Search

BackgroundFour international study groups undertook a large study in resectable osteosarcoma, which included two randomised controlled trials, to determine the effect on survival of changing post-operative chemotherapy based on histological response.Patients and methodsPatients with resectable osteosarcoma aged ≤40 years were treated with the MAP regimen, comprising pre-operatively of two 5-week cycles of cisplatin 120 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2), methotrexate 12 g/m(2) × 2 (MAP) and post-operatively two further cycles of MAP and two cycles of just MA. Patients were randomised after surgery. Those with ≥10% viable tumour in the resected specimen received MAP or MAP with ifosfamide and etoposide. Those with

Background: In men with localised prostate cancer, conformal radiotherapy (CFRT) could deliver higher doses of radiation than does standard-dose conventional radical external-beam radiotherapy, and could improve long-term efficacy, potentially at the cost of increased toxicity. We aimed to present the first analyses of effectiveness from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial.Methods: The MRC RT01 trial included 843 men with localised prostate cancer who were randomly assigned to standard-dose CFRT or escalated-dose CFRT, both administered with neoadjuvant androgen suppression. Primary endpoints were biochemical-progression-free survival (bPFS), freedom from local progression, metastases-free survival, overall survival, and late toxicity scores. The toxicity scores were measured with questionnaires for physicians and patients that included the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), the Late Effects on Normal Tissue: Subjective/Objective/Management (LENT/SOM) scales, and the University of California, Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA PCI) scales. Analysis was done by intention to treat. This trial is registered at the Current Controlled Trials website http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN47772397.Findings: Between January, 1998, and December, 2002, 843 men were randomly assigned to escalated-dose CFRT (n=422) or standard-dose CFRT (n=421). In the escalated group, the hazard ratio (HR) for bPFS was 0.67 (95% CI 0.53-0.85, p=0.0007). We noted 71% bPFS (108 cumulative events) and 60% bPFS (149 cumulative events) by 5 years in the escalated and standard groups, respectively. HR for clinical progression-free survival was 0.69 (0.47-1.02; p=0.064); local control was 0.65 (0.36-1.18; p=0.16); freedom from salvage androgen suppression was 0.78 (0.57-1.07; p=0.12); and metastases-free survival was 0.74 (0.47-1.18; p=0.21). HR for late bowel toxicity in the escalated group was 1.47 (1.12-1.92) according to the RTOG (grade >/=2) scale; 1.44 (1.16-1.80) according to the LENT/SOM (grade >/=2) scales; and 1.28 (1.03-1.60) according to the UCLA PCI (score >/=30) scale. 33% of the escalated and 24% of the standard group reported late bowel toxicity within 5 years of starting treatment. HR for late bladder toxicity according to the RTOG (grade >/=2) scale was 1.36 (0.90-2.06), but this finding was not supported by the LENT/SOM (grade >/=2) scales (HR 1.07 [0.90-1.29]), nor the UCLA PCI (score >/=30) scale (HR 1.05 [0.81-1.36]).Interpretation: Escalated-dose CFRT with neoadjuvant androgen suppression seems clinically worthwhile in terms of bPFS, progression-free survival, and decreased use of salvage androgen suppression. This additional efficacy is offset by an increased incidence of longer term adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The most frequent site of metastases from prostate cancer is bone. Adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment improves outcomes of patients with bone metastasis-negative breast cancer, but the effects of bisphosphonates on bone metastases in prostate cancer are not known.Methods: We performed a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial to determine whether a first-generation bisphosphonate could improve symptomatic bone metastasis-free survival (time to symptomatic bone metastases or death from prostate cancer) in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer who were at high risk of developing bone metastases. Between June 1, 1994, and December 31, 1997, 508 men from 26 UK sites and one New Zealand site who were within 3 years of initial prostate cancer diagnosis with no evidence of metastases from current bone scanning were randomly assigned to daily oral sodium clodronate (2080 mg/day, n = 254) or placebo (n = 254) for a maximum of 5 years. Estimates of outcome risks were compared using Kaplan-Meier analyses.Results: The groups allocated to each treatment were well balanced. After a median follow-up of nearly 10 years, no evidence of benefit to the clodronate group was observed in terms of bone metastases-free survival (clodronate versus placebo, 80 events versus 68 events; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.88 to 1.68) or overall survival (clodronate versus placebo, 130 deaths versus 127 deaths; HR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.80 to 1.30). Adverse events, notably gastrointestinal problems and increased lactate dehydrogenase levels, were more frequent in the clodronate group than in the placebo group; otherwise, clodronate was well tolerated. Modification of trial drug dose was more frequent in the clodronate group than the placebo group (HR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.21 to 2.19).Conclusion: Adjuvant sodium clodronate does not modify the natural history of nonmetastatic prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of the 2006 i2b2 NLP Shared Task, we explored two methods for determining the smoking status of patients from their hospital discharge summaries when explicit smoking terms were present and when those same terms were removed. We developed a simple keyword-based classifier to determine smoking status from de-identified hospital discharge