Search

PURPOSE Docetaxel and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone (AAP) both improve survival when commenced alongside standard of care (SOC) androgen deprivation therapy in locally advanced or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Thus, patient-reported quality of life (QOL) data may guide treatment choices. METHODS A group of patients within the STAMPEDE trial were contemporaneously enrolled with the possibility of being randomly allocated to receive either docetaxel + SOC or AAP + SOC. A mixed-model assessed QOL in those who had completed at least one QLQ-C30 + PR25 questionnaire. The primary outcome measure was difference in global-QOL (QLQ-C30 Q29&30) between patients allocated to docetaxel + SOC or AAP + SOC over the 2 years after random assignment, with a predefined criterion for clinically meaningful difference of > 4.0 points. Secondary outcome measures included longitudinal comparison of functional domains, pain, and fatigue, plus global-QOL at defined timepoints. RESULTS Five hundred fifteen patients (173 docetaxel + SOC and 342 AAP + SOC) were included. Baseline characteristics, proportion of missing data, and mean baseline global-QOL scores (docetaxel + SOC 77.8 and AAP + SOC 78.0) were similar. Over the 2 years following random assignment, the mean modeled global-QOL score was +3.9 points (95% CI, +0.5 to +7.2; P = .022) higher in patients allocated to AAP + SOC. Global-QOL was higher for patients allocated to AAP + SOC over the first year (+5.7 points, 95% CI, +3.0 to +8.5; P < .001), particularly at 12 (+7.0 points, 95% CI, +3.0 to +11.0; P = .001) and 24 weeks (+8.3 points, 95% CI, +4.0 to +12.6; P < .001). CONCLUSION Patient-reported QOL was superior for patients allocated to receive AAP + SOC, compared with docetaxel + SOC over a 2-year period, narrowly missing the predefined value for clinical significance. Patients receiving AAP + SOC reported clinically meaningful higher global-QOL scores throughout the first year following random assignment.

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.

Androgen deprivation therapy using gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues is standard treatment for intermediate and advanced prostate cancer. GnRH agonist therapy results in an initial testosterone flare, and increased metabolic and cardiovascular risks. The GnRH antagonist relugolix is able to reduce serum testosterone levels in men with prostate cancer without inducing testosterone flare. In the HERO Phase III trial, relugolix was superior to leuprolide acetate at rapidly reducing testosterone and continuously suppressing testosterone, with faster post-treatment recovery of testosterone levels. Relugolix was associated with a 54% lower incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events than leuprolide acetate. As the first oral GnRH antagonist approved for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer, relugolix offers a new treatment option.Lay abstract The male sex hormone testosterone promotes the growth of prostate cancer cells. Some drug treatments for prostate cancer, such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor agonists and antagonists, work to reduce the production of testosterone. However, GnRH receptor agonists like leuprolide acetate can increase testosterone levels at first, before reducing it, and this temporary increase can cause side effects, such as bone pain. Drugs of this type have also been linked to a higher risk of heart attacks, strokes, and death. Relugolix works a different way; it is a GnRH receptor antagonist that reduces testosterone without an initial increase. A clinical study showed that relugolix reduced testosterone levels more quickly than leuprolide acetate, a commonly used injectable drug for the treatment of prostate cancer. After stopping treatment, levels of testosterone in the blood returned to normal faster in men who received relugolix than in men who received leuprolide acetate. Men who received relugolix had a lower incidence of heart attacks, strokes, and death compared with men who received leuprolide acetate. The US FDA approved relugolix as the first oral, once-daily GnRH receptor antagonist for the treatment of advanced prostate cancer, offering men a new treatment option.

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.

Highlights • Dosimetric benefits to the penile bulb was seen in patients treated with IGRT and reduced CTV-PTV margins. • Patients who had a lower planned dose to the penile bulb reported less erectile dysfunction. • A threshold mean penile bulb dose for erectile dysfunction was determined to around 20 Gy., Background and purpose The penile bulb (PB) dose may be critical in development of post prostate radiotherapy erectile dysfunction (ED). This study aimed to generate PB dose constraints based on dose-volume histograms (DVHs) in patients treated with prostate radiotherapy, and to identify clinical and dosimetric parameters that predict the risk of ED post prostate radiotherapy. Materials and methods Penile bulb DVHs were generated for 276 patients treated within the randomised IGRT substudy of the multicentre randomised trial, CHHiP. Incidence of ED in relation to dose and randomised IGRT groups were evaluated using Wilcoxon rank sum, Chi-squared test and atlases of complication incidence. Youden index was used to find dose-volume constraints that discriminated for ED. Multivariate analysis (MVA) of effect of dosimetry, clinical and patient-related variables was performed. Results Reduced treatment margins using IGRT (IGRT-R) produced significantly reduced mean PB dose compared with standard margins (IGRT-S) (median: 25 Gy (IGRT-S) versus 11 Gy (IGRT-R); p

