Search

Background: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (herein referred to as abiraterone) or enzalutamide added at the start of androgen deprivation therapy improves outcomes for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes and test whether combining enzalutamide with abiraterone and androgen deprivation therapy improves survival. Methods: We analysed two open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol, with no overlapping controls, conducted at 117 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restriction) had metastatic, histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; a WHO performance status of 0–2; and adequate haematological, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computerised algorithm and a minimisation technique to either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy; docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 intravenously for six cycles with prednisolone 10 mg orally once per day allowed from Dec 17, 2015) or standard of care plus abiraterone acetate 1000 mg and prednisolone 5 mg (in the abiraterone trial) orally or abiraterone acetate and prednisolone plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once a day (in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial). Patients were stratified by centre, age, WHO performance status, type of androgen deprivation therapy, use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pelvic nodal status, planned radiotherapy, and planned docetaxel use. The primary outcome was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started treatment. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of individual patient data was used to compare differences in survival between the two trials. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN78818544). Findings: Between Nov 15, 2011, and Jan 17, 2014, 1003 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=502) or standard of care plus abiraterone (n=501) in the abiraterone trial. Between July 29, 2014, and March 31, 2016, 916 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=454) or standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide (n=462) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. Median follow-up was 96 months (IQR 86–107) in the abiraterone trial and 72 months (61–74) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. In the abiraterone trial, median overall survival was 76·6 months (95% CI 67·8–86·9) in the abiraterone group versus 45·7 months (41·6–52·0) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·53–0·73]; pinteraction=0·71) or between-trial heterogeneity (I 2 p=0·70). In the first 5 years of treatment, grade 3–5 toxic effects were higher when abiraterone was added to standard of care (271 [54%] of 498 vs 192 [38%] of 502 with standard of care) and the highest toxic effects were seen when abiraterone and enzalutamide were added to standard of care (302 [68%] of 445 vs 204 [45%] of 454 with standard of care). Cardiac causes were the most common cause of death due to adverse events (five [1%] with standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide [two attributed to treatment] and one (

PURPOSE An international meta-analysis identified a group of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) with a very poor survival because of two unfavorable features: (1) a poor chemosensitivity defined by an unfavorable modeled CA-125 ELIMination rate constant K (KELIM) score METHODS The data set of ICON-8 phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01654146 ), where patients with EOC were treated with the standard three-weekly, or the weekly dose-dense, carboplatin-paclitaxel regimens and debulking primary surgery (immediate primary surgery [IPS] or delayed primary [or interval] surgery [DPS]), was investigated. The association between treatment arm efficacy, standardized KELIM (scored as favorable ≥1.0, or unfavorable RESULTS Of 1,566 enrolled patients, KELIM was calculated with the online model in 1,334 with ≥3 CA-125 available values (85%). As previously reported, both KELIM and surgery completeness were complementary prognostic covariates, and could be combined into three prognostic groups with large OS differences: (1) good if favorable KELIM and complete surgery; (2) intermediate if either unfavorable KELIM or incomplete surgery; and (3) poor if unfavorable KELIM and incomplete surgery. Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy was associated with PFS/OS improvement in the poor prognostic group in both the IPS cohort (PFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.79; OS: HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.95) and the DPS cohort (PFS: HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.76; OS: HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.82). CONCLUSION Fractionated dose-dense chemotherapy might be beneficial for patients belonging to the poor prognostic group characterized by lower tumor chemosensitivity assessed with the online calculator CA-125—Biomarker Kinetics and incomplete debulking surgery. Further investigation in the future SALVOVAR trial is warranted.

