Search

Biological samples are often frozen and stored for years and/or thawed multiple times, thus assessing their stability on long-term storage and repeated freeze–thaw cycles is crucial. The study aims were to assess:—the long-term stability of two major enzymatic and non-enzymatic metabolites of arachidonic acid, i.e. urinary 11-dehydro-thromboxane-(Tx) B2, 8-iso-prostaglandin (PG)F2α, and creatinine in frozen urine samples;—the effect of multiple freeze–thaw cycles. Seven-hundred and three urine samples measured in previously-published studies, stored at −40 °C, and measured for a second time for 11-dehydro-TxB2 (n = 677) and/or 8-iso-PGF2α (n = 114) and/or creatinine (n = 610) were stable over 10 years and the 2 measurements were highly correlated (all rho = 0.99, P < 0.0001). Urine samples underwent 10 sequential freeze–thaw cycles, with and without the antioxidant 4-hydroxy-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidin-1-oxyl (10 mM); urinary 11-dehydro-TxB2 and creatinine were stable across all cycles (11-dehydro-TxB2: 100.4 ± 21%; creatinine: 101 ± 7% of baseline at cycle ten; n = 17), while 8-iso-PGF2α significantly increased by cycle 6 (151 ± 22% of baseline at cycle ten, n = 17, P < 0.05) together with hydrogen peroxide only in the absence of antioxidant. Arachidonic acid metabolites and creatinine appear stable in human urines stored at −40 °C over 10 years. Multiple freeze–thaw cycles increase urinary 8-iso-PGF2α in urine samples without antioxidants. These data are relevant for studies using urine samples stored over long-term and/or undergoing multiple freezing–thawing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The population-level summary measure is a key component of the estimand for clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes. This is particularly the case for non-inferiority trials, because different summary measures imply different null hypotheses. Most trials are designed using the hazard ratio as summary measure, but recent studies suggested that the difference in restricted mean survival time might be more powerful, at least in certain situations. In a recent letter, we conjectured that differences between summary measures can be explained using the concept of the non-inferiority frontier and that for a fair simulation comparison of summary measures, the same analysis methods, making the same assumptions, should be used to estimate different summary measures. The aim of this article is to make such a comparison between three commonly used summary measures: hazard ratio, difference in restricted mean survival time and difference in survival at a fixed time point. In addition, we aim to investigate the impact of using an analysis method that assumes proportional hazards on the operating characteristics of a trial designed with any of the three summary measures. Methods: We conduct a simulation study in the proportional hazards setting. We estimate difference in restricted mean survival time and difference in survival non-parametrically, without assuming proportional hazards. We also estimate all three measures parametrically, using flexible survival regression, under the proportional hazards assumption. Results: Comparing the hazard ratio assuming proportional hazards with the other summary measures not assuming proportional hazards, relative performance varies substantially depending on the specific scenario. Fixing the summary measure, assuming proportional hazards always leads to substantial power gains compared to using non-parametric methods. Fixing the modelling approach to flexible parametric regression assuming proportional hazards, difference in restricted mean survival time is most often the most powerful summary measure among those considered. Conclusion: When the hazards are likely to be approximately proportional, reflecting this in the analysis can lead to large gains in power for difference in restricted mean survival time and difference in survival. The choice of summary measure for a non-inferiority trial with time-to-event outcomes should be made on clinical grounds; when any of the three summary measures discussed here is equally justifiable, difference in restricted mean survival time is most often associated with the most powerful test, on the condition that it is estimated under proportional hazards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To analyze the relationship between negative lymph node (LNneg) size as a possible surrogate marker of the host antitumor immune response and overall survival (OS) in esophageal cancer (EC) patients. Background: Lymph node (LN) status is a well-established prognostic factor in EC patients. An increased number of LNnegs is related to better survival in EC. Follicular hyperplasia in LNneg is associated with better survival in cancer-bearing mice and might explain increased LN size. Methods: The long axis of 304 LNnegs was measured in hematoxylin-eosin stained sections from resection specimens of 367 OE02 trial patients (188 treated with surgery alone (S), 179 with neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery (C+S)) as a surrogate of LN size. The relationship between LNneg size, LNneg microarchitecture, clinicopathological variables, and OS was analyzed. Results: Large LNneg size was related to lower pN category (P = 0.01) and lower frequency of lymphatic invasion (P = 0.02) in S patients only. Irrespective of treatment, (y)pN0 patients with large LNneg had the best OS. (y)pN1 patients had the poorest OS irrespective of LNneg size (P < 0.001). Large LNneg contained less lymphocytes (P = 0.02) and had a higher germinal centers/lymphocyte ratio (P = 0.05). Conclusions: This is the first study to investigate LNneg size in EC patients randomized to neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery or surgery alone. Our pilot study suggests that LNneg size is a surrogate marker of the host antitumor immune response and a potentially clinically useful new prognostic biomarker for (y)pN0 EC patients. Future studies need to confirm our results and explore underlying biological mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (AAP) previously demonstrated improved survival in STAMPEDE, a multiarm, multistage platform trial in men starting long‐term hormone therapy for prostate cancer. This long‐term analysis in metastatic patients was planned for 3 years after the first results. Standard‐of‐care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy. The comparison randomised patients 1:1 to SOC‐alone with or without daily abiraterone acetate 1000 mg + prednisolone 5 mg (SOC + AAP), continued until disease progression. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Metastatic disease risk group was classified retrospectively using baseline CT and bone scans by central radiological review and pathology reports. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, accounting for baseline stratification factors. One thousand and three patients were contemporaneously randomised (November 2011 to January 2014): median age 67 years; 94% newly‐diagnosed; metastatic disease risk group: 48% high, 44% low, 8% unassessable; median PSA 97 ng/mL. At 6.1 years median follow‐up, 329 SOC‐alone deaths (118 low‐risk, 178 high‐risk) and 244 SOC + AAP deaths (75 low‐risk, 145 high‐risk) were reported. Adjusted HR = 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50‐0.71; P = 0.31 × 10−9) favoured SOC + AAP, with 5‐years survival improved from 41% SOC‐alone to 60% SOC + AAP. This was similar in low‐risk (HR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41‐0.76) and high‐risk (HR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.43‐0.69) patients. Median and current maximum time on SOC + AAP was 2.4 and 8.1 years. Toxicity at 4 years postrandomisation was similar, with 16% patients in each group reporting grade 3 or higher toxicity. A sustained and substantial improvement in overall survival of all metastatic prostate cancer patients was achieved with SOC + abiraterone acetate + prednisolone, irrespective of metastatic disease risk group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background STAMPEDE previously reported adding upfront docetaxel improved overall survival for prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report long-term results for non-metastatic patients using, as primary outcome, metastatic progression-free survival (mPFS), an externally demonstrated surrogate for overall survival. Methods Standard of care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy with or without radical prostate radiotherapy. A total of 460 SOC and 230 SOC plus docetaxel were randomly assigned 2:1. Standard survival methods and intention to treat were used. Treatment effect estimates were summarized from adjusted Cox regression models, switching to restricted mean survival time if non-proportional hazards. mPFS (new metastases, skeletal-related events, or prostate cancer death) had 70% power (α = 0.05) for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.70. Secondary outcome measures included overall survival, failure-free survival (FFS), and progression-free survival (PFS: mPFS, locoregional progression). Results Median follow-up was 6.5 years with 142 mPFS events on SOC (3 year and 54% increases over previous report). There was no good evidence of an advantage to SOC plus docetaxel on mPFS (HR = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 1.19; P  = .43); with 5-year mPFS 82% (95% CI = 78% to 87%) SOC plus docetaxel vs 77% (95% CI = 73% to 81%) SOC. Secondary outcomes showed evidence SOC plus docetaxel improved FFS (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.88; P  = .002) and PFS (nonproportional P  = .03, restricted mean survival time difference = 5.8 months, 95% CI = 0.5 to 11.2; P  = .03) but no good evidence of overall survival benefit (125 SOC deaths; HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.21; P  = .44). There was no evidence SOC plus docetaxel increased late toxicity: post 1 year, 29% SOC and 30% SOC plus docetaxel grade 3-5 toxicity. Conclusions There is robust evidence that SOC plus docetaxel improved