Objectives: Quantify target volume delineation uncertainty for CT/MRI simulation and MRI-guided adaptive radiotherapy in rectal cancer. Define optimal imaging sequences for target delineation. Methods: Six experienced radiation oncologists delineated clinical target volumes (CTVs) on CT and 2D and 3D-MRI in three patients with rectal cancer, using consensus contouring guidelines. Tumour GTV (GTVp) was also contoured on MRI acquired week 0 and 3 of radiotherapy. A STAPLE contour was created and volume and interobserver variability metrics were analysed. Results: There were statistically significant differences in volume between observers for CT and 2D-MRI-defined CTVs (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between observers on 3D-MRI. Significant differences in volume were seen between observers for both 2D and 3D-MRI-defined GTVp at weeks 0 and 3 (p < 0.05). Good interobserver agreement (IOA) was seen for CTVs delineated on all imaging modalities with best IOA on 3D-MRI; median Conformity index (CI) 0.74 for CT, 0.75 for 2D-MRI and 0.77 for 3D-MRI. IOA of MRI-defined GTVp week 0 was better compared to CT; CI 0.58 for CT, 0.62 for 2D-MRI and 0.7 for 3D-MRI. MRI-defined GTVp IOA week three was worse compared to week 0. Conclusion: Delineation on MRI results in smaller volumes and better IOA week 0 compared to CT. 3D-MRI provides the best IOA in CTV and GTVp. MRI-defined GTVp on images acquired week 3 showed worse IOA compared to week 0. This highlights the need for consensus guidelines in GTVp delineation on MRI during treatment course in the context of dose escalation MRI-guided rectal boost studies. Advances in knowledge: Optimal MRI sequences for CT/MRI simulation and MRI-guided adaptive radiotherapy in rectal cancer have been defined.

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

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.

The original version of this Article contained an error in the spelling of the author Manuela Gago-Dominguez, which was incorrectly given as Manuela G. Dominguez. This has now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.

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.

Importance Prostate radiotherapy (RT) improves survival in men with low-burden metastatic prostate cancer. However, owing to the dichotomized nature of metastatic burden criteria, it is not clear how this benefit varies with bone metastasis counts and metastatic site. Objective To evaluate the association of bone metastasis count and location with survival benefit from prostate RT. Design, setting, and participants This exploratory analysis of treatment outcomes based on metastatic site and extent as determined by conventional imaging (computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging and bone scan) evaluated patients with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer randomized within the STAMPEDE trial's metastasis M1 RT comparison. The association of baseline bone metastasis counts with overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) was assessed using a multivariable fractional polynomial interaction procedure. Further analysis was conducted in subgroups. Interventions Patients were randomized to receive either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy with or without docetaxel) or standard of care and prostate RT. Main outcomes and measures The primary outcomes were OS and FFS. Results A total of 1939 of 2061 men were included (median [interquartile range] age, 68 [63-73] years); 1732 (89%) had bone metastases. Bone metastasis counts were associated with OS and FFS benefit from prostate RT. Survival benefit decreased continuously as the number of bone metastases increased, with benefit most pronounced up to 3 bone metastases. A plot of estimated treatment effect indicated that the upper 95% CI crossed the line of equivalence (hazard ratio [HR], 1) above 3 bone metastases without a detectable change point. Further analysis based on subgroups showed that the magnitude of benefit from the addition of prostate RT was greater in patients with low metastatic burden with only nonregional lymph nodes (M1a) or 3 or fewer bone metastases without visceral metastasis (HR for OS, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.83; HR for FFS, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47-0.70) than among patients with 4 or more bone metastases or any visceral/other metastasis (HR for OS, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.91-1.28; interaction P = .003; HR for FFS, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99; interaction P = .002). Conclusions and relevance In this exploratory analysis of a randomized clinical trial, bone metastasis count and metastasis location based on conventional imaging were associated with OS and FFS benefit from prostate RT in M1 disease. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00268476; ISRCTN.com Identifier: ISRCTN78818544.