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

BACKGROUND: Epithelial ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer worldwide: 295,414 new cases were diagnosed in 2018, with 184,799 deaths. The lack of an effective screening strategy has led to the majority of women being diagnosed at an advanced stage. For these women, intravenous carboplatin combined with paclitaxel for six cycles is widely accepted as the standard first‐line treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer, in combination with debulking surgery. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the optimal dosing schedule of paclitaxel when combined with carboplatin in this setting. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of intravenous weekly paclitaxel with that of tri‐weekly paclitaxel, in combination with intravenous carboplatin, as first‐line treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer (defined as epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal and fallopian tube cancer). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase databases for relevant studies up to 15 November 2021, using keywords and MeSH terms. We additionally handsearched conference libraries, online clinical trial databases and screened through lists of retrieved references. SELECTION CRITERIA: We Included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing weekly paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin versus tri‐weekly paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin, for treatment of newly‐diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the hazard ratio (HR) to estimate the primary efficacy outcomes progression‐free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We used the risk ratio (RR) to estimate the primary toxicity outcome of severe neutropenia and secondary outcomes of quality of life (QoL) and treatment‐related adverse events. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, using standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We included individual participant data (IPD) from one of the included studies, ICON‐8, provided by the study team. We analysed data using a random‐effects model in Review Manager 5.4 software. Additionally, we reconstructed IPD for PFS and OS data from published Kaplan‐Meier curves from all studies and subsequently pooled these to analyse the two primary efficacy outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: From 2469 records, we identified four eligible RCTs with data for 3699 participants. All eligible studies were included in the main meta‐analysis and reported on PFS and OS. There was likely a slight improvement in PFS when paclitaxel was dosed weekly compared to tri‐weekly (HR 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.98; 4 studies, 3699 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). We found little to no improvement in OS when paclitaxel was dosed weekly compared to tri‐weekly (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.06; 4 studies, 3699 participants; high‐certainty evidence). There was likely little to no difference in high‐grade (grade 3 or 4) neutropenia when paclitaxel was dosed weekly compared to tri‐weekly (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43; 4 studies, 3639 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). However, weekly paclitaxel increased high‐grade (grade 3 or 4) anaemia when compared to tri‐weekly dosing (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.20; 4 studies, 3639 participants; high‐certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in high‐grade neuropathy when paclitaxel was dosed weekly compared to tri‐weekly (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.94; 4 studies, 3639 participants; low‐certainty evidence). The overall risk of detection bias and performance bias was low for OS, but was unclear for other outcomes, as treatments were not blinded. The risk of bias in other domains was low or unclear. We note that OS data were immature for three of the included studies (GOG‐0262, ICON‐8 and MITO‐7). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Weekly paclitaxel combined with carboplatin for first‐line treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer likely improves PFS slightly (moderate‐certainty evidence) but not OS (high‐certainty evidence), compared to tri‐weekly paclitaxel combined with carboplatin. However, this was associated with increased risk for high‐grade anaemia, treatment discontinuation, dose delays and dose omissions (high‐ to low‐certainty evidence). Our findings may not apply to women receiving bevacizumab in first‐line therapy, those receiving treatment in the neo‐adjuvant setting, or those with rare subtypes of clear cell or mucinous ovarian cancer.

Background Fear of disease progression (FOP) is a rational concern for women with Ovarian Cancer (OC) and depression is also common. To date there have been no randomized trials assessing the impact of psychological intervention on depression and FOP in this patient group. Patients and methods Patients with primary or recurrent OC who had recently completed chemotherapy were eligible if they scored between 5 and 19 on the PHQ-9 depression and were randomized 1:1 to Intervention (3 standardized CBT-based sessions in the 6–12 weeks post-chemotherapy) or Control (standard of care). PHQ-9, FOP-Q-SF, EORTC QLQ C30 and OV28 questionnaires were then completed every 3 months for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was change in PHQ-9 at 3 months. Secondary endpoints were change in other scores at 3 months and all scores at later timepoints. Results 182 patients registered; 107 were randomized; 54 to Intervention and 53 to Control; mean age 59 years; 75 (70%) had completed chemotherapy for primary and 32 (30%) for relapsed OC and 67 patients completed both baseline and 3-month questionnaires. Improvement in PHQ-9 was observed for patients in both study arms at three months compared to baseline but there was no significant difference in change between Intervention and Control. A significant improvement on FOP-Q-SF scores was seen in the Intervention arm, whereas for those in the Control arm FOP-Q-SF scores deteriorated at 3 months (intervention effect = −4.4 (−7.57, −1.22), p-value = 0.008). Conclusions CBT-based psychological support provided after chemotherapy did not significantly alter the spontaneously improving trajectory of depression scores at three months but caused a significant improvement in FOP. Our findings call for the routine implementation of FOP support for ovarian cancer patients.

