the complete series of 164 patients, a total of 50 cycles of chemotherapy and 26 courses of radiotherapy was administered, representing an average of 0.46 "treatment units" per patient or an average of 3.45 treatment units per relapsing patient. The total number of treatment days was 390 d for radiotherapy and 133 d for chemotherapy, representing an average of 3.2 d per patient or 23.8 d per relapsing patient. This was a single-centre series extending back to the 1980s. Imaging and treatment protocols have advanced since then. Conclusions Surveillance postorchidectomy is a safe practice in the long term, and the majority of patients can avoid further treatment. There is the risk that those who do relapse face a higher burden of treatment than would be required if adjuvant treatment had been given.

Markers that predict the behaviour of localised prostate cancer are needed to identify patients that require treatment.We have analysed the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) generated from diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) with respect to repeat biopsy findings and time to radical treatment in patients in a prospective study of active surveillance.Some 86 men recruited between 2002 and 2006 were followed for a median of 29 mo. Patients had clinical stage T1/T2a N0/Nx M0/Mx adenocarcinoma of the prostate, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level15 ng/ml, Gleason score≤7, primary Gleason grade≤3, and positive biopsy cores (pbc)≤50%.All patients had DW-MRI in addition to standard MRI sequences. Tumour regions of interest (ROIs) were identified using T2-weighted fast-spin echo images as focal areas of restricted diffusion. Univariate analyses including all clinical variables and tumour ADC data were performed with respect to repeat biopsy findings and time to radical treatment. Receiver operating curves (ROC) compared predictive variables.Patients in the study had a median age of 66 yr and a median initial PSA level of 6.7 ng/ml. Some 39 patients (45%) received deferred radical treatment, and 34 patients (40%) had adverse histology on repeat biopsy. According to univariate analysis, tumour ADC was a significant predictor of both adverse repeat biopsy findings (p0.0001; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-1.6), and time to radical treatment (p0.0001; HR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.2-1.8). ROC curves for ADC showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.7 for prediction of adverse repeat biopsy findings and an AUC of 0.83 for prediction of radical treatment.In patients with low-risk, localised disease, tumour ADC on DW-MRI may be a useful marker of prostate cancer progression and may help to identify patients who stand to benefit from radical treatment. This possibility warrants further study.

Background: Bisphosphonates might modulate the development of symptomatic bone metastases in men with prostate cancer. The Medical Research Council (MRC) PR05 and PR04 randomised controlled trials assessed the use of sodium clodronate, an oral, first-generation bisphosphonate. We report the final analyses of long-term survival data with additional follow-up in both trials. Methods: 311 men with metastatic disease were recruited to PR05 between 1994 and 1998, and 508 men with non-metastatic disease were recruited to PR04 from 1994 to 1997. All men were treated according to the recruiting site's standard practice at the time: for metastatic disease, all men were starting or responding to long-term hormone therapy; for non-metastatic disease, most men had radiotherapy, hormone therapy, or both. Men were randomly assigned to take four tablets per day of sodium clodronate (2080 mg) or matching placebo for up to 3 years (metastatic disease) or 5 years (non-metastatic). Long-term overall survival was assessed on an intention-to-treat basis in all men at sites in England and Wales using data from the National Health Service Information Centre, which held data for 278 of 311 men in the PR05 trial and 471 of 508 men in the PR04 trial. These studies are registered International Standardised Randomised Controlled Trials, numbers ISRCTN38477744 (PR05) and ISRCTN61384873 (PR04). Findings: Of the 278 men with metastatic disease, 258 (93%) were reported to have died. Evidence of a benefit for those with metastatic disease from use of sodium clodronate compared with placebo was seen in overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·77, 95% CI 0·60–0·98; p=0·032). Of the 471 men with non-metastatic disease, 281 (60%) were reported to have died, with no evidence of improvement in overall survival with clodronate compared with placebo (HR 1·12, 0·89–1·42; p=0·94). Interpretation: Long-term data from these trials show that a first-generation bisphosphonate, sodium clodronate, improves overall survival in men with metastatic prostate cancer who are starting hormone therapy, but there is no evidence of an effect in men with non-metastatic prostate cancer. Funding: UK MRC; and an education grant and free drug from Roche Products Ltd.

Aim To determine the sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection of retroperitoneal lymph nodes in patients with testicular germ cell tumours (TGCT). Methods and materials A prospective study of 52 patients (mean age 34 years, range 18–54 years) was performed. Imaging of the retroperitoneum was performed using multidetector computed tomography (CT) and 1.5 T MRI systems. The CT and MRI images were read independently by three observers. The number, size, and site of enlarged nodes (≥10 mm maximum short axis diameter) were recorded. Retroperitoneal nodal detection on MRI was compared to CT. Results Twenty-two (42%) of the 52 patients had no retroperitoneal disease; in remaining 30 patients 51 enlarged nodes were identified. On a per patient basis readers 1, 2, and 3 identified nodal disease in 28 of 29, 29 of 30, and 24 of 30 patients, respectively, using MRI compared to CT. Thus for experienced radiologists (readers 1 and 2) MRI is comparable to CT for nodal detection (i.e., this study excludes MRI being inferior to CT with 80% power and 5% type 1 error). Conclusion MRI offers an alternative method for staging the retroperitoneum in young patients being followed for TGCT and has the major advantage of avoiding exposure to ionizing radiation.

