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 (

In randomized clinical trials, the androgen-receptor inhibitor enzalutamide has demonstrated efficacy and safety in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This study captured efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of enzalutamide in mCRPC patients in a real-world European setting. PREMISE (NCT0249574) was a European, long-term, prospective, observational study in mCRPC patients prescribed enzalutamide as part of standard clinical practice. Patients were categorized based on prior docetaxel and/or abiraterone use. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF), defined as time from enzalutamide initiation to permanent treatment discontinuation for any reason. Secondary endpoints included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, time to PSA progression, time to disease progression and safety. PROs included EuroQol 5-Dimension, 5-Level questionnaire, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate and Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form. Overall, 1732 men were enrolled. Median TTF with enzalutamide was 12.9 months in the chemotherapy- and abiraterone-naïve cohort (Cohort 1) and 8.4 months in the postchemotherapy and abiraterone-naïve cohort (Cohort 2). Clinical outcomes based on secondary endpoints also varied between cohorts. Cohorts 1 and 2 showed small improvements in health-related quality of life and pain status. The proportions of patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 51.0% and 62.2% in Cohorts 1 and 2, respectively; enzalutamide-related TEAEs were similar in both cohorts. The most frequent TEAE across cohorts was fatigue. These data from unselected mCRPC patients in European, real-world, clinical-practice settings confirmed the benefits of enzalutamide previously shown in clinical trial outcomes, with safety results consistent with enzalutamide's known safety profile. ispartof: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER vol:150 issue:5 pages:837-846 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Objective To present the long‐term adjuvant radiotherapy outcomes of patients with pN3 squamous cell carcinoma of the penis (SCCp) treated at two UK centres. Patients and Methods We conducted a retrospective audit of all pN3 SCCp patients, deemed suitable for adjuvant therapy by a specialist multidisciplinary team at St George’s and Leeds Hospitals, who received adjuvant radiotherapy. Primary outcomes were recurrence‐free survival (RFS), cancer‐specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were time to adjuvant treatment, frequency of in‐field recurrence, site and side of recurrence, and dose and schedule of radiotherapy. Results A total of 146 patients were included: 121 completed radiotherapy, four did not complete radiotherapy and 21 did not start it. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 59 (54–70)years. The 5‐year RFS was 51%, CSS was 51% and OS was 44%. Adjuvant radiotherapy was started at a median (IQR) of 75 (48–106) days. A dose of 45 Gy in 20 fractions was most commonly used. Of the 125 patients who started adjuvant treatment, 55 relapsed. Of these relapses, 30 occurred in an inguinal or pelvic nodal station and 26 of the 30 were in a radiation field. Relapses in 18 of the 55 cases were in visceral sites only and seven were in both nodal (non‐irradiated sites) and visceral sites. Doses of 50 Gy) were more commonly used after 2013. Conclusions Application of a standard radiotherapy protocol within a centralized supra‐network setting has achieved survival outcomes that would appear better than those previously documented for either radiotherapy or chemotherapy in a cohort with solely pN3 disease. The addition of adjuvant chemotherapy may improve these outcomes further. These data suggest that adjuvant radiotherapy has a role to play in the management of men with pN3 SCCp.

PURPOSE Capivasertib is a pan-AKT inhibitor. Preclinical data indicate activity in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and synergism with docetaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS ProCAID was a placebo controlled randomized phase II trial in mCRPC. Patients received up to ten 21-day cycles of docetaxel (75 mg/m2 intravenous, day 1) and prednisolone (5 mg twice daily, oral, day 1-21) and were randomly assigned (1:1) to oral capivasertib (320 mg twice daily, 4 days on/3 days off, from day 2 each cycle), or placebo, until disease progression. Treatment allocation used minimization factors: bone metastases; visceral metastases; investigational site; and prior abiraterone or enzalutamide. The primary objective, by intention to treat, determined if the addition of capivasertib prolonged a composite progression-free survival (cPFS) end point that included prostate-specific antigen progression events. cPFS and overall survival (OS) were also assessed by composite biomarker subgroup for PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway activation status. RESULTS One hundred and fifty patients were enrolled. Median cPFS was 7.03 (95% CI, 6.28 to 8.25) and 6.70 months (95% CI, 5.52 to 7.36) with capivasertib and placebo respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 80% CI, 0.73 to 1.16; one-sided P = .32). Median OS was 31.15 (95% CI, 20.07 to not reached) and 20.27 months (95% CI, 17.51 to 24.18), respectively (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.88; two-sided P = .01). cPFS and OS results were consistent irrespective of PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway activation status. Grade III-IV adverse events were equivalent between arms (62.2%). The most common adverse events of any grade deemed related to capivasertib were diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and rash. CONCLUSION The addition of capivasertib to chemotherapy did not extend cPFS in mCRPC irrespective of PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway activation status. The observed OS result (a secondary end point) will require prospective validation in future studies to address potential for bias.