Statistical analysis plan for the primary analysis of RADICLAS-HD and RADICALS-RT, investigating the timing of radiotherapy and duration of hormone therapy in non-metastatic prostate cancer patients following radical prostatectomy.

Summary Background It is unclear whether adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy is more appropriate for men who present with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. We aimed to prospectively plan a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing these radiotherapy approaches. Methods We used a prospective framework for adaptive meta-analysis (FAME), starting the review process while eligible trials were ongoing. RCTs were eligible if they aimed to compare immediate adjuvant radiotherapy versus early salvage radiotherapy, following radical prostatectomy in men (age ≥18 years) with intermediate-risk or high-risk, localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. We searched trial registers and conference proceedings until July 8, 2020, to identify eligible RCTs. By establishing the ARTISTIC collaboration with relevant trialists, we were able to anticipate when eligible trial results would emerge, and we developed and registered a protocol with PROSPERO before knowledge of the trial results (CRD42019132669). We used a harmonised definition of event-free survival, as the time from randomisation until the first evidence of either biochemical progression (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥0·4 ng/mL and rising after completion of any postoperative radiotherapy), clinical or radiological progression, initiation of a non-trial treatment, death from prostate cancer, or a PSA level of at least 2·0 ng/mL at any time after randomisation. We predicted when we would have sufficient power to assess whether adjuvant radiotherapy was superior to early salvage radiotherapy. Investigators supplied results for event-free survival, both overall and within predefined patient subgroups. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the effects of radiotherapy timing on event-free survival and subgroup interactions were combined using fixed-effect meta-analysis. Findings We identified three eligible trials and were able to obtain updated results for event-free survival for 2153 patients recruited between November, 2007, and December, 2016. Median follow-up ranged from 60 months to 78 months, with a maximum follow-up of 132 months. 1075 patients were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant radiotherapy and 1078 to a policy of early salvage radiotherapy, of whom 421 (39·1%) had commenced treatment at the time of analysis. Patient characteristics were balanced within trials and overall. Median age was similar between trials at 64 or 65 years (with IQRs ranging from 59 to 68 years) across the three trials and most patients (1671 [77·6%]) had a Gleason score of 7. All trials were assessed as having low risk of bias. Based on 270 events, the meta-analysis showed no evidence that event-free survival was improved with adjuvant radiotherapy compared with early salvage radiotherapy (HR 0·95, 95% CI 0·75–1·21; p=0·70), with only a 1 percentage point (95% CI −2 to 3) change in 5-year event-free survival (89% vs 88%). Results were consistent across trials (heterogeneity p=0·18; I2=42%). Interpretation This collaborative and prospectively designed systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that adjuvant radiotherapy does not improve event-free survival in men with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. Until data on long-term outcomes are available, early salvage treatment would seem the preferable treatment policy as it offers the opportunity to spare many men radiotherapy and its associated side-effects. Funding UK Medical Research Council.