Purpose: Dose information from organ sub-regions has been shown to be more predictive of genitourinary toxicity than whole organ dose volume histogram information. This study aimed to identify anatomically-localized regions where 3D dose is associated with genitourinary toxicities in healthy tissues throughout the pelvic anatomy. Methods and Materials: Dose distributions for up to 656 patients of the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 03.04 RADAR trial were deformably registered onto a single exemplar CT dataset. Voxel- based multiple comparison permutation dose difference testing, Cox regression modeling and LASSO feature selection were used to identify regions where 3D dose-increase was associated with late grade ≥ 2 genitourinary dysuria, incontinence and frequency, and late grade ≥ 1 haematuria. This was externally validated by registering dose distributions from the RT01 (up to n = 388) and CHHiP (up to n = 247) trials onto the same exemplar and repeating the voxel-based tests on each of these data sets. All three datasets were then combined, and the tests repeated. Results: Voxel-based Cox regression and multiple comparison permutation dose difference testing revealed regions where increased dose was correlated with genitourinary toxicity. Increased dose in the vicinity of the membranous and spongy urethra was associated with dysuria for all datasets. Haematuria was similarly correlated with increased dose at the membranous and spongy urethra, for the RADAR, CHHiP, and combined datasets. Some evidence was found for the association between incontinence and increased dose at the internal and external urethral sphincter for RADAR and the internal sphincter alone for the combined dataset. Incontinence was also strongly correlated with dose from posterior oblique beams. Patients with fields extending inferiorly and posteriorly to the CTV, adjacent to the membranous and spongy urethra, were found to experience increased frequency. Conclusions: Anatomically-localized dose-toxicity relationships were determined for late genitourinary symptoms in the urethra and urinary sphincters. Low-intermediate doses to the extraprostatic urethra were associated with risk of late dysuria and haematuria, while dose to the urinary sphincters was associated with incontinence.

Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evidence-based practice. However, RCTs can have limitations. For example, translation of findings into practice can be limited by design features, such as inclusion criteria, not accurately reflecting clinical populations. In addition, it is expensive to recruit and follow-up participants in RCTs. Linkage with routinely collected data could offer a cost-effective way to enhance the conduct and generalisability of RCTs. The aim of this study is to investigate how primary care data can support RCTs. Methods Secondary analysis following linkage of two datasets: 1) multicentre CHHiP radiotherapy trial (ISRCTN97182923) and 2) primary care database from the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre. Comorbidities and medications recorded in CHHiP at baseline, and radiotherapy-related toxicity recorded in CHHiP over time were compared with primary care records. The association of comorbidities and medications with toxicity was analysed with mixed-effects logistic regression. Results Primary care records were extracted for 106 out of 2811 CHHiP participants recruited from sites in England (median age 70, range 44 to 82). Complementary information included longitudinal body mass index, blood pressure and cholesterol, as well as baseline smoking and alcohol usage but was limited by the considerable missing data. In the linked sample, 9 (8%) participants were recorded in CHHiP as having a history of diabetes and 38 (36%) hypertension, whereas primary care records indicated incidence prior to trial entry of 11 (10%) and 40 (38%) respectively. Concomitant medications were not collected in CHHiP but available in primary care records. This indicated that 44 (41.5%) men took aspirin, 65 (61.3%) statins, 14 (13.2%) metformin and 46 (43.4%) phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitors at some point before or after trial entry. Conclusions We provide a set of recommendations on linkage and supplementation of trials. Data recorded in primary care are a rich resource and linkage could provide near real-time information to supplement trials and an efficient and cost-effective mechanism for long-term follow-up. In addition, standardised primary care data extracts could form part of RCT recruitment and conduct. However, this is at present limited by the variable quality and fragmentation of primary care data.

Background Optimal management of isolated local recurrence of prostate cancer after primary radiotherapy remains to be defined. Up-front androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is widely used but may adversely affect the quality of life and is essentially a palliative treatment. Local salvage carries a different side-effect profile and is potentially curative, but it has not been compared to ADT. Materials and methods We conducted a propensity-matched analysis of cohorts of men treated with either whole gland cryotherapy (CRYO) or primary ADT following the diagnosis of locally recurrent prostate cancer. Our specific objectives were to compare overall survival (OS) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) between CRYO vs. ADT. Results After a one-to-one matching, 169 patients from each cohort were included in comparisons. Median follow-up time was 6.7 years (ADT) vs. 18 years (CRYO). The 10-year PCSM was 18.5% (ADT) vs. 16.2% (CRYO), which was not statistically different [hazard ratioo (HR): 0.69, 95% CI: 0.36-1.34, p=0.27]. The median OS was 12.3 years (CRYO) versus 10.2 years (ADT) (HR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.42-0.95, p=0.03). Conclusions While PCSM was similar between the two strategies, CRYO was associated with a longer OS compared to primary ADT. Given the retrospective nature of the trial, these results should be considered hypothesis-generating, and phase III trials comparing these two options are required to further explore these findings.