summaries. We then developed a Naïve Bayes classifier to determine smoking status from the same records after all smoking-related words had been manually removed (the smoke-blind dataset). The performance of the Naïve Bayes classifier was compared with the performance of three human annotators on a subset of the same training dataset (n = 54) and against the evaluation dataset (n = 104 records). The rule-based classifier was able to accurately extract smoking status from hospital discharge summaries when they contained explicit smoking words. On the smoke-blind dataset, where explicit smoking cues are not available, two Naïve Bayes systems performed less well than the rule-based classifier, but similarly to three expert human annotators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Purpose: Radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer is effective but dose limited because of the proximity of normal tissues. Comprehensive dose-volume analysis of the incidence of clinically relevant late rectal toxicities could indicate how the dose to the rectum should be constrained. Previous emphasis has been on constraining the mid-to-high dose range (>/=50 Gy). Evidence is emerging that lower doses could also be important.Methods and Materials: Data from a large multicenter randomized trial were used to investigate the correlation between seven clinically relevant rectal toxicity endpoints (including patient- and clinician-reported outcomes) and an absolute 5% increase in the volume of rectum receiving the specified doses. The results were quantified using odds ratios. Rectal dose-volume constraints were applied retrospectively to investigate the association of constraints with the incidence of late rectal toxicity.Results: A statistically significant dose-volume response was observed for six of the seven endpoints for at least one of the dose levels tested in the range of 30-70 Gy. Statistically significant reductions in the incidence of these late rectal toxicities were observed for the group of patients whose treatment plans met specific proposed dose-volume constraints. The incidence of moderate/severe toxicity (any endpoint) decreased incrementally for patients whose treatment plans met increasing numbers of dose-volume constraints from the set of V30Conclusion: Considering the entire dose distribution to the rectum by applying dose-volume constraints such as those tested here in the present will reduce the incidence of late rectal toxicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objective: Radiotherapy (RT) and long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ltADT; 18-36 mo) is a standard of care in the treatment of high-risk localized/locoregional prostate cancer (HRLPC). We evaluated the outcomes in patients treated with RT + ltADT to identify which patients have poorer prognosis with standard therapy., Methods: Individual patient data from patients with HRLPC (as defined by any of the following three risk factors [RFs] in the context of cN0 disease-Gleason score ≥8, cT3-4, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] >20 ng/ml, or cN1 disease) treated with RT and ltADT in randomized controlled trials collated by the Intermediate Clinical Endpoints in Cancer of the Prostate group. The outcome measures of interest were metastasis-free survival (MFS), overall survival (OS), time to metastasis, and prostate cancer-specific mortality. Multivariable Cox and Fine-Gray regression estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for the three RFs and cN1 disease., Key Findings and Limitations: A total of 3604 patients from ten trials were evaluated, with a median PSA value of 24 ng/ml. Gleason score ≥8 (MFS HR = 1.45; OS HR = 1.42), cN1 disease (MFS HR = 1.86; OS HR = 1.77), cT3-4 disease (MFS HR = 1.28; OS HR = 1.22), and PSA >20 ng/ml (MFS HR = 1.30; OS HR = 1.21) were associated with poorer outcomes. Adjusted 5-yr MFS rates were 83% and 78%, and 10-yr MFS rates were 63% and 53% for patients with one and two to three RFs, respectively; corresponding 10-yr adjusted OS rates were 67% and 60%, respectively. In cN1 patients, adjusted 5- and 10-yr MFS rates were 67% and 36%, respectively, and 10-yr OS was 47%., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: HRLPC patients with two to three RFs (and cN0) or cN1 disease had the poorest outcomes on RT and ltADT. This will help in counseling patients treated in routine practice and in guiding adjuvant trials in HRLPC., Patient Summary: Radiotherapy and long-term hormone therapy are standard treatments for high-risk and locoregional prostate cancer. In this report, we defined prognostic groups within high-risk/locoregional prostate cancer and showed that outcomes to standard therapy are poorest in those with two or more "high-risk" factors or evidence of lymph node involvement. Such patients may therefore be the best candidates for intensification of treatment., (Copyright © 2024 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Standardized definitions for outcome measures in randomized clinical trials and observational studies are essential for robust and valid evaluation of medical products, interventions, care, and outcomes. The European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomised Trials (EuroHeart) project of the European Society of Cardiology aimed to create international data standards for cardiovascular clinical study outcome measures., Methods: The EuroHeart methods for data standard development were used. From a Global Cardiovascular Outcomes Consortium of 82 experts, five Working Groups were formed to identify and define key outcome measures for: cardiovascular disease (generic outcomes), acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous coronary intervention (ACS/PCI), atrial fibrillation (AF), heart failure (HF) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). A systematic review of the literature informed a modified Delphi method to reach consensus on a final set of variables. For