Background\ud \ud Early diagnosis of malignant spinal cord compression (SCC) is crucial because pretreatment neurological status is the major determinant of outcome. In metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, SCC is a clinically significant cause of disease-related morbidity and mortality. We investigated whether screening for SCC with spinal MRI, and pre-emptive treatment if radiological SCC (rSCC) was detected, reduced the incidence of clinical SCC (cSCC) in asymptomatic patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and spinal metastasis.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud We did a parallel-group, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, superiority trial. Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were recruited from 45 National Health Service hospitals in the UK. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, with an Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, asymptomatic spinal metastasis, no previous SCC, and no spinal MRI in the past 12 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a minimisation algorithm with a random element (balancing factors were treatment centre, alkaline phosphatase [normal vs raised, with the upper limit of normal being defined at each participating laboratory], number of previous systemic treatments [first-line vs second-line or later], previous spinal treatment, and imaging of thorax and abdomen), to no MRI (control group) or screening spinal MRI (intervention group). Serious adverse events were monitored in the 24 h after screening MRI in the intervention group. Participants with screen-detected rSCC were offered pre-emptive treatment (radiotherapy or surgical decompression was recommended per treating physician's recommendation) and 6-monthly spinal MRI. All patients were followed up every 3 months, and then at month 30 and 36. The primary endpoint was time to and incidence of confirmed cSCC in the intention-to-treat population (defined as all patients randomly assigned), with the primary timepoint of interest being 1 year after randomisation. The study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN74112318, and is now complete.\ud \ud \ud \ud Findings\ud \ud Between Feb 26, 2013, and April 25, 2017, 420 patients were randomly assigned to the control (n=210) or screening MRI (n=210) groups. Median age was 74 years (IQR 68 to 79), 222 (53%) of 420 patients had normal alkaline phosphatase, and median prostate-specific antigen concentration was 48 ng/mL (IQR 17 to 162). Screening MRI detected rSCC in 61 (31%) of 200 patients with assessable scans in the intervention group. As of data cutoff (April 23, 2020), at a median follow-up of 22 months (IQR 13 to 31), time to cSCC was not significantly improved with screening (hazard ratio 0·64 [95% CI 0·37 to 1·11]; Gray's test p=0·12). 1-year cSCC rates were 6·7% (95% CI 3·8–10·6; 14 of 210 patients) for the control group and 4·3% (2·1–7·7; nine of 210 patients) for the intervention group (difference −2·4% [95% CI −4·2 to 0·1]). Median time to cSCC was not reached in either group. No serious adverse events were reported within 24 h of screening.\ud \ud \ud \ud Interpretation\ud \ud Despite the substantial incidence of rSCC detected in the intervention group, the rate of cSCC in both groups was low at a median of 22 months of follow-up. Routine use of screening MRI and pre-emptive treatment to prevent cSCC is not warranted in patients with asymptomatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with spinal metastasis.\ud \ud \ud \ud Funding\ud \ud Cancer Research UK.

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.