Background and purpose This study aimed to identify anatomically-localised regions where planned radiotherapy dose is associated with gastrointestinal toxicities in healthy tissues throughout the pelvic anatomy. Materials and methods Planned dose distributions for up to 657 patients of the Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 03.04 RADAR trial were deformably registered onto a single exemplar computed tomography dataset. Voxel-based multiple comparison permutation dose difference testing, Cox regression modelling and LASSO feature selection were used to identify regions where dose-increase was associated with grade ≥2 rectal bleeding (RB) or tenesmus, according to the LENT/SOMA scale. This was externally validated by registering dose distributions from the RT01 (n = 388) and CHHiP (n = 241) trials onto the same exemplar and repeating the tests on each of these data sets, and on all three datasets combined. Results Voxel-based Cox regression and permutation dose difference testing revealed regions where increased dose was correlated with gastrointestinal toxicity. Grade ≥2 RB was associated with posteriorly extended lateral beams that manifested high doses (>55 Gy) in a small rectal volume adjacent to the clinical target volume. A correlation was found between grade ≥2 tenesmus and increased low-intermediate dose (∼25 Gy) at the posterior beam region, including the posterior rectum and perirectal fat space (PRFS). Conclusions The serial response of the rectum with respect to RB has been demonstrated in patients with posteriorly extended lateral beams. Similarly, the parallel response of the PRFS with respect to tenesmus has been demonstrated in patients treated with the posterior beam.

Highlights • Introduction of daily online prostate IGRT was feasible in a national randomised trial. • Dosimetric benefits seen in patients treated with IGRT and reduced CTV-PTV margins. • Overall side effect profiles were acceptable in all groups but lowest with IGRT and reduced margins., Background and purpose Image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) improves treatment set-up accuracy and provides the opportunity to reduce target volume margins. We introduced IGRT methods using standard (IGRT-S) or reduced (IGRT-R) margins in a randomised phase 2 substudy within CHHiP trial. We present a pre-planned analysis of the impact of IGRT on dosimetry and acute/late pelvic side effects using gastrointestinal and genitourinary clinician and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and evaluate efficacy. Materials and methods CHHiP is a randomised phase 3, non-inferiority trial for men with localised prostate cancer. 3216 patients were randomly assigned to conventional (74 Gy in 2 Gy/fraction (f) daily) or moderate hypofractionation (60 or 57 Gy in 3 Gy/f daily) between October 2002 and June 2011. The IGRT substudy included a second randomisation assigning to no-IGRT, IGRT-S (standard CTV-PTV margins), or IGRT-R (reduced CTV-PTV margins). Primary substudy endpoint was late RTOG bowel and urinary toxicity at 2 years post-radiotherapy. Results Between June 2010 to July 2011, 293 men were recruited from 16 centres. Median follow-up is 56.9(IQR 54.3–60.9) months. Rectal and bladder dose-volume and surface percentages were significantly lower in IGRT-R compared to IGRT-S group; (p

INTRODUCTION: Previous evidence has suggested a relationship between male self-reported body size and the risk of developing prostate cancer. In this UK-wide case-control study, we have explored the possible association of prostate cancer risk with male self-reported body size. We also investigated body shape as a surrogate marker for fat deposition around the body. As obesity and excessive adiposity have been linked with increased risk for developing a number of different cancers, further investigation of self-reported body size and shape and their potential relationship with prostate cancer was considered to be appropriate.OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to investigate whether underlying associations exist between prostate cancer risk and male self-reported body size and shape.METHODS: Data were collected from a large case-control study of men (1928 cases and 2043 controls) using self-administered questionnaires. Data from self-reported pictograms of perceived body size relating to three decades of life (20's, 30's and 40's) were recorded and analysed, including the pattern of change. The associations of self-identified body shape with prostate cancer risk were also explored.RESULTS: Self-reported body size for men in their 20's, 30's and 40's did not appear to be associated with prostate cancer risk. More than half of the subjects reported an increase in self-reported body size throughout these three decades of life. Furthermore, no association was observed between self-reported body size changes and prostate cancer risk. Using 'symmetrical' body shape as a reference group, subjects with an 'apple' shape showed a significant 27% reduction in risk (Odds ratio = 0.73, 95% C.I. 0.57-0.92).CONCLUSIONS: Change in self-reported body size throughout early to mid-adulthood in males is not a significant risk factor for the development of prostate cancer. Body shape indicative of body fat distribution suggested that an 'apple' body shape was protective and inversely associated with prostate cancer risk when compared with 'symmetrical' shape. Further studies which investigate prostate cancer risk and possible relationships with genetic factors known to influence body shape may shed further light on any underlying associations.