each variable, the Working Group provided a definition and categorized the variable as mandatory (Level 1) or optional (Level 2) based on its clinical importance and feasibility., Results: Across the five domains, 24 Level 1 (generic: 5, ACS/PCI: 8, AF: 2; HF: 5, TAVI: 4) and 48 Level 2 (generic: 18, ACS-PCI: 7, AF: 6, HF: 2, TAVI: 15) outcome measures were defined., Conclusions: Internationally derived and endorsed definitions for outcome measures for a range of common cardiovascular diseases and interventions are presented. These may be used for data alignment to enable high-quality observational and randomized clinical research, audit, and quality improvement for patient benefit., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Monitoring is a crucial part of trial conduct and ensures that participants' data is fairly represented, and future healthcare information is enhanced. This project aims to improve trial monitoring by creating a trial monitoring plan (TMP) template with input from individuals experienced in monitoring clinical trials., Methods: A review of monitoring plans received from UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) registered clinical trials units (CTU)s created the basis for a preliminary TMP template and a Delphi survey. The TMP template was finalised after 2 rounds of a Delphi survey and a two-part consensus meeting including trialists with experience and expertise in monitoring clinical trials., Results: We received 31 monitoring plans from UKCRC-registered CTUs and reviewed over 800 monitoring items for inclusion in a TMP template, selecting items based on guidelines such as Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and our monitoring experiences. For certain items, further expert input was required. A total of 66 items were chosen for a Delphi survey involving 47 participants from 25 UK CTUs and industry. After the first round, all 66 items were retained, and six additional items were suggested by Delphi participants. In the second round, 37 items reached consensus for inclusion in the TMP template. The Delphi process was followed by a consensus meeting with 9 participants from 9 UK CTUs and industry. Participants in the consensus meeting voted on the 32 further items that had not reached the definition of consensus within the Delphi, regarding each item's inclusion in or exclusion from the TMP template. The voting resulted in 18 items being excluded, leaving 14 items to be included in the TMP template. The process overall resulted in a standardised TMP template with input from many individuals with interest, experience, or expertise in monitoring clinical trials., Conclusion: A TMP template was developed building on the currently used monitoring plans and with input from those experienced in clinical trial monitoring. Using a centrally developed good quality TMP template should contribute towards maintaining consistency in monitoring standards across all CTUs, resulting in higher research quality and improved quality assurance. Its use should provide reassurance to participants that their participation is carefully monitored to ensure that their data or any samples provided are treated with confidentiality, integrity, and respect and that their rights and well-being are protected., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background and Objective: The use and duration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with postoperative radiotherapy (RT) have been uncertain. RADICALS-HD compared adding no ("None"), 6-months ("Short"), or 24-mo ("Long") ADT to study efficacy in the long term., Methods: Participants with prostate cancer were indicated for postoperative RT and agreed randomisation between all durations. ADT was allocated for 0, 6, or 24 mo. The primary outcome measure (OM) was metastasis-free survival (MFS). The secondary OMs included freedom from distant metastasis, overall survival, and initiation of nonprotocol ADT. Sample size was determined by two-way comparisons. Analyses followed standard time-to-event approaches and intention-to-treat principles., Key Findings and Limitations: Between 2007 and 2015, 492 participants were randomised one of three groups: 166 None, 164 Short, and 162 Long. The median age at randomisation was 66 yr; Gleason scores at surgery were as follows: <7 = 64 (13%), 3+4 = 229 (47%), 4+3 = 127 (26%), and 8+ = 72 (15%); T3b was 112 (23%); and T4 was 5 (1%). The median follow-up was 9.0 yr and, with MFS events reported for 89 participants (32 None, 31 Short, and 26 Long), there was no evidence of difference in MFS overall (logrank p = 0.98), and, for Long versus None, hazard ratio = 0.948 (95% confidence interval 0.54-1.68). After 10 yr, 80% None, 77% Short, and 81% Long patients were alive without metastatic disease. The three-way randomisation was not powered to conventional levels for assessment, yet provides a fair comparison., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: Long-term outcomes after radical prostatectomy are usually favourable. In those indicated for postoperative RT and considered suitable for no, short-term, or long-term ADT, there was no evidence of improvement with addition of ADT. Future research should focus on patients at a higher risk of metastases in whom improvements are required more urgently., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Clinical trials are fundamental to healthcare, however, they also contribute to anthropogenic climate change. Following previous work to develop and test a method and guidance to calculate the carbon footprint of clinical trials, we have now applied the guidance to 10 further UK and international, academically sponsored clinical trials to continue the identification of hotspots and opportunities for lower carbon trial design., Methods: 10 collaborating clinical trial units (CTUs) self-identified and a trial was selected from their portfolio to represent a variety of designs, health areas and interventions. Trial activity data