Background Prostate radiotherapy (RT) is a first-line option for newly diagnosed men with low-burden metastatic prostate cancer. The current criterion to define this clinical state is based on manual bone metastasis counts, but enumeration of bone metastases is limited by interobserver variations, and it does not account for metastasis volume or lesional coalescence. The automated bone scan index (aBSI) is a quantitative method of evaluating bone metastatic burden in a standardised and reproducible manner. Objective To evaluate whether aBSI has utility as a predictive imaging biomarker to define a newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer population that might benefit from the addition of prostate RT to standard of care (SOC) systemic therapy. Design, setting, and participants This is an exploratory analysis of men with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either SOC or SOC + prostate RT within the STAMPEDE “M1|RT comparison”. Intervention The SOC was lifelong androgen deprivation therapy, with up-front docetaxel permitted from December 2015. Men allocated RT received either a daily or a weekly schedule that was nominated before randomisation. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Baseline bone scans were evaluated retrospectively to calculate aBSI. We used overall (OS) and failure-free (FFS) survival as the end points. Treatment-aBSI interaction was evaluated using the multivariable fractional polynomial interaction (MFPI) and subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot. Further analysis was done in aBSI quartiles using Cox regression models adjusted for stratification factors. Results and limitations : Baseline bone scans for 660 (SOC: 323 and SOC + RT: 337) of 2061 men randomised within the “M1|RT comparison” met the software requirements for aBSI calculation. The median age was 68 yr, median PSA was 100 ng/mL, median aBSI was 0.9, and median follow-up was 39 mo. Baseline patient characteristics including aBSI were balanced between the treatment groups. Using the MFPI procedure, there was evidence of aBSI-treatment interaction for OS (p = 0.04, MFPI procedure) and FFS (p, Take Home Message In this exploratory analysis of 660 men with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer randomised within a clinical trial, a low automated bone scan index was found to be predictive of overall and failure-free survival benefit from the addition of prostate radiotherapy to standard of care systemic therapy. This was also observed with secondary clinical end points.

Summary Background The ICON8 study reported no significant improvement in progression-free survival (a primary endpoint) with weekly chemotherapy compared with standard 3-weekly treatment among patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. All ICON8 patients were eligible to take part in the accompanying health-related quality-of-life study, which measured the effect of treatment on self-reported wellbeing, reported here. Methods In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, three-arm, Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) trial done at 117 hospital sites in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Republic of Ireland, women (aged at least 18 years) with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IC–IV ovarian cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2 were randomly assigned (1:1:1) centrally using minimisation to group 1 (intravenous carboplatin area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6 and 175 mg/m2 intravenous paclitaxel every 3 weeks), group 2 (carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 every 3 weeks and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly), or group 3 (carboplatin AUC2 weekly and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly). Randomisation was stratified by GCIG group, disease stage, and outcome and timing of surgery. Patients and clinicians were not masked to treatment assignment. Patients underwent immediate or delayed primary surgery according to clinicians' choice. Patients were asked to complete European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OV28 questionnaires at enrolment, before each chemotherapy cycle, then 6-weekly up to 9 months, 3-monthly up to 2 years, and 6-monthly up to 5 years. Quality of life was a prespecified secondary outcome of the ICON8 study. Within the quality-of-life study, the co-primary endpoints were QLQ-C30 global health score at 9 months (cross-sectional analysis) and mean QLQ-C30 global health score from randomisation to 9 months (longitudinal analysis). Data analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01654146 and ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN10356387, and is currently in long-term follow up. Findings Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 patients were recruited into ICON8 (522 were included in group 1, 523 in group 2, and 521 in group 3). Baseline quality-of-life questionnaires were completed by 1438 (92%) of 1566 patients and 9-month questionnaires by 882 (69%) of 1280 patients. We observed no significant difference in global health score at 9 months (cross-sectional analysis) between study groups (group 2 vs group 1, difference in mean score 2·3, 95% CI −0·4 to 4·9, p=0·095; group 3 vs group 1, −0·8, −3·8 to 2·2, p=0·61). Using longitudinal analysis, we found lower global health scores for those receiving weekly paclitaxel than for those receiving 3-weekly chemotherapy (group 2 vs group 1, mean difference −1·8, 95% CI −3·6 to −0·1, p=0·043; group 3 vs group 1, −2·9, −4·7 to −1·1, p=0·0018). Interpretation We found no evidence of a difference in global quality of life between treatment groups at 9 months; however, patients receiving weekly treatment reported lower mean quality of life across the 9-month period after randomisation. Taken together with the lack of progression-free survival benefit, these findings do not support routine use of weekly paclitaxel-containing regimens in the management of newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. Funding Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia.