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 [...].

The CHHiP trial randomized 3216 men with localized prostate cancer (1:1:1) to 3 radiation therapy fractionation schedules: 74 Gy in 37 fractions over 7.4 weeks; 60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks; and 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3.8 weeks. Literature-based dose constraints were applied with arithmetic adjustment for the hypofractionated arms. This study aimed to derive anorectal dose constraints using prospectively collected clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and to assess the added predictive value of spatial dose metrics.A case-control study design was used; 7 CRO and 5 PRO bowel symptoms were evaluated. Cases experienced a moderate or worse symptom 1 to 5 years after-radiation therapy and did not have the symptom before radiation therapy. Controls did not experience the symptom at baseline or between 1 to 5 years after radiation therapy. The anorectum was recontoured from the anal verge to the rectosigmoid junction; dose/volume parameters were extracted. Univariate logistic regression, atlases of complication indices, and bootstrapped receiver-operating-characteristic analysis (1000 replicates, balanced outcomes) were used to derive dose constraints for the whole cohort (hypofractionated schedules were converted to 2-Gy equivalent schedules using α/β = 3 Gy) and separate hypofractionated/conventional fractionation cohorts. Only areas under the curve with 95% confidence interval lower limits0.5 were considered statistically significant. Any constraint derived in95% to 99% of bootstraps was excluded.Statistically significant dose constraints were derived for CROs but not PROs. Intermediate to high doses were important for rectal bleeding, whereas intermediate doses were important for increased bowel frequency, fecal incontinence, and rectal pain. Spatial dose metrics did not improve prediction of CROs or PROs. A new panel of dose constraints for hypofractionated schedules to 60 Gy or 57 Gy are V20Gy85%, V30Gy57%, V40Gy38%, V50Gy22%, and V60Gy0.01%.Dose constraints differed among symptoms, indicating potentially different pathogenesis of radiation-induced side effects. Derived dose constraints were stricter than those used in CHHiP and may reduce bowel symptoms after radiation therapy.

Evidence is accumulating for seven and less fractions in localised prostate cancer, including one large randomised trial. However, there is much more evidence yet to come and changing practice in advance of this may be premature. We review the reasons to persist with moderate hypofractionation for prostate cancer radiotherapy, until the results of further phase III studies are known.

Purpose To report a planned analysis of the efficacy and toxicity of dose escalation to the intraprostatic dominant nodule identified on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging using standard and hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy. Methods and Materials DELINEATE is a single centre prospective phase 2 multicohort study including standard (cohort A: 74 Gy in 37 fractions) and moderately hypofractionated (cohort B: 60 Gy in 20 fractions) prostate image guided intensity modulated radiation therapy in patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network intermediate- and high-risk disease. Patients received an integrated boost of 82 Gy (cohort A) and 67 Gy (cohort B) to lesions visible on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Fifty-five patients were treated in cohort A, and 158 patients were treated in cohort B; the first 50 sequentially treated patients in cohort B were included in this planned analysis. The primary endpoint was late Radiation Therapy Oncology Group rectal toxicity at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included acute and late toxicity measured with clinician- and patient-reported outcomes at other time points and biochemical relapse–free survival for cohort A. Median follow-up was 74.5 months for cohort A and 52.0 months for cohort B. Results In cohorts A and B, 27% and 40% of patients, respectively, were classified as having National Comprehensive Cancer Network high-risk disease. The cumulative 1-year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 2 or worse rectal and urinary toxicity was 3.6% and 0% in cohort A and 8% and 10% in cohort B, respectively. There was no reported late grade 3 rectal toxicity in either cohort. Within cohort A, 4 of 55 (7%) patients had biochemical relapse. Conclusions Delivery of a simultaneous integrated boost to intraprostatic dominant nodules is feasible in prostate radiation therapy using standard and moderately hypofractionated regimens, with rectal and genitourinary toxicity comparable to contemporary series without an intraprostatic boost.