BACKGROUND: Androgen suppression is a central component of prostate cancer management but causes substantial long-term toxicity. Transdermal administration of oestradiol (tE2) circumvents first-pass hepatic metabolism and, therefore, should avoid the cardiovascular toxicity seen with oral oestrogen and the oestrogen-depletion effects seen with luteinising hormone releasing hormone agonists (LHRHa). We present long-term cardiovascular follow-up data from the Prostate Adenocarcinoma Transcutaneous Hormone (PATCH) trial programme. METHODS: PATCH is a seamless phase 2/3, randomised, multicentre trial programme at 52 study sites in the UK. Men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer were randomly allocated (1:2 from August, 2007 then 1:1 from February, 2011) to either LHRHa according to local practice or tE2 patches (four 100 μg patches per 24 h, changed twice weekly, reducing to three patches twice weekly if castrate at 4 weeks [defined as testosterone ≤1·7 nmol/L]). Randomisation was done using a computer-based minimisation algorithm and was stratified by several factors, including disease stage, age, smoking status, and family history of cardiac disease. The primary outcome of this analysis was cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Cardiovascular events, including heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, thromboembolic stroke, and other thromboembolic events, were confirmed using predefined criteria and source data. Sudden or unexpected deaths were attributed to a cardiovascular category if a confirmatory post-mortem report was available and as other relevant events if no post-mortem report was available. PATCH is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN70406718; the study is ongoing and adaptive. FINDINGS: Between Aug 14, 2007, and July 30, 2019, 1694 men were randomly allocated either LHRHa (n=790) or tE2 patches (n=904). Overall, median follow-up was 3·9 (IQR 2·4–7·0) years. Respective castration rates at 1 month and 3 months were 65% and 93% among patients assigned LHRHa and 83% and 93% among those allocated tE2. 157 events from 145 men met predefined cardiovascular criteria, with a further ten sudden deaths with no post-mortem report (total 167 events in 153 men). 26 (2%) of 1694 patients had fatal cardiovascular events, 15 (2%) of 790 assigned LHRHa and 11 (1%) of 904 allocated tE2. The time to first cardiovascular event did not differ between treatments (hazard ratio 1·11, 95% CI 0·80–1·53; p=0·54 [including sudden deaths without post-mortem report]; 1·20, 0·86–1·68; p=0·29 [confirmed group only]). 30 (34%) of 89 cardiovascular events in patients assigned tE2 occurred more than 3 months after tE2 was stopped or changed to LHRHa. The most frequent adverse events were gynaecomastia (all grades), with 279 (38%) events in 730 patients who received LHRHa versus 690 (86%) in 807 patients who received tE2 (p

BACKGROUND Men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer are treated with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for 3 years, often combined with radiotherapy. We analysed new data from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials done in a multiarm, multistage platform protocol to assess the efficacy of adding abiraterone and prednisolone alone or with enzalutamide to ADT in this patient population. METHODS These open-label, phase 3 trials were done at 113 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restrictions) had high-risk (defined as node positive or, if node negative, having at least two of the following: tumour stage T3 or T4, Gleason sum score of 8-10, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] concentration ���40 ng/mL) or relapsing with high-risk features (���12 months of total ADT with an interval of ���12 months without treatment and PSA concentration ���4 ng/mL with a doubling time of

Prostate cancer; Olaparib; Gene aberrations Càncer de pròstata; Olaparib; Aberracions de gens Cáncer de próstata; Olaparib; Aberraciones de genes Background: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer is enriched in DNA damage response (DDR) gene aberrations. The TOPARP-B trial aims to prospectively validate the association between DDR gene aberrations and response to olaparib in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Methods: In this open-label, investigator-initiated, randomised phase 2 trial following a selection (or pick-the-winner) design, we recruited participants from 17 UK hospitals. Men aged 18 years or older with progressing metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with one or two taxane chemotherapy regimens and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less had tumour biopsies tested with targeted sequencing. Patients with DDR gene aberrations were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated minimisation method, with balancing for circulating tumour cell count at screening, to receive 400 mg or 300 mg olaparib twice daily, given continuously in 4-week cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Neither participants nor investigators were masked to dose allocation. The primary endpoint of confirmed response was defined as a composite of all patients presenting with any of the following outcomes: radiological objective response (as assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1), a decrease in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 50% or more (PSA50) from baseline, or conversion of circulating tumour cell count (from ≥5 cells per 7·5 mL blood at baseline to