FFS and PFS (previously shown to increase quality-adjusted life-years), without excess late toxicity, which did not translate into benefit for longer-term outcomes. This may influence patient management in individual cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: STAMPEDE has previously reported that radiotherapy (RT) to the prostate improved overall survival (OS) for patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer with low metastatic burden, but not those with high-burden disease. In this final analysis, we report long-term findings on the primary outcome measure of OS and on the secondary outcome measures of symptomatic local events, RT toxicity events, and quality of life (QoL). Methods and findings: Patients were randomised at secondary care sites in the United Kingdom and Switzerland between January 2013 and September 2016, with 1:1 stratified allocation: 1,029 to standard of care (SOC) and 1,032 to SOC+RT. No masking of the treatment allocation was employed. A total of 1,939 had metastatic burden classifiable, with 42% low burden and 58% high burden, balanced by treatment allocation. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses used Cox regression and flexible parametric models (FPMs), adjusted for stratification factors age, nodal involvement, the World Health Organization (WHO) performance status, regular aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use, and planned docetaxel use. QoL in the first 2 years on trial was assessed using prospectively collected patient responses to QLQ-30 questionnaire. Patients were followed for a median of 61.3 months. Prostate RT improved OS in patients with low, but not high, metastatic burden (respectively: 202 deaths in SOC versus 156 in SOC+RT, hazard ratio (HR) = 0·64, 95% CI 0.52, 0.79, p < 0.001; 375 SOC versus 386 SOC+RT, HR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.96, 1.28, p = 0·164; interaction p < 0.001). No evidence of difference in time to symptomatic local events was found. There was no evidence of difference in Global QoL or QLQ-30 Summary Score. Long-term urinary toxicity of grade 3 or worse was reported for 10 SOC and 10 SOC+RT; long-term bowel toxicity of grade 3 or worse was reported for 15 and 11, respectively. Conclusions: Prostate RT improves OS, without detriment in QoL, in men with low-burden, newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer, indicating that it should be recommended as a SOC. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00268476, ISRCTN.com ISRCTN78818544. Chris C Parker and colleagues report long-term findings on overall survival and local complications in men with metastatic prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy. Author summary: Why was this study done?: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in males. Radiotherapy (RT) to the prostate is widely used as a radical treatment for nonmetastatic prostate cancer. A comparison was added to the STAMPEDE protocol to assess whether RT to the prostate would also be helpful for males with metastatic prostate cancer. A benefit in survival was targeted. The trial previously reported a clinically relevant, statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefit for patients with a low metastatic burden but not for men with a high metastatic burden. This long-term analysis assesses survival with substantially longer follow-up and more events and looked also at complications of local disease. What did the researchers do and find?: A randomised controlled trial of adding RT to the prostate to standard of care (SOC) was incorporated into the STAMPEDE protocol. More than 2,000 patients joined the comparison between 2013 and 2016. The data set was frozen in 2021 and analysed using standard methods. There was a clear improvement in survival with prostate RT in the low metastatic burden group. There was no improvement in survival with prostate RT in the high metastatic burden group. Symptomatic local progression and the need for later local intervention were improved with RT in the low metastatic burden group. In the low metastatic burden group, the improvement with RT was similar whether the RT was given with a daily schedule (over 4.5 weeks) or a weekly schedule (over 6 weeks). The adverse effects of RT were manageable without any impact on long-term quality of life (QoL). What do these findings mean?: Prostate RT is a relatively cheap, widely accessible, and well-tolerated treatment. Prostate RT is indicated in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer with a low metastatic burden. RT to the prostate is not routinely indicated for patients with a high metastatic burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A study aims to determine whether a regimen of epirubicin, cisplatin, and infused fluorouracil (ECF) given before and after radical surgery improves outcomes among patients with potentially curable gastric cancer. Results indicate that a perioperative regimen of ECF decreased tumor size and stage and significantly improved progression-free and overall survival.

