Search

Background: Long-term hormone therapy has been the standard of care for advanced prostate cancer since the 1940s. STAMPEDE is a randomised controlled trial using a multiarm, multistage platform design. It recruits men with high-risk, locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent prostate cancer who are starting first-line long-term hormone therapy. We report primary survival results for three research comparisons testing the addition of zoledronic acid, docetaxel, or their combination to standard of care versus standard of care alone., Methods: Standard of care was hormone therapy for at least 2 years; radiotherapy was encouraged for men with N0M0 disease to November, 2011, then mandated; radiotherapy was optional for men with node-positive non-metastatic (N+M0) disease. Stratified randomisation (via minimisation) allocated men 2:1:1:1 to standard of care only (SOC-only; control), standard of care plus zoledronic acid (SOC + ZA), standard of care plus docetaxel (SOC + Doc), or standard of care with both zoledronic acid and docetaxel (SOC + ZA + Doc). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) was given for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly until 2 years, and docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) for six 3-weekly cycles with prednisolone 10 mg daily. There was no blinding to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Pairwise comparisons of research versus control had 90% power at 2·5% one-sided α for hazard ratio (HR) 0·75, requiring roughly 400 control arm deaths. Statistical analyses were undertaken with standard log-rank-type methods for time-to-event data, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ControlledTrials.com (ISRCTN78818544)., Findings: 2962 men were randomly assigned to four groups between Oct 5, 2005, and March 31, 2013. Median age was 65 years (IQR 60-71). 1817 (61%) men had M+ disease, 448 (15%) had N+/X M0, and 697 (24%) had N0M0. 165 (6%) men were previously treated with local therapy, and median prostate-specific antigen was 65 ng/mL (IQR 23-184). Median follow-up was 43 months (IQR 30-60). There were 415 deaths in the control group (347 [84%] prostate cancer). Median overall survival was 71 months (IQR 32 to not reached) for SOC-only, not reached (32 to not reached) for SOC + ZA (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·79-1·11; p=0·450), 81 months (41 to not reached) for SOC + Doc (0·78, 0·66-0·93; p=0·006), and 76 months (39 to not reached) for SOC + ZA + Doc (0·82, 0·69-0·97; p=0·022). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect (for any of the treatments) across prespecified subsets. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported for 399 (32%) patients receiving SOC, 197 (32%) receiving SOC + ZA, 288 (52%) receiving SOC + Doc, and 269 (52%) receiving SOC + ZA + Doc., Interpretation: Zoledronic acid showed no evidence of survival improvement and should not be part of standard of care for this population. Docetaxel chemotherapy, given at the time of long-term hormone therapy initiation, showed evidence of improved survival accompanied by an increase in adverse events. Docetaxel treatment should become part of standard of care for adequately fit men commencing long-term hormone therapy., Funding: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen, Astellas, NIHR Clinical Research Network, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research., (Copyright © 2016 James et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas are histologically and genetically diverse kidney cancers with variable prognoses, and their optimum initial treatment is unknown. We aimed to compare the mTOR inhibitor everolimus and the VEGF receptor inhibitor sunitinib in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma., Methods: We enrolled patients with metastatic papillary, chromophobe, or unclassified non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma with no history of previous systemic treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive everolimus (10 mg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day; 6-week cycles of 4 weeks with treatment followed by 2 weeks without treatment) administered orally until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and papillary histology. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population using the RECIST 1.1 criteria. Safety was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01108445., Findings: Between Sept 23, 2010, and Oct 28, 2013, 108 patients were randomly assigned to receive either sunitinib (n=51) or everolimus (n=57). As of December, 2014, 87 progression-free survival events had occurred with two remaining active patients, and the trial was closed for the primary analysis. Sunitinib significantly increased progression-free survival compared with everolimus (8·3 months [80% CI 5·8-11·4] vs 5·6 months [5·5-6·0]; hazard ratio 1·41 [80% CI 1·03-1·92]; p=0·16), although heterogeneity of the treatment effect was noted on the basis of histological subtypes and prognostic risk groups. No unexpected toxic effects were reported, and the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (12 [24%] of 51 patients in the sunitinib group vs one [2%] of 