Purpose We first assessed whether the pattern of referrals to a nuclear medicine clinic improved as experience with 223Ra-dichloride increased, and whether referral patterns affected patient outcomes, and second assessed the value of bone scintigraphy, total alkaline phosphatase (tALP) and lymphadenopathy as prognostic factors in patients receiving 223Ra-dichloride. Methods A total of 57 patients eligible to receive 223Ra-dichloride over a 2-year period (March 2014 to March 2016) were retrospectively assessed and prospectively followed (median follow up 298 days). 223Ra-Dichloride was administered at 4-week intervals for a maximum of six injections. The numbers of patients in years 1 and 2 referred in relation to extent of bone disease (EOBD) category and overall survival (OS) were determined. The prognostic factors EOBD category, baseline tALP (tALPBL), tALP response, greatest percentage reduction in tALP from baseline in any treatment cycle (ALPmax; among patients with elevated ALPBL), and the presence of lymphadenopathy were assessed as predictors of OS. Results The proportion of patients with EOBD1 was higher in year 2 than in year 1 (29% and 4%, respectively), and in year 2 there was a lower rate of symptomatic skeleton-related events, a higher proportion of patients completing six cycles, and longer (albeit nonsignificant) OS (p = 0.55). There were significant differences in OS between EOBD4 patients and those in all other groups and between EOBD1 and EOBD3 patients (p

IntroductionSystemic therapy with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and intensification with agents such as docetaxel, abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide has resulted in improved overall survival in men with de novo synchronous metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Novel local cytoreductive treatments and metastasis-directed therapy are now being evaluated. Such interventions may provide added survival benefit or delay the requirement for further systemic agents and associated toxicity but can confer additional harm. Understanding men’s preferences for treatment options in this disease state is crucial for patients, clinicians, carers and future healthcare service providers.MethodsUsing a prospective, multicentre discrete choice experiment (DCE), we aim to determine the attributes associated with treatment that are most important to men with mHSPC. Furthermore, we plan to determine men’s preferences for, and trade-offs between, the attributes (survival and side effects) of different treatment options including systemic therapy, local cytoreductive approaches (external beam radiotherapy, cytoreductive radical prostatectomy or minimally invasive ablative therapy) and metastases-directed therapies (metastasectomy or stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy). All men with newly diagnosed mHSPC within 4 months of commencing ADT and WHO performance status 0–2 are eligible. Men who have previously consented to a cytoreductive treatment or have developed castrate-resistant disease will be excluded. This study includes a qualitative analysis component, with patients (n=15) and healthcare professionals (n=5), to identify and define the key attributes associated with treatment options that would warrant trade-off evaluation in a DCE. The main phase component planned recruitment is 300 patients over 1 year, commencing in January 2021, with planned study completion in March 2022.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the Health Research Authority East of England, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 20/EE/0194). Project information will be reported on the publicly available Imperial College London website and the Heath Economics Research Unit (HERU website including the HERU Blog). We will use the social media accounts of IP5-MATTER, Imperial Prostate London, HERU and the individual researchers to disseminate key findings following publication. Findings from the study will be presented at national/international conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Authorship policy will follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.Trial registration numberNCT04590976.

Aims\ud Treatment decisions for men aged 70 years or over with localised prostate cancer need to take into account the risk of death from competing causes and fitness for the proposed treatment. Objective assessments such as those included in a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) might help to inform the decision-making process. The aim of this study was to describe the CGA scores of a cohort of older men with prostate cancer, evaluate potential screening tools in this population and assess whether any CGA component predicts significant acute radiotherapy toxicity.\ud Materials and methods\ud This was a prospective cohort study undertaking pretreatment CGA, Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13) and G8 assessment in patients aged 70 years and over with localised prostate cancer planned to undergo radical external beam radiotherapy.\ud Results\ud In total, 178 participants were recruited over a 3 year period and underwent a CGA. Fifty-five (30.1%) participants were defined as having health needs identified by their CGA. Both VES-13 and G8 screening tools showed a statistically significant association with CGA needs (P < 0.001 and X2 = 15.02, P < 0.001, respectively), but their sensitivity was disappointing. There was no association between a CGA (or its components) and significant acute radiotherapy toxicity.\ud Conclusions\ud Many older men with localised prostate cancer are vulnerable according to a CGA. The screening tools evaluated were not sufficiently sensitive to identify this group. CGA outcome does not predict for significant acute radiotherapy toxicity.

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.