Background\ud \ud STAMPEDE has previously reported that the use of upfront docetaxel improved overall survival (OS) for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report on long-term outcomes stratified by metastatic burden for M1 patients.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud We randomly allocated patients in 2 : 1 ratio to standard-of-care (SOC; control group) or SOC + docetaxel. Metastatic disease burden was categorised using retrospectively-collected baseline staging scans where available. Analysis used Cox regression models, adjusted for stratification factors, with emphasis on restricted mean survival time where hazards were non-proportional.\ud \ud \ud \ud Results\ud \ud Between 05 October 2005 and 31 March 2013, 1086 M1 patients were randomised to receive SOC (n = 724) or SOC + docetaxel (n = 362). Metastatic burden was assessable for 830/1086 (76%) patients; 362 (44%) had low and 468 (56%) high metastatic burden. Median follow-up was 78.2 months. There were 494 deaths on SOC (41% more than the previous report). There was good evidence of benefit of docetaxel over SOC on OS (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69–0.95, P = 0.009) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P = 0.827). Analysis of other outcomes found evidence of benefit for docetaxel over SOC in failure-free survival (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.57–0.76, P 0.5 in each case). There was no evidence that docetaxel resulted in late toxicity compared with SOC: after 1 year, G3-5 toxicity was reported for 28% SOC and 27% docetaxel (in patients still on follow-up at 1 year without prior progression).\ud \ud \ud \ud Conclusions\ud \ud The clinically significant benefit in survival for upfront docetaxel persists at longer follow-up, with no evidence that benefit differed by metastatic burden. We advocate that upfront docetaxel is considered for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients regardless of metastatic burden.

PURPOSE: To investigate the role of patient-specific dosimetry as a predictive marker of survival and as a potential tool for individualised molecular radiotherapy treatment planning of bone metastases from castration-resistant prostate cancer, and to assess whether higher administered levels of activity are associated with a survival benefit.METHODS: Clinical data from 57 patients who received 2.5-5.1 GBq of (186)Re-HEDP as part of NIH-funded phase I/II clinical trials were analysed. Whole-body and SPECT-based absorbed doses to the whole body and bone lesions were calculated for 22 patients receiving 5 GBq. The patient mean absorbed dose was defined as the mean of all bone lesion-absorbed doses in any given patient. Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, Cox's proportional hazards model and Pearson's correlation coefficients were used for overall survival (OS) and correlation analyses.RESULTS: A statistically significantly longer OS was associated with administered activities above 3.5 GBq in the 57 patients (20.1 vs 7.1 months, hazard ratio: 0.39, 95 % CI: 0.10-0.58, P = 0.002). A total of 379 bone lesions were identified in 22 patients. The mean of the patient mean absorbed dose was 19 (±6) Gy and the mean of the whole-body absorbed dose was 0.33 (±0.11) Gy for the 22 patients. The patient mean absorbed dose (r = 0.65, P = 0.001) and the whole-body absorbed dose (r = 0.63, P = 0.002) showed a positive correlation with disease volume. Significant differences in OS were observed for the univariate group analyses according to disease volume as measured from SPECT imaging of (186)Re-HEDP (P = 0.03) and patient mean absorbed dose (P = 0.01), whilst only the disease volume remained significant in a multivariable analysis (P = 0.004).CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that higher administered activities led to prolonged survival and that for a fixed administered activity, the whole-body and patient mean absorbed doses correlated with the extent of disease, which, in turn, correlated with survival. This study shows the importance of patient stratification to establish absorbed dose-response correlations and indicates the potential to individualise treatment of bone metastases with radiopharmaceuticals according to patient-specific imaging and dosimetry.

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.

Four large randomised controlled trials testing modest hypofractionation for localised prostate cancer have reported efficacy and side effect outcomes within the last year (1-8).

316 Background: CHHiP (CRUK/06/016) is a multicentre randomised controlled trial which investigated the use of moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) dose schedules for treatment of localised prostate cancer. 97% of participants (pts) had concurrent androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Luteinising Hormone Releasing Hormone analogues (LHRHa) and bicalutamide 150mg (BIC) daily were permitted. This exploratory analysis investigates whether both ADT regimens show similar efficacy and whether BIC has the propensity to preserve erectile function. Methods: In CHHiP, 2700 pts received LHRH and 403 BIC, median duration 5.6 months. The primary endpoint was biochemical or clinical failure (BCF). ADT groups were compared with Cox regression adjusted forage, NCCN risk group, Gleason score,T-stage and stratified by RT dose. A key secondary endpoint was erectile function assessed by clinicians (LENTSOM subjective erectile function for vaginal penetration score) and pts (single items within UCLA-PCI and EPIC-50 questionnaires) at 2 years. 195/875 (22%) pts were excluded from this toxicity analysis as they had erectile dysfunction pre-ADT (grade (G) 3/4 LENTSOM). A chi square trend test compared ADT regimens. Results: Baseline demographics were similar except BIC pts were significantly younger (median 67 years BIC, 69 years LHRHa). With a median follow-up of 9.2 years, there was no evidence of a difference in BCF with an adjusted hazard ratio 0.95 (95% CI 0.75-1.20), p = 0.657. Eight year BCF rates were 80.7% (95%CI 79.0-82.2) and 80.3% (95%CI 75.8-84.0) for LHRHa and BIC pts respectively. At two years, LENTSOM erectile function was significantly worse (p < 0.0001) for LHRHa pts with 93/585 (16%), 95/585 (16%) and 125/585 (21%) G2, G3 and G4, compared to 3/68 (4%), 5/68 (7%) and 9/68 (13%) in BIC. At 2 years, the ability to have an erection, as reported by pts, was graded poor and very poor in 73/278 (26%) and 57/278 (21%) LHRHa pts and 5/23 (22%) and 4/23 (17%) in BIC pts (p = 0.584). Conclusions: There was no evidence of a difference in efficacy according to ADT received. BIC preserved clinician assessed (LENTSOM) erectile function at 2 years but patient reported outcomes did not show statistically significant differences with type of ADT. Clinical trial information: 97182923.