Aims Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an effective method for evaluating the spine in patients with a high risk of metastatic disease. The aim of this study was to compare MRI spine with radionuclide bone scan in detecting spinal metastases for staging prostate cancer patients. Materials and methods A cohort of 99 patients with locally advanced prostate cancer at high risk of skeletal metastasis (prostate-specific antigen>10ng/ml, composite Gleason score≥8) or equivocal findings on bone scan were included in the retrospective study, and their MRI spine and bone scans were analysed. Results Ten patients were detected to have definite spinal metastasis by bone scan, whereas 12 patients had definite skeletal metastasis by MRI spine. Compared with the ‘gold standard', derived from clinical and radiological follow-up, the sensitivities for radionuclide bone scan and that for MRI spine for detecting skeletal metastasis were 71.4 and 85.7%, respectively ( P =0.023), whereas the specificities were 96.5 and 97.7%, respectively ( P =0.95). Of the 34 individual metastatic lesions in the spine, 15 were concordantly positive on both scans, whereas five lesions were positive only by bone scan and 11 positive only by MRI. The addition of MRI spine in the staging for prostate cancer resulted in a change of stage and management plan in seven (7%) patients. Conclusion MRI spine has comparable specificity and slightly better sensitivity than bone scan to detect spinal metastasis from prostate cancer.

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 ≥ 3mm displacement and 415 (63%) had at least one ≥ 5mm displacement. Univariate, multivariate and stepwise models of ≥ 5mm 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 ≥ 5mm 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.

Introduction During commissioning of the Pinnacle (Philips) treatment planning system (TPS) the margining algorithm was investigated and was found to produce larger PTVs than Plato (Nucletron) for identical GTVs. Subsequent comparison of PTV volumes resulting from the QA outlining exercise for the CHHIP (Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose IMRT for Prostate Ca.) trial confirmed that there were differences in TPS's margining algorithms. Margining and the clinical impact of the different PTVs in seven different planning and virtual simulation systems (Pinnacle, Plato, Prosoma (MedCom), Eclipse (7.3 and 7.5) (Varian), MasterPlan (Nucletron), Xio (CMS) and Advantage Windows (AW) (GE)) is investigated, and a simple test for 3D margining consistency is proposed. Methods Using each TPS, two different sets of prostate GTVs on 2.5mm and 5mm slices were margined according to the CHHIP protocol to produce PTV3 (prostate+5mm/0mm post), PTV2 (PTV3+5mm) and PTV1 (prostate and seminal vesicles+10mm). GTVs and PTVs were imported into Pinnacle for volume calculation. DVHs for 5mm slice plans, created using the smallest PTVs, were recalculated on the largest PTV dataset and vice versa. Since adding a margin of 50mm to a structure should give the same result as adding five margins of 10mm, this was tested for each TPS (consistency test) using an octahedron as the GTV and CT datasets with 2.5mm and 5mm slices. Results The CHHIP PTV3 and PTV1 volumes had a standard deviation, across the seven systems, of 5% and PTV2 (margined twice) 9%, on the 5mm slices. For 2.5mm slices the standard deviations were 4% and 6%. The ratio of the Pinnacle and the Eclipse 7.3 PTV2 volumes was 1.25. Rectal doses were significantly increased when encompassing Pinnacle PTVs ( V 50 =42.8%), compared to Eclipse 7.3 PTVs ( V 50 =36.4%). Conversely, fields that adequately treated an Eclipse 7.3 PTV2 were inadequate for a Pinnacle PTV2. AW and Plato PTV volumes were the most consistent (0.3%) and (−0.4%). However, the 1×50mm margin in Pinnacle produced a 15.9% larger volume than 5×10mm margins, while for Eclipse 7.3 the single margined volume was 14.3% smaller. These inconsistencies were reduced to ∼5% by adjusting the superior/inferior margins. Conclusions Accurate margin algorithms are necessary to ensure that volume expansion does not add extra uncertainty to the radiotherapy planning process. We have found significant differences in the 3D margining algorithms of TPSs, devised a simple test to predict inconsistency and suggested corrective action to minimise the variation.

Retrospective analysis in 150 patients with metastatic prostate cancer was conducted to determine whether early detection with MRI spine and treatment of clinically occult spinal cord compromise (SCC) facilitate preservation of neurologic function. Our results suggest that prophylactic radiotherapy for patients with back pain or radiological SCC without neurologic deficit may facilitate preservation of neurologic function. Thus MRI surveillance for SCC may be important for prostate cancer patients with bone metastases.

Background and purpose This phase 1 study was designed to determine the toxicity of accelerated fractionation IMRT in locally advanced thyroid cancer. Methods Patients with high risk locally advanced thyroid cancer who required post-operative EBRT were recruited. A single-phase inverse-planned-simultaneous-boost was delivered by IMRT: 58.8Gy/28F (daily) to the primary tumour and involved nodes and 50Gy/28F to the elective nodes. Acute (NCICTCv.2.0) and late toxicity (RTOG and modified LENTSOM) was collected. Results Thirteen patients were treated (7 medullary thyroid, 2 Hurthle cell and 4 well differentiated thyroid cancer). G3 and G2 radiation dermatitis rates were 38.5% and 31%; G3 and G2 mucositis rates 8% and 53% and G3 and G2 pain 23% and 54%. Thirty-one percentage required enteral feeding. G3 and G2 xerostomia rates were 0% and 31%. Recovery was seen, with 62% patients having dysphagia G ⩽1 2 months after IMRT. Thirty percent of patients developed L'Hermitte's syndrome. No grade 4 toxicity was observed. No dose limiting toxicity was found. Conclusions Accelerated fractionation IMRT in this group of patients is feasible and safe. The acute toxicity appeared acceptable and early indicators of late toxicity moderate and similar to what would be expected with conventional RT. Longer follow up is required to quantify late side effects.