Aims Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has historically been considered a risk factor for increased bowel toxicity in patients receiving pelvic external beam radiotherapy. The risk is reduced in intensity-modulated radiotherapy compared with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. The effect of brachytherapy has been less extensively researched. Despite the increased dose to the gross tumour volume and decreased dose to organs at risk, previous studies have recommended avoidance of low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy in patients with IBD, due to increased bowel toxicity. We investigated the effect of high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy in IBD. Materials and methods Eleven IBD patients across four different sites (in the UK and Spain) who received HDR brachytherapy, between 2012 and 2015, were followed for up to 12 months. Acute bowel and urinary toxicity data were collected and recorded. Results The median length of follow-up was 6 months (range between 6 weeks and 12 months). Five patients had Crohn's disease and six patients had ulcerative colitis. Only one patient (with Crohn's disease) had active disease at the time of treatment. This patient reported no bowel toxicity. Of the remaining patients, two suffered grade 1 diarrhoea (at 6 weeks and 6 months); three suffered grade 1 proctitis (at 6 weeks and 6 months). There was no grade ≥2 bowel toxicity. The most severe toxicity was grade 2 urinary frequency in one patient (at 6 weeks). Discussion This small, prospective case series suggests that, in the short term, HDR brachytherapy is safe and well tolerated in IBD patients. Therefore, IBD should not automatically disqualify patients from, at least, HDR brachytherapy. The reason why these results differ from previous LDR studies possibly reflects the benefit of inverse planning, which more readily achieves rectal dose constraints in HDR brachytherapy.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone improves survival in men with relapsed prostate cancer. We assessed the effect of this combination in men starting long-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), using a multigroup, multistage trial design.METHODS: We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive ADT alone or ADT plus abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and prednisolone (5 mg daily) (combination therapy). Local radiotherapy was mandated for patients with node-negative, nonmetastatic disease and encouraged for those with positive nodes. For patients with nonmetastatic disease with no radiotherapy planned and for patients with metastatic disease, treatment continued until radiologic, clinical, or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression; otherwise, treatment was to continue for 2 years or until any type of progression, whichever came first. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. The intermediate primary outcome was failure-free survival (treatment failure was defined as radiologic, clinical, or PSA progression or death from prostate cancer).RESULTS: A total of 1917 patients underwent randomization from November 2011 through January 2014. The median age was 67 years, and the median PSA level was 53 ng per milliliter. A total of 52% of the patients had metastatic disease, 20% had node-positive or node-indeterminate nonmetastatic disease, and 28% had node-negative, nonmetastatic disease; 95% had newly diagnosed disease. The median follow-up was 40 months. There were 184 deaths in the combination group as compared with 262 in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.76; PCONCLUSIONS: Among men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer, ADT plus abiraterone and prednisolone was associated with significantly higher rates of overall and failure-free survival than ADT alone. (Funded by Cancer Research U.K. and others; STAMPEDE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00268476 , and Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN78818544 .).

Objectives: We developed a patient centred approach to chronic disease self management by providing information designed to promote patient choice. We then conducted a randomised controlled trial of the approach in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to assess whether it could alter clinical outcome and affect health service use. Design: A multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting: The trial was conducted in the outpatient departments of 19 hospitals with randomisation by treatment centre, 10 control sites, and nine intervention sites. For patients at intervention sites, an individual self management plan was negotiated and written information provided. Participants: A total of 700 patients with established inflammatory bowel disease were recruited. Main outcome measures: Main outcome measures recorded at one year were: quality of life, health service resource use, and patient satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included measures of enablement—confidence to cope with the condition. Results: One year following the intervention, self managing patients had made fewer hospital visits (difference −1.04 (95% confidence interval (CI) −1.43 to −0.65); p

We previously reported high activity for oxaliplatin and a modified de Gramont regimen (OxMdG) in a single centre study of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. We now report results with a further 56 patients treated at 14 centres. Low rates of grade 3 and 4 toxicity were seen, with no toxic deaths. Objective response rates were CR/PR=53%; NC=34.7%; PD=12.2%. Median time to progression was 8.3 months and overall survival was 14.5 months. This regimen is more convenient than those based around the conventional de Gramont regimen but is highly active and well tolerated; it forms part of a current UK MRC phase 3 trial.