14 Background: Docetaxel (DOC) and abiraterone (ABI) both improve overall survival (OS) in men with locally advanced or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC) but no head to head trials compare the 2 agents. STAMPEDE, a multi-arm multi-stage platform trial, recruited patients (pts) to treatments including DOC or ABI between Nov-11 and Mar-13. There was no evidence OS differed between DOC or ABI, thus quality of life (QOL) may increasingly inform treatment options. Methods: QOL scores were analysed in pts contemporaneously randomised to receive DOC or ABI, in addition to standard of care treatment. Self-assessment QOL questionnaires EORTC QLQ C30 and PR25 were completed during treatment and follow-up. These analyses focus on average global QOL over the first 2 years after randomisation, using repeated measures analysis, plus cross-sectional analyses at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. A score difference of ≥4 points was pre-defined as clinically meaningful. Results: 173 men randomised to DOC and 342 men randomised to ABI participated in the QOL sub-study and contributed to this analysis. Baseline characteristics and proportion of missing data were similar between groups. Baseline global QOL scores were similar (mean (sd): DOC 77.8 (20) and ABI 78.0 (19.3)). Average global QOL over 2 years was higher in pts randomised to ABI than DOC, although the difference was statistically significant it did not meet the pre-defined clinical parameter (+3.9, 95%CI 0.6 to 7.1, p=0.021). Cross-sectional analyses showed clinically meaningful superior QOL in the ABI group at 3 and 6 months (+6.6, 95%CI 2.6 to 10.7, p=0.001; +8.0, 95%CI 3.6 to 12.3, p

325 Background: CHHiP is a non-inferiority trial to determine efficacy and safety of hypofractionated radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer (PCa). Five year results indicated that moderate hypofractionation of 60 Gray (Gy)/20 fractions (f) was non-inferior to 74Gy/37f (Lancet Oncology, 2016). Moderate hypofractionation is now an international standard of care but with patients remaining at risk of recurrence for many years, information on long-term outcomes is important. Here we report pre-planned analysis of 8 year outcomes. Methods: Between October 2002 and June 2011, 3216 men with node negative T1b-T3a localised PCa with risk of seminal vesical involvement ≤30% were randomised (1:1:1 ratio) to 74Gy/37f (control), 60Gy/20f or 57Gy/19f. Androgen deprivation began at least 3 months prior to radiotherapy (RT) and continued until end of RT. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical failure (Phoenix consensus guidelines) or clinical failure (BCF). The non-inferiority design specified a critical hazard ratio (HR) of 1.208 for each hypofractionated schedule compared to 74Gy/37f. Late toxicity was assessed at 5 years by RTOG and LENT-SOM scales. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Results: With a median follow up of 9.2 years, 8 year BCF-free rates (95% CI) were 74Gy: 80.6% (77.9%, 83.0%); 60Gy: 83.7% (81.2%, 85.9%) and 57Gy: 78.5% (75.8%, 81.0%). For 60Gy/20f, non-inferiority was confirmed: HR60=0.84 (90% CI 0.71, 0.99). For 57Gy/19f, non-inferiority could not be declared: HR57=1.17 (90% CI 1.00, 1.37). Clinician assessments of late toxicity were similar across groups. At 5 years, RTOG grade≥2 (G2+) bowel toxicity was observed in 14/879 (1.6%), 18/908 (2.0%) and 17/904 (1.9%) of the 74Gy, 60Gy and 57Gy groups respectively. RTOG G2+ bladder toxicity was observed in 17/879 (1.9%), 14/908 (1.5%) and 17/904 (1.9%) of the 74Gy, 60Gy and 57Gy groups respectively. Conclusions: With BCF rates over 80%, long-term follow-up confirms that 60Gy/20f is non-inferior to 74Gy/37f. Late side effects were very low across all groups. These results support the continued use of 60Gy/20f as standard of care for men with localised PCa. Clinical trial information: 97182923.