57 patients in the everolimus group), infection (six [12%] vs four [7%]), diarrhoea (five [10%] vs one [2%]), pneumonitis (none vs five [9%]), stomatitis (none vs five [9%]), and hand-foot syndrome (four [8%] vs none)., Interpretation: In patients with metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, sunitinib improved progression-free survival compared with everolimus. Future trials of novel agents should account for heterogeneity in disease outcomes based on genetic, histological, and prognostic factors., Funding: Novartis and Pfizer., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Testicular cancer commonly affects men in the prime of their lives. While survival rates are excellent, little previous research has examined men's experiences of adjustment to survivorship. We aimed to explore this issue in younger testicular cancer survivors., Methods: In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with testicular cancer survivors over two time points approximately 6 months apart in the year following treatment completion. Interviews were analysed using a grounded theory approach., Results: The sample included 18 testicular cancer survivors between 22 and 44 years (mean age 34). A grounded theory was developed, which explained the process of positive adjustment over the first year following the treatment completion in terms of men's ability to dismantle the present and future threats of cancer, involving the key transitions of gaining a sense of perspective and striving to get on with life and restore normality. These were facilitated by six key processes. The processes that explained a negative adjustment trajectory are also presented., Conclusions: These findings contribute to the understanding of the psychosocial impact of testicular cancer on younger men's lives and have implications for the provision of support to testicular cancer survivors. Further investigation into the feasibility of one-on-one peer support interventions is warranted, as well as informal support that respects men's desire for independence., Implications for Cancer Survivors: Understanding the processes involved in adjustment highlights ways in which health professionals can offer support to those struggling to adjust through challenging illness beliefs, encouraging emotional disclosure and facilitating peer mentoring.

Background: Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease, but current treatments are not based on molecular stratification. We hypothesized that metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancers with DNA-repair defects would respond to poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition with olaparib., Methods: We conducted a phase 2 trial in which patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer were treated with olaparib tablets at a dose of 400 mg twice a day. The primary end point was the response rate, defined either as an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, or as a reduction of at least 50% in the prostate-specific antigen level or a confirmed reduction in the circulating tumor-cell count from 5 or more cells per 7.5 ml of blood to less than 5 cells per 7.5 ml. Targeted next-generation sequencing, exome and transcriptome analysis, and digital polymerase-chain-reaction testing were performed on samples from mandated tumor biopsies., Results: Overall, 50 patients were enrolled; all had received prior treatment with docetaxel, 49 (98%) had received abiraterone or enzalutamide, and 29 (58%) had received cabazitaxel. Sixteen of 49 patients who could be evaluated had a response (33%; 95% confidence interval, 20 to 48), with 12 patients receiving the study treatment for more than 6 months. Next-generation sequencing identified homozygous deletions, deleterious mutations, or both in DNA-repair genes--including BRCA1/2, ATM, Fanconi's anemia genes, and CHEK2--in 16 of 49 patients who could be evaluated (33%). Of these 16 patients, 14 (88%) had a response to olaparib, including all 7 patients with BRCA2 loss (4 with biallelic somatic loss, and 3 with germline mutations) and 4 of 5 with ATM aberrations. The specificity of the biomarker suite was 94%. Anemia (in 10 of the 50 patients [20%]) and fatigue (in 6 [12%]) were the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events, findings that are consistent with previous studies of olaparib., Conclusions: Treatment with the PARP inhibitor olaparib in patients whose prostate cancers were no longer responding to standard treatments and who had defects in DNA-repair genes led to a high response rate. (Funded by Cancer Research UK and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01682772; Cancer Research UK number, CRUK/11/029.)