N.D. James, M.R. Sydes, M.D. Mason, N.W. Clarke, D.P. Dearnaley, M.R. Spears, R. Millman, C.C. Parker, A.W.S. Ritchie, J.M. Russell, J. Staffurth, R.J. Jones, R. Cathomas, A. Robinson, S. Chowdhury, D. Tsang, S. Brock, O. Parikh, J.D. Graham, M.K.B. Parmar. Warwick University, Clinical Trials Unit, Coventry, United Kingdom; Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute for Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, United Kingdom; Cardiff University, School of Medicine, Cardiff, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Urology, Manchester, United Kingdom; The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust, Academic Unit of Radiotherapy, London, United Kingdom; Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Patient Representative, NA, United Kingdom; The Royal Marsden Hospital, Department of Radiotherapy, London, United Kingdom; Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Institute of Cancer Sciences, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Cardiff University and Velindre NHS Trust, School of Medicine, Cardiff, United Kingdom; Kantonsspital Graubunden, Department of Oncology, Chur, Switzerland; Sussex Cancer Centre, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, United Kingdom; Guy’s Hospital, Department of Medical Oncology, London, United Kingdom; Southend & Basildon Hospitals, Department of Oncology, Southend, United Kingdom; Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Royal Bournemouth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Oncology, Poole, United Kingdom; East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, Department of Oncology, Blackburn, United Kingdom; Musgrove Park Hospital, Oncology and Haematology Clinical Trials Unit, Taunton, United Kingdom

Background: Improving access is a key policy issue in improving quality of care and extending patient choice and participation. People’s experience of changing from fixed outpatient appointments to more flexible direct access arrangements for chronic disease has been underexplored. Objectives: To examine patients’ views on using an open system of access compared with fixed outpatient appointments as part of a guided self-management intervention for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Design: Embedded qualitative study undertaken alongside a randomised controlled trial. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken to obtain an in depth understanding of patients’ experience of the change in access arrangements. Participants: A purposive sample (n = 30) was drawn from the intervention group (n = 700) according to a range of responses to the trial baseline and follow up quantitative measures. Results: 28 interviews were included in the analysis. Compared with the previous system of fixed appointments, preference for the new open access system was based on enhanced personal control in contacting services and the view that it fitted better with everyday routine management and the requirement for urgent medical contact when symptoms fail to respond to medication. Preference for retaining fixed appointments was based on a sense of security from gaining access which did not require the individual to initiate the request for medical help. Conclusions: Open access may fit better with patients’ self-management of their condition and everyday routines, roles and responsibilities. Ensuring that outpatient organisational arrangements and personnel are responsive to patient initiated requests for appointments is likely to impact on the acceptability of this type of access arrangement. Some people may continue to prefer the fixed appointment system which should be retained if patient choice is to be respected.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if a whole systems approach to self-management improves clinical outcomes and leads to cost-effective use of NHS services. DESIGN: Nineteen hospitals were randomised to 10 control sites and nine intervention sites. Consultants from intervention sites received training in patient-centred care before recruitment and introduced the intervention to eligible patients. Patients at the control sites were recruited and went on to have an ordinary consultation. Qualitative interviews were undertaken to obtain an in-depth understanding of patients' and consultants' experience of the intervention. SETTING: Follow-up outpatient clinics at 19 hospitals in the north-west of England. PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred patients (297 at intervention sites and 403 at control sites) with established ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease, aged 16 years and over, and able to write in English. INTERVENTIONS: Consultants were trained to provide a patient-centred approach to care. Guidebooks on ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease were developed with patients prior to the study. Patients prepared a written self-management plan and self-referred to services based on a self-evaluation of their need for advice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of hospital outpatient consultation, quality of life (QoL) and acceptability to patients. Health service resource use and assessed cost effectiveness using the EQ-5D. RESULTS: After 1 year, the intervention resulted in fewer hospital visits, without change in the number of primary care visits. Patients felt more able to cope with their condition. The intervention produced no reduction in QoL and did not raise anxiety. The intervention group reported fewer symptom relapses; 74% of patients in the intervention group indicated a preference to continue the system. Qualitative results showed the guidebook was effective but organisational limitations constrained patient-centred aspects of the intervention for some. Cost-effectiveness analyses favoured self-management over standard care. CONCLUSIONS: Further use of this method in chronic disease management seems likely to improve overall patient satisfaction and reduce health expenditure without evidence of adverse effect on disease control. Further attention needs to be given to self-referral and access arrangements and a re-distribution of control to patients through increased adherence to patient-centred norms on the part of consultants. Future research is recommended to evaluate the operating systems within secondary and primary care that would allow self-managers to self-refer and to keep them informed of new treatments, also to explore models for training health professionals in self-care methods, to study long-term effects of self-management in chronic disease and to transfer this approach to other chronic conditions.