5530 Background: ICON8 phase III trial did not show improvement in PFS or OS with first-line weekly dose-dense chemotherapy in EOC. This analysis evaluated the impact of tumor intrinsic primary chemosensitivity (assessed with modeled CA-125 ELIMination rate constant K (KELIM) based on the CA-125 kinetics during the first 100 days of chemo), on survival by treatment arms. Methods: Retrospective analysis of ICON8 where EOC patients were treated with chemo (Arm 1, standard (std) carboplatin AUC5-6 & paclitaxel 175mg/m2 q3weeks; Arm 2, carboplatin AUC 5-6 q3weeks and weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2; or Arm 3, weekly carboplatin AUC 2 & paclitaxel 80 mg/m2; ratio1:1:1) and debulking primary surgery (immediate (IPS), or delayed (DPS)). The association between standardized KELIM (dichotomized as favorable ≥ 1, or unfavorable < 1) and efficacy of treatment arms and surgery completeness was assessed univariate & multivariate analyses. Results: Of 1,566 enrolled patients, KELIM was calculated in 1,004 with ≥ 3 CA-125 available values. KELIM did not differ by treatment arm. Irrespective of surgical strategy, both KELIM and surgery completeness were significant prognostic factors, but treatment arms were not. In 354 IPS patients, 225 had unfavorable KELIM (63%). Weekly dose-dense carboplatin-paclitaxel (Arm 3) (compared to std chemo-Arm 1) was associated with improved survival in unfavorable KELIM patients (PFS:19.6 vs 11.0 months, HR 0.80 [0.54-1.17]; OS : 53.7 vs 40.1 months, HR 0.75 [0.50-1.14]), and worse survival in those with favorable KELIM (PFS: 26.7 vs 48.2 months, HR 1.27 [0.72-2.22]; OS: NR vs 69.2 months, HR 1.05 [0.53-2.06]). Maximum benefit was seen in highest-risk diseases (unfavorable KELIM + incomplete IPS; n = 116; PFS: 17.0 vs 7.4 months, HR 0.49 [0.29-0.82]; OS: 42.6 vs 27.0 months, HR 0.56 [0.33-0.96]). In 611 patients treated with neo-adjuvant chemo +/- DPS (279 unfavorable KELIM, 46%), the same trend for higher survival benefit from dose-dense carboplatin-paclitaxel was found in those with unfavorable KELIM (PFS: 10.8 vs 7.4 months, HR 0.84 [0.63-1.13]; OS: 26.4 vs 23.5 months, HR 0.80 [0.60-1.08]), and reversely. The higher KELIM, the higher the likelihood of complete surgery (OR 4.82 [3.21-7.37]). The prognostic impact of the surgery completeness was greater in unfavorable KELIM patients. Conclusions: In ICON8 trial, both the tumor primary chemosensitivity (by KELIM) and completeness of debulking surgery were major drivers of the prognosis & survival. Dose-dense fractionated chemotherapy in 1st-line setting may be beneficial for patients with lower tumor chemosensitivity, whilst it might be detrimental in those with highly chemosensitive disease. The greatest OS benefit (HR 0.56) from dose-dense chemotherapy was seen in highest-risk diseases (unfavorable KELIM and incomplete IPS).

Background:\ud Carboplatin and paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks is standard-of-care first-line chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer. The Japanese JGOG3016 trial showed a significant improvement in progression-free and overall survival with dose-dense weekly paclitaxel and 3-weekly carboplatin. In this study, we aimed to compare efficacy and safety of two dose-dense weekly regimens to standard 3-weekly chemotherapy in a predominantly European population with epithelial ovarian cancer.\ud Methods:\ud In this phase 3 trial, women with newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IC–IV epithelial ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to group 1 (carboplatin area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6 and 175 mg/m2 paclitaxel every 3 weeks), group 2 (carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 every 3 weeks and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly), or group 3 (carboplatin AUC2 and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly). Written