., Competing Interests: No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Background: ODM-201 is a novel androgen receptor (AR) inhibitor designed to block the growth of prostate cancer cells through high-affinity binding to the AR and inhibition of AR nuclear translocation. This trial assessed ODM-201's safety, pharmacokinetics, and activity in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer., Methods: The ARADES trial is an open-label phase 1-2 trial undertaken in 23 hospitals across Europe and USA with ongoing long-term follow-up. Men with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, who had castrate concentrations of testosterone and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of 0-1 were enrolled. In the phase 1 part of the trial, patients were given oral ODM-201 at a starting daily dose of 200 mg, which was increased to 400 mg, 600 mg, 1000 mg, 1400 mg, and 1800 mg. In phase 2, patients were randomly assigned centrally and stratified by previous chemotherapy and treatment with CPY17 inhibitors, to receive one of three daily doses of ODM-201 (200 mg, 400 mg, and 1400 mg). The primary endpoint in phase 1 was safety and tolerability, whereas in phase 2 it was the proportion of patients with a PSA response (50% or greater decrease in serum PSA) at week 12. All analyses included patients who had received at least one dose of ODM-201. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317641, and NCT01429064 for the follow-up after 12 weeks., Findings: We enrolled patients between April 5, 2011, and March 12, 2013. In phase 1, 24 patients were enrolled to six sequential cohorts of three to six patients and received a daily dose of ODM-201, 200-1800 mg. No dose-limiting toxic effects were reported and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. In phase 1, three patients reported eight adverse events of grade 3 (fracture, muscle injury, laceration, paralytic ileus, pain, presyncope, urinary retention, and vomiting) and one patient had a grade 4 adverse event (lymphoedema). None of the grade 3-4 adverse events were deemed to be related to ODM-201. Of the phase 1 patients, the four who received 200 mg, seven who received 400 mg, and three who received 1400 mg entered the phase 2 part of the trial. In addition to these patients, 110 were randomly assigned to three groups: 200 mg (n=38), 400 mg (n=37), and 1400 mg (n=35). For these patients, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue or asthenia (15 [12%] of 124 patients), hot flush (six [5%]), and decreased appetite (five [4%]). One patient (<1%) had a grade 3 treatment-emergent adverse event (fatigue); no patients had a treatment-emergent grade 4 adverse event. 38 patients who received 200 mg, 39 who received 400 mg, and 33 who received 1400 mg were assessable for PSA response at 12 weeks. 11 (29%) patients in the 200 mg group, 13 (33%) in the 400 mg group, and 11 (33%) in the 1400 mg group had a PSA response at 12 weeks., Interpretation: Our results suggest that ODM-201 monotherapy in men with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer provides disease suppression and that ODM-201 has a favourable safety profile. These findings support further investigation of clinical responses with ODM-201 in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer., Funding: Orion Corporation Orion Pharma, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Long-term hormone therapy alone is standard care for metastatic or high-risk, non-metastatic prostate cancer. STAMPEDE--an international, open-label, randomised controlled trial--uses a novel multiarm, multistage design to assess whether the early additional use of one or two drugs (docetaxel, zoledronic acid, celecoxib, zoledronic acid and docetaxel, or zoledronic acid and celecoxib) improves survival in men starting first-line, long-term hormone therapy. Here, we report the preplanned, second intermediate analysis comparing hormone therapy plus celecoxib (arm D) with hormone therapy alone (control arm A)., Methods: Eligible patients were men with newly diagnosed or rapidly relapsing prostate cancer who were starting long-term hormone therapy for the first time. Hormone therapy was given as standard care in all trial arms, with local radiotherapy encouraged for newly diagnosed patients without distant metastasis. Randomisation was done using minimisation with a random element across seven stratification factors. Patients randomly allocated to arm D received celecoxib 400 mg twice daily, given orally, until 1 year or disease progression (including prostate-specific antigen [PSA] failure). The intermediate outcome was failure-free survival (FFS) in three activity stages; the primary outcome was overall survival in a subsequent efficacy stage. Research arms were compared pairwise against the control arm on an intention-to-treat basis. Accrual of further patients was discontinued in any research arm showing safety concerns or insufficient evidence of activity (lack of benefit) compared with the control arm. The minimum targeted activity at the second intermediate activity stage was a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·92. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00268476, and with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN78818544., Findings: 2043 patients were enrolled in the trial from Oct 17, 2005, to Jan 31, 2011, of whom 584 were randomly allocated to receive hormone therapy alone (control group; arm A) and 291 to receive hormone therapy plus celecoxib (arm D). At the preplanned analysis of the second intermediate activity stage, with 305 FFS events (209 in arm A, 96 in arm D), there was no evidence of an advantage for hormone therapy plus celecoxib over hormone therapy alone: HR 0·94 (95% CI 0·74-1·20). [corrected]. 