IntroductionThe aim is to investigate the effect of cardiovascular and diabetes comorbidities on radiotherapy-related side-effects in prostate cancer. Previous research suggests that comorbidities increase the risk of side-effects, but some cardiovascular medications may reduce symptoms by protecting against radiation damage. The evidence is inconclusive and mechanisms are not fully understood. ObjectiveTo explore whether routine primary care data can supplement clinical trial data in evaluating the impact of comorbidities and prescription medications on patient outcomes. ApproachThe CHHiP radiotherapy trial (CRUK/06/16) recruited 3,216 prostate cancer patients from 71 centres in UK, Ireland, Switzerland, and New Zealand between 2002 and 2011. Baseline comorbidity and radiotherapy-related side-effects over time were recorded. This was linked to computerised medical records (CMRs) from the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) database. RCGP RSC is a network of 192 English general practices with over 2 million patients (2.8% of the population). ResultsThe English population of CHHiP patients (N=2811) was used. 120 CMRs were linked, which exceeded the estimation of 79 linked records. However, six CMRs showed no evidence of regular GP care and a further eight patients were not recruited into the CHHiP trial until after they had de-registered from an RCGP RSC practice. Information on cardiovascular and diabetes comorbidities was extracted for 106 patients. The mean age was 69±7 years, representative of the CHHiP population. From the CMRs, 23 (22%) patients had diabetes and 47 (44%) had hypertension including 37 (35%) who took angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (medications lowering blood pressure). In addition, 44 (41%) patients took aspirin, 65 (61%) statins (lowering blood lipids) and 14 (13%) took metformin (lowering blood sugar levels). Conclusion/ImplicationsThe small sample limits statistical analysis. However, a clinical trial was successfully linked to GP data to determine comorbidities and medications of patients. This will serve as a pilot for further research. The advantage of data linkage is that it may provide a mechanism for long-term follow-up of radiotherapy-related side-effects.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to calculate the range of absorbed doses that could potentially be delivered by a variety of radiopharmaceuticals and typical fixed administered activities used for bone pain palliation in a cohort of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The methodology for the extrapolation of the biodistribution, pharmacokinetics and absorbed doses from a given to an alternative radiopharmaceutical is presented.METHODS:Sequential single photon emission CT images from 22 patients treated with 5 GBq of 186Re-HEDP were used to extrapolate the time–activity curves for various radiopharmaceuticals. Cumulated activity distributions for the delivered and extrapolated treatment plans were converted into absorbed dose distributions using the convolution dosimetry method. The lesion absorbed doses obtained for the different treatments were compared using the patient population distributions and cumulative dose–volume histograms.RESULTS:The median lesion absorbed doses across the patient cohort ranged from 2.7 Gy (range: 0.6–11.8 Gy) for 1100 MBq of 166Ho-DOTMP to 21.8 Gy (range: 4.5–117.6 Gy) for 150 MBq of 89Sr-dichloride. 32P-Na3PO4, 153Sm-EDTMP, 166Ho-DOTMP, 177Lu-EDTMP and 188Re-HEDP would have delivered 41, 32, 85, 20 and 64% lower absorbed doses, for the typical administered activities as compared to 186Re-HEDP, respectively, whilst 89Sr-dichloride would have delivered 25% higher absorbed doses.CONCLUSION:For the patient cohort studied, a wide range of absorbed doses would have been delivered for typical administration protocols in mCRPC. The methodology presented has potential use for emerging theragnostic agents.ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:The same patient cohort can receive a range of lesion absorbed doses from typical molecular radiotherapy treatments for patients with metastatic prostate cancer, highlighting the need to establish absorbed dose response relationships and to treat patients according to absorbed dose instead of using fixed administered activities.

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.

The indications for post-prostatectomy radiotherapy have evolved over the last decade, although the optimal timing, dose, and target volume remain to be well defined. The target volume is susceptible to anatomical variations with its borders interfacing with the rectum and bladder. Image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy has become the gold standard for radical prostate radiotherapy. Here we review the current evidence for image-guided techniques with intensity-modulated radiotherapy to the prostate bed and describe current strategies to reduce or account for interfraction and intrafraction motion.

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.