was collated by trial teams across 10 modules spanning trial setup through to closure, then multiplied by emission factors provided in the guidance to calculate the carbon footprint. Feedback was collected from trial teams on the process, experience and ease of use of the guidance., Results: We footprinted 10 trials: 6 investigational medicinal product trials, 1 nutritional, 1 surgical, 1 health surveillance and one complex intervention trial. Six of these were completed and four ongoing (two in follow-up and two recruiting). The carbon footprint of the 10 trials ranged from 16 to 765 tonnes CO 2 e. Common hotspots were identified as CTU emissions, trial-specific patient assessments and trial team meetings and travel. Hotspots for specific trial designs were also identified. The time taken to collate activity data and complete carbon calculations ranged from 5 to 60 hours. The draft guidance was updated to include new activities identified from the 10 trials and in response to user feedback., Discussion: There are opportunities to reduce the impact of trials across all modules, particularly trial-specific meetings and travel, patient assessments and laboratory practice. A trial's carbon footprint should be considered at the design stage, but work is required to make this common place., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JG, LF, JB and PRW have received NIHR funding to undertake this study (support for the manuscript). FA is the paid chair of the Sustainable Healthcare Coalition. RA-SS reports clinical study grants from the British Heart Foundation and Chief Scientist Office Health Improvement, Protection and Services Research Committee Project Grant; consulting fees from Recursion Pharmaceuticals and Bioxodes, and payment from European Stroke Masters (European Stroke Organisation). RA-SS participates on the Novo Nordisk NN9931-4553 and NN9931-4554 endpoint adjudication committee and is the clinical director of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration network of registered Clinical Trials Units. CA is the Vice President of the World Stroke Organisation, Editor-in-chief of Cerebrovascular Diseases and Associate Editor of International Journal of Stroke; reports grants or contracts from National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia, Medical Research Council (MRC) of the UK, Medical Research Foundation (MRF) of the UK, Penumbra and Takeda; consulting fees from AstraZeneca Advisory Board and participation on Dutch DIST trial. CG is supported by the NIHR CTU efficiency call. KG receives consulting fees from Boehringer & Ingelheim (unrelated to this work) and is Chair of the ICTMC 2024 Scientific Committee. KH is the Deputy Chair of the NIHR Research Professors panel and was previously a member of the NIHR HTA General Committee. CN is an unpaid information specialist in a priority setting partnership for adults living with type 1 diabetes. SP reports grants or contracts from ViiV Healthcare, Gilead Sciences, NIH, MRC, EDCTP and Janssen-Cilag and is a DSMB member for the academic NIHR–funded trial TIPAL. SO’R, LM and JM are supported by funding from Health Research Board (HRB) Ireland MRSy is an independent unpaid member of many Independent Data Monitoring Committees for academic sponsors; reports grants or contracts from Astellas, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Pfizer, Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis; consulting fees from Eli Lilly; speaker fees from Janssen and AstraZeneca, and payment from Eisai, all unrelated to the topic of this comment. EM, AB, DC, FY, LW, XC, CM, PD, NM, AP, KM, EB, FD and CK report no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Aims: The lack of standardised definitions for heart failure outcome measures limits the ability to reliably assess effectiveness of heart failure therapies. The European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomised Trials (EuroHeart) aimed to produce a catalogue of internationally endorsed data definitions for heart failure outcome measures., Methods: Following the EuroHeart methods for the development of cardiovascular data standards, a working group was formed of representatives from the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Association and other leading heart failure experts. A systematic review of observational and randomised clinical trials identified current outcome measures, which was supplemented by clinical practice guidelines and existing registries for contemporary definitions. A modified Delphi process was employed to gain consensus for variable inclusion and whether collection should be mandatory (Level 1) or optional (Level 2) within EuroHeart. In addition, a set of complementary outcome measures were identified by the Working Group as of scientific and clinical importance for longitudinal monitoring for people with heart failure., Results: Five Level 1 and two Level 2 outcome measures were selected and defined, alongside five complementary monitoring outcomes for patients with heart failure., Conclusion: We present a structured, hierarchical catalogue of internationally endorsed heart failure outcome measures. This will facilitate quality improvement, high quality observational research, registry-based trials, and post market surveillance of medical devices., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Sharing trial results with participants is a moral imperative, but too often does not happen in appropriate ways., Methods: We carried out semi-structured interviews with patients (n = 13) and site staff (n = 11), and surveyed 180 patients and 68 site staff who were part of the Show RESPECT study, which tested approaches to sharing results with participants in the context of the ICON8 ovarian cancer trial (ISRCTN10356387). Qualitative and free-text data were analysed thematically, and findings used to develop the SHOW RESPECT adaptable framework of considerations for planning how to share trial results with participants. This