2-year FFS was 51% (95% CI 46-56) in arm A and 51% (95% CI 43-58) in arm D. There was no evidence of differences in the incidence of adverse events between groups (events of grade 3 or higher were noted at any time in 123 [23%, 95% CI 20-27] patients in arm A and 64 [25%, 19-30] in arm D). The most common grade 3-5 events adverse effects in both groups were endocrine disorders (55 [11%] of patients in arm A vs 19 [7%] in arm D) and musculoskeletal disorders (30 [6%] of patients in arm A vs 15 [6%] in arm D). The independent data monitoring committee recommended stopping accrual to both celecoxib-containing arms on grounds of lack of benefit and discontinuing celecoxib for patients currently on treatment, which was endorsed by the trial steering committee., Interpretation: Celecoxib 400 mg twice daily for up to 1 year is insufficiently active in patients starting hormone therapy for high-risk prostate cancer, and we do not recommend its use in this setting. Accrual continues seamlessly to the other research arms and follow-up of all arms will continue to assess effects on overall survival., Funding: Cancer Research UK, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Medical Research Council (London, UK)., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cediranib is a highly potent vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signalling inhibitor with activity against VEGF receptors 1, 2 and 3. This Phase II, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study compared the efficacy of cediranib with placebo in patients with metastatic or recurrent clear cell renal cell carcinoma who had not previously received a VEGF signalling inhibitor., Methods: Patients were randomised (3:1) to cediranib 45 mg/day or placebo. The primary objective was comparison of change from baseline in tumour size after 12 weeks of therapy. Secondary objectives included response rate and duration, progression-free survival (PFS) and safety and tolerability. Patients in the placebo group could cross over to open-label cediranib at 12 weeks or earlier if their disease had progressed. This study has been completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00423332., Findings: Patients (n=71) were randomised to receive cediranib (n=53) or placebo (n=18). The primary study outcome revealed that, after 12weeks of therapy, there was a significant difference in mean percentage change from baseline in tumour size between the cediranib (-20%) and placebo (+20%) arms (p<0.0001). Eighteen patients (34%) on cediranib achieved a partial response and 25 (47%) experienced stable disease. Cediranib treatment prolonged PFS significantly compared with placebo (hazard ratio (HR)=0.45, 90%confidence interval: 0.26-0.76, p=0.017; median PFS 12.1 versus 2.8 months). The most common adverse events in patients receiving cediranib were diarrhoea (74%), hypertension (64%), fatigue (58%) and dysphonia (58%)., Interpretation: Cediranib monotherapy demonstrated significant evidence of antitumour activity in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. The adverse event profile was consistent with previous studies of cediranib 45 mg., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

We previously demonstrated prolonged, profound CD4+ T-lymphopenia in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients following lymphocyte-depleting therapy. Poor reconstitution could result either from reduced de novo T-cell production through the thymus or from poor peripheral expansion of residual T-cells. Interleukin-7 (IL-7) is known to stimulate the thymus to produce new T-cells and to allow circulating mature T-cells to expand, thereby playing a critical role in T-cell homeostasis. In the present study we demonstrated reduced levels of circulating IL-7 in a cross-section of RA patients. IL-7 production by bone marrow stromal cell cultures was also compromised in RA. To investigate whether such an IL-7 deficiency could account for the prolonged lymphopenia observed in RA following therapeutic lymphodepletion, we compared RA patients and patients with solid cancers treated with high-dose chemotherapy and autologous progenitor cell rescue. Chemotherapy rendered all patients similarly lymphopenic, but this was sustained in RA patients at 12 months, as compared with the reconstitution that occurred in cancer patients by 3-4 months. Both cohorts produced naive T-cells containing T-cell receptor excision circles. The main distinguishing feature between the groups was a failure to expand peripheral T-cells in RA, particularly memory cells during the first 3 months after treatment. Most importantly, there was no increase in serum IL-7 levels in RA, as compared with a fourfold rise in non-RA control individuals at the time of lymphopenia. Our data therefore suggest that RA patients are relatively IL-7 deficient and that this deficiency is likely to be an important contributing factor to poor early T-cell reconstitution in RA following therapeutic lymphodepletion. Furthermore, in RA patients with stable, well controlled disease, IL-7 levels were positively correlated with the T-cell receptor excision circle content of CD4+ T-cells, demonstrating a direct effect of IL-7 on thymic activity in this cohort.