Purpose of Review: Repurposing established medicines for a new therapeutic indication potentially has important global and societal impact. The high costs and slow pace of new drug development have increased interest in more cost-effective repurposed drugs, particularly in the cancer arena. The conventional drug development pathway and evidence framework are not designed for drug repurposing and there is currently no consensus on establishing the evidence base before embarking on a large, resource intensive, potential practice changing phase III randomised controlled trial (RCT). Numerous observational studies have suggested a potential role for statins as a repurposed drug for cancer chemoprevention and therapy, and we review the strength of the cumulative evidence here. Recent Findings: In the setting of cancer, a potential repurposed drug, like statins, typically goes through a cyclical history, with initial use for several years in another disease setting, prior to epidemiological research identifying a possible chemo-protective effect. However, further information is required, including review of RCT data in the initial disease setting with exploration of cancer outcomes. Additionally, more contemporary methods should be considered, such as Mendelian randomization and pharmaco-epidemiological research with "target" trial design emulation using electronic health records. Pre-clinical and traditional observational data potentially support the role of statins in the treatment of cancer; however, randomised trial evidence is not supportive. Evaluation of contemporary methods provides little added support for the use of statin therapy in cancer. Summary: We provide complementary evidence of alternative study designs to enable a robust critical appraisal from a number of sources of the go/no-go decision for a prospective phase III RCT of statins in the treatment of cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Androgen suppression is a central component of prostate cancer management but causes substantial long-term toxicity. Transdermal administration of oestradiol (tE2) circumvents first-pass hepatic metabolism and, therefore, should avoid the cardiovascular toxicity seen with oral oestrogen and the oestrogen-depletion effects seen with luteinising hormone releasing hormone agonists (LHRHa). We present long-term cardiovascular follow-up data from the Prostate Adenocarcinoma Transcutaneous Hormone (PATCH) trial programme.Methods: PATCH is a seamless phase 2/3, randomised, multicentre trial programme at 52 study sites in the UK. Men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer were randomly allocated (1:2 from August, 2007 then 1:1 from February, 2011) to either LHRHa according to local practice or tE2 patches (four 100 μg patches per 24 h, changed twice weekly, reducing to three patches twice weekly if castrate at 4 weeks [defined as testosterone ≤1·7 nmol/L]). Randomisation was done using a computer-based minimisation algorithm and was stratified by several factors, including disease stage, age, smoking status, and family history of cardiac disease. The primary outcome of this analysis was cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Cardiovascular events, including heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, thromboembolic stroke, and other thromboembolic events, were confirmed using predefined criteria and source data. Sudden or unexpected deaths were attributed to a cardiovascular category if a confirmatory post-mortem report was available and as other relevant events if no post-mortem report was available. PATCH is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN70406718; the study is ongoing and adaptive.Findings: Between Aug 14, 2007, and July 30, 2019, 1694 men were randomly allocated either LHRHa (n=790) or tE2 patches (n=904). Overall, median follow-up was 3·9 (IQR 2·4-7·0) years. Respective castration rates at 1 month and 3 months were 65% and 93% among patients assigned LHRHa and 83% and 93% among those allocated tE2. 157 events from 145 men met predefined cardiovascular criteria, with a further ten sudden deaths with no post-mortem report (total 167 events in 153 men). 26 (2%) of 1694 patients had fatal cardiovascular events, 15 (2%) of 790 assigned LHRHa and 11 (1%) of 904 allocated tE2. The time to first cardiovascular event did not differ between treatments (hazard ratio 1·11, 95% CI 0·80-1·53; p=0·54 [including sudden deaths without post-mortem report]; 1·20, 0·86-1·68; p=0·29 [confirmed group only]). 30 (34%) of 89 cardiovascular events in patients assigned tE2 occurred more than 3 months after tE2 was stopped or changed to LHRHa. The most frequent adverse events were gynaecomastia (all grades), with 279 (38%) events in 730 patients who received LHRHa versus 690 (86%) in 807 patients who received tE2 (p<0·0001) and hot flushes (all grades) in 628 (86%) of those who received LHRHa versus 280 (35%) who received tE2 (p<0·0001).Interpretation: Long-term data comparing tE2 patches with LHRHa show no evidence of a difference between treatments in cardiovascular mortality or morbidity. Oestrogens administered transdermally should be reconsidered for androgen suppression in the management of prostate cancer.Funding: Cancer Research UK, and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drug repurposing is the application of an existing licenced drug for a new indication and potentially provides a faster and cheaper approach to developing new anti-cancer agents. Gynaecological cancers contribute significantly to the global cancer burden, highlighting the need for low cost, widely accessible therapies. A large body of evidence supports the role of aspirin as an anti-cancer agent, and a number of randomized trials are currently underway aiming to assess the potential benefit of aspirin in the treatment of cancer. This review summarizes the evidence underpinning aspirin use for the prevention of the development and recurrence of gynaecological cancers (ovarian, endometrial and cervical) and potential mechanisms of action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]