paper presents the framework, with illustrations drawn from the Show RESPECT study., Results: Our adaptable 'SHOW RESPECT' framework covers (1) Supporting and preparing trial participants to receive results, (2) HOw will the results reach participants?, (3) Who are the trial participants?, (4) REsults-what do they show?, (5) Special considerations, (6) Provider-who will share results with participants?, (7) Expertise and resources, (8) Communication tools and (9) Timing of sharing results. While the data upon which the framework is based come from a single trial, many of our findings are corroborated by findings from other studies in this area, supporting the transferability of our framework to trials beyond the UK ovarian cancer setting in which our work took place., Conclusions: This adaptable 'SHOW RESPECT' framework can guide researchers as they plan how to share aggregate trial results with participants. While our data are drawn from a single trial context, the findings from Show RESPECT illustrate how approaches to communication in a specific trial can influence patient and staff experiences of feedback of trial results. The framework generated from these findings can be adapted to fit different trial contexts and used by other researchers to plan the sharing of results with their own participants., Trial Registration: ISRCTN96189403. Registered on February 26, 2019. Show RESPECT was supported by the Medical Research Council (MC&#95;UU&#95;12023/24 and MC&#95;UU&#95;00004/08) and the NIHR CRN., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The optimal timing of radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer has been uncertain. RADICALS-RT compared efficacy and safety of adjuvant RT versus an observation policy with salvage RT for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) failure., Patients and Methods: RADICALS-RT was a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with ≥1 risk factor (pT3/4, Gleason 7-10, positive margins, preoperative PSA≥10 ng/ml) for recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Patients were randomised 1:1 to adjuvant RT ('Adjuvant-RT') or an observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure ('Salvage-RT') defined as PSA≥0.1 ng/ml or three consecutive rises. Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned RT schedule (52.5 Gy/20 fractions or 66 Gy/33 fractions) and treatment centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom-from-distant-metastasis (FFDM), designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with Salvage-RT (control) to 95% at 10 years with Adjuvant-RT. Secondary outcome measures were biochemical progression-free survival, freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy, safety and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used; hazard ratio (HR)<1 favours Adjuvant-RT., Results: Between October 2007 and December 2016, 1396 participants from UK, Denmark, Canada and Ireland were randomised: 699 Salvage-RT, 697 Adjuvant-RT. Allocated groups were balanced with a median age of 65 years. Ninety-three percent (649/697) Adjuvant-RT reported RT within 6 months after randomisation; 39% (270/699) Salvage-RT reported RT during follow-up. Median follow-up was 7.8 years. With 80 distant metastasis events, 10-year FFDM was 93% for Adjuvant-RT and 90% for Salvage-RT: HR=0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-1.07, P=0.095]. Of 109 deaths, 17 were due to prostate cancer. Overall survival was not improved (HR=0.980, 95% CI 0.667-1.440, P=0.917). Adjuvant-RT reported worse urinary and faecal incontinence 1 year after randomisation (P=0.001); faecal incontinence remained significant after 10 years (P=0.017)., Conclusion: Long-term results from RADICALS-RT confirm adjuvant RT after radical prostatectomy increases the risk of urinary and bowel morbidity, but does not meaningfully improve disease control. An observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy., Trial Identification: RADICALS, RADICALS-RT, ISRCTN40814031, NCT00541047., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction/aims: Healthcare systems data (also known as real-world or routinely collected health data) could transform the conduct of clinical trials. Demonstrating integrity and provenance of these data is critical for clinical trials, to enable their use where appropriate and avoid duplication using scarce trial resources. Building on previous work, this proof-of-concept study used a data intelligence tool, the "Central Metastore," to provide metadata and lineage information of nationally held data. Methods: The feasibility of NHS England's Central Metastore to capture detailed records of the origins, processes, and methods that produce four datasets was assessed. These were England's Hospital Episode Statistics (Admitted Patient Care, Outpatients, Critical Care) and the Civil Registration of Deaths (England and Wales). The process comprised: information gathering; information ingestion using the tool; and auto-generation of lineage diagrams/content to show data integrity. A guidance document to standardise this process was developed. Results/Discussion: The tool can ingest, store and display data provenance in sufficient detail to support trust and transparency in using these datasets for trials. The slowest step was information gathering from multiple sources, so consistency in record-keeping is essential., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: MRS declares research grants from Astellas, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis unrelated to this manuscript; consultancy fees from Eli Lilly, and speaker fees from Lilly Oncology, Janssen, and Eisai all unrelated to this manuscript. MM declares research grants from Novartis and Novo Nordisk unrelated to this manuscript. MKBP declares research funding support from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Janssen all unrelated to the work in this manuscript. All remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Purpose: We sought to evaluate the prognostic impact of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at 6 months after completion of radiotherapy (RT) in patients treated with RT alone, RT plus short-term (st; 3-6 months), and RT plus long-term (lt; 24-36 months) androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT)., Patients and Methods: Individual patient data were obtained from 16 randomized trials evaluating RT ± ADT for localized prostate cancer (PCa) between 1987 and 2011. The lowest PSA recorded within 6 months after RT completion was identified and categorized as < or ≥0.1 ng/mL. The primary outcomes were metastasis-free survival (MFS), PCa-specific mortality (PCSM), and overall survival (OS), from 12 months after random assignment., Results: Ninety-eight percent (n = 2,339/2,376) of patients allocated to RT alone, 84% (n = 4,756/5,658) allocated to RT + stADT, and 77% (n = 1,258/1,626) allocated to RT + ltADT had PSA ≥0.1 ng/mL within 6 months after completing RT. PSA ≥0.1 ng/mL was associated with lower MFS and OS and higher PCSM among patients allocated to RT ± ADT (RT - MFS: hazard ratio [HR], 2.24 [95% CI, 1.21 to 4.16]; PCSM: subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 1.82 [0.51 to 6.49]; OS: HR, 1.72 [0.97 to 3.05]; RT + stADT - MFS: HR, 1.27 [1.12 to 1.44]; PCSM: sHR, 2.10 [1.52 to 2.92]; OS: HR, 1.26 [1.11 to 1.44]; RT + ltADT - MFS: HR, 1.58 [1.27 to 1.96]; PCSM: sHR, 1.97 [1.11 to 3.49]; OS: HR, 1.59 [1.27 to 1.99]). Five-year MFS rates among patients allocated to RT, RT + stADT, and RT + ltADT were 91% versus 79%, 83% versus 76%, and 87% versus 74%, respectively, based on PSA < or ≥0.1 ng/mL., Conclusion: PSA ≥0.1 ng/mL within 6 months after RT completion was prognostic for lt outcomes in patients treated with RT ± ADT for localized PCa. This can be used to counsel patients treated with RT ± ADT and in guiding clinical trial design evaluating novel systemic therapies with RT + ADT as well as (de)intensification strategies.

Background: Better use of healthcare systems data, collected as part of interactions between patients and the healthcare system, could transform planning and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Multiple challenges to widespread use include whether healthcare systems data captures sufficiently well the data traditionally captured on case report forms. "Data Utility Comparison Studies" (DUCkS) assess the utility of healthcare systems data for RCTs by comparison to data collected by the trial. Despite their importance, there are few published UK examples of DUCkS., Methods-And-Results: Building from ongoing and selected recent examples of UK-led DUCkS in the literature, we set out experience-based considerations for the conduct of future DUCkS. Developed through informal iterative discussions in many forums, considerations are offered for planning, protocol development, data, analysis and reporting, with comparisons at "patient-level" or "trial-level", depending on the item of interest and trial status., Discussion: DUCkS could be a valuable tool in assessing where healthcare systems data can be used for trials and in which trial teams can play a leading role. There is a pressing need for trials to be more efficient in their delivery and research waste must be reduced. Trials have been making inconsistent use of healthcare systems data, not least because of an absence of evidence of utility. DUCkS can also help to identify challenges in using healthcare systems data, such as linkage (access and timing) and data quality. We encourage trial teams to incorporate and report DUCkS in trials and funders and data providers to support them., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. CB is now employed at Insitro, South San Francisco, CA. Insitro had no involvement in the design or implementation of the work presented here., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous evidence indicates that adjuvant, short-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves metastasis-free survival when given with primary radiotherapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the value of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy is unclear., Methods: RADICALS-HD was an international randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of ADT used in combination with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to radiotherapy alone (no ADT) or radiotherapy with 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT), using monthly subcutaneous gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue injections, daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as distant metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. Standard survival analysis methods were used, accounting for randomisation stratification factors. The trial had 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 80% to 86% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·67). Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047., Findings: Between Nov 22, 2007, and June 29, 2015, 1480 patients (median age 66 years [IQR 61-69]) were randomly assigned to receive no ADT (n=737) or short-course ADT (n=743) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 121 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 7·1-10·1), metastasis-free survival events were reported for 268 participants (142 in the no ADT group and 126 in the short-course ADT group; HR 0·886 [95% CI 0·688-1·140], p=0·35). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 79·2% (95% CI 75·4-82·5) in the no ADT group and 80·4% (76·6-83·6) in the short-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 121 (17%) of 737 participants in the no ADT group and 100 (14%) of 743 in the short-course ADT group (p=0·15), with no treatment-related deaths., Interpretation: Metastatic disease is uncommon following postoperative bed radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adding 6 months of ADT to this radiotherapy did not improve metastasis-free survival compared with no ADT. These findings do not support the use of short-course ADT with postoperative radiotherapy in this patient population., Funding: Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AN reports honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Merck. ADC reports research grants for the STAMPEDE trial from Janssen, Astellas, Novartis, Sanofi, and Clovis. ACT reports research grants to their institution from Elekta, Varian, and Accuracy; honoraria for talks from Elekta, Accuracy, and Janssen; travel assistance for radiotherapy conferences from Elekta; serving on the data safety board for two academic trials; and roles as the Chair of the MR-Linac Consortium and the genitourinary lead editor for the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. AC reports receiving grants or contracts from the National Institute for Health and Care Research, Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council (MRC) UK, Prostate Cancer UK, Bayer UK, and Elekta; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from the American Society for Radiation Oncology, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Cancer Research UK, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS). CNC reports support for the present manuscript from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bayer Corp, Knight Therapeutics, and AbbVie. CLG reports participating in the independent data monitoring and steering committee for the BARCODE study at the Institute of Cancer Research in London (principal investigator Prof Ros Eeles). CCP reports consulting fees from AAA, ITM Radiopharma, Myovant, and Clarity Pharmaceuticals to his institution; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Janssen and Bayer to his institution. CM reports that they are employed by University College London (UCL) as Trial Manager for RADICALS. FS reports grants or contracts from Janssen, Bayer, Merck, Pfizer, Astellas, BMS, Novartis, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca to his institution; consulting fees from Janssen, Bayer, Astellas, BMS, Novartis, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Pfizer to him; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Janssen, Bayer, Myovant, Astellas, BMS, Novartis, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Pfizer to him. LCB reports their previous Institute of Cancer role was funded in part by a Biomedical Research Centre grant which was paid to the institution; the role was not connected to the RADICALS trial. MRS reports research grants and biomarker testing costs, all to their institution and all active in the past 36 months but on research outside of this research, from Astellas, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; consulting fees from Eli Lilly; speaker fees at a clinical trial statistics training meeting for clinicians (no discussion of particular drugs) from Lilly Oncology, Janssen, and Eisai; and is an independent member of many independent data monitoring committees but all for academic sponsors and unpaid. NWC reports honoraria for lectures, advisory boards, and symposia from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bayer, and Pfizer; support for travel to and attendance at a European meeting from Bayer; participation on the independent data monitoring committee for the Probio trial (Karolinska), and the trial steering committee for the Capi 28 trial (AstraZeneca) and the STAMPEDE trial (MRC); and is the Joint National Clinical Lead for the National Prostate Cancer Audit. PWMC reports grants or contracts from the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology ACURA program and the Canadian Institute of Health Research; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Pfizer and EMD Serono; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from TerSera, AbbVie, Tolmar, and Knight Therapeutics. PMP reports participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AAA Nordic, MSD, and Pfizer Denmark. SCM reports honoraria from Janssen, Astellas, Knight Therapeutics, AMGEN Pharmaceutical, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, and Bayer; and support for attending meetings or travel from TerSera and Sanofi. VK reports a Cancer Research UK grant for the CORE trial to his institution; honoraria from Accuracy, Astellas, Bayer, and Boston Scientific; meeting attendance support from Accuray, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boston Scientific, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Norvatis; is an unpaid member of the independent data monitoring committee for the EPIC trial and the advisory board for Bayer and Janssen; and is the unpaid Chair of National Cancer Research Institute Penile subgroup of the Bladder and Renal Clinical Studies Group. WRC reports consulting fees from Bayer and Janssen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, AAA Novartis, and Myriad Genetics; and support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen, AAA Novartis, and Bayer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous evidence supports androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with primary radiotherapy as initial treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the use and optimal duration of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain., Methods: RADICALS-HD was a randomised controlled trial of ADT duration within the RADICALS protocol. Here, we report on the comparison of short-course versus long-course ADT. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after previous radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to add 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT) or 24 months of ADT (long-course ADT) to radiotherapy, using subcutaneous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (monthly in the short-course ADT group and 3-monthly in the long-course ADT group), daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. The comparison had more than 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 75% to 81% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72). Standard time-to-event analyses were used. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047., Findings: Between Jan 30, 2008, and July 7, 2015, 1523 patients (median age 65 years, IQR 60-69) were randomly assigned to receive short-course ADT (n=761) or long-course ADT (n=762) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 138 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 8·9 years (7·0-10·0), 313 metastasis-free survival events were reported overall (174 in the short-course ADT group and 139 in the long-course ADT group; HR 0·773 [95% CI 0·612-0·975]; p=0·029). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 71·9% (95% CI 67·6-75·7) in the short-course ADT group and 78·1% (74·2-81·5) in the long-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 105 (14%) of 753 participants in the short-course ADT group and 142 (19%) of 757 participants in the long-course ADT group (p=0·025), with no treatment-related deaths., Interpretation: Compared with adding 6 months of ADT, adding 24 months of ADT improved metastasis-free survival in people receiving postoperative radiotherapy. For individuals who can accept the additional duration of adverse effects, long-course ADT should be offered with postoperative radiotherapy., Funding: Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AN reports honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Merck. ADC reports research grants for the STAMPEDE trial from Janssen, Astellas, Novartis, Sanofi, and Clovis. CMH is an executive committee member for the British Uro-Oncology Group. CNC reports support for the present manuscript from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bayer Corp, Knight Therapeutics, and AbbVie. CLG reports that they participate in the independent data monitoring and steering committee for the BARCODE study at the Institute of Cancer Research in London (principal investigator Ros Eeles). CB reports stock or stock options from GSK; and has been an employee at GSK since August, 2023. CCP reports consulting fees from AAA, ITM Radiopharma, Myovant, and Clarity Pharmaceuticals to his institution; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Janssen and Bayer to his institution. FS reports grants or contracts from Janssen, Bayer, Merck, Pfizer, Astellas, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Novartis, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca to his institution; consulting fees from Janssen, Bayer, Astellas, BMS, Novartis, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Pfizer to him; and payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Janssen, Bayer, Myovant, Astellas, BMS, Novartis, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Pfizer to him. LCB reports that their previous Institute of Cancer role was funded in part by a Biomedical Research Centre grant which was paid to the institution; the role was not connected to the RADICALS trial. MRS reports research grants and biomarker testing costs, all to institution and all active in past 36 months but on research outside of this research, from Astellas, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Novartis, and Sanofi-Aventis; consulting fees from Eli Lilly; speaker fees at a clinical trial statistics training meeting for clinicians (no discussion of particular drugs) from Lilly Oncology, Janssen, and Eisai; and is an independent member of many independent data monitoring committees but all for academic sponsors and unpaid. NDJ is a Senior Investigator for the National Institute for Health and Care Research. NWC reports honoraria for lectures, advisory boards, and symposia from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bayer, and Pfizer; support for travel to and attendance at a European meeting from Bayer; participation on an independent data monitoring committee for the Probio trial (Karolinska), and the trial steering committee for the Capi 28 Trial (AstraZeneca) and the STAMPEDE Trial (Medical Research Council [MRC]); and is the Joint National Clinical Lead for National Prostate Cancer Audit. PW reports an educational event payment from Astellas; conference and travel cost support from AstraZeneca and Aventis; and participation on the advisory board for Ferring and Roche. PWMC reports grants or contracts from CARO-ACURA and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Pfizer and EMD Serono; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for TerSera, AbbVie, Tolmar, and Knight Therapeutics. PMP reports participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AAA Nordic, MSD, and Pfizer Denmark. SCM reports honoraria from Janssen, Astellas, Knight Therapeutics, Amgen Pharmaceutical, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, and Bayer; and support for attending meetings or travel from TerSera and Sanofi. WRC reports consulting fees from Bayer and Janssen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astellas, Bayer, Janssen, AAA Novartis, and Myriad Genetics; and support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen, AAA Novartis, and Bayer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The timing of randomization should be considered carefully in the context of each trial because it has implications for the particular research question answered. In most instances, randomization should be delayed until as close as practically possible to the moment of intervention. In some cases, early randomization may offer certain advantages, but trialists should balance these, including any administrative complexity or inconvenience, against the risk of avoidable protocol violations and avoidable drop out., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interests S.L. has nothing to disclose. M.R.S. has nothing to disclose. A.P. has nothing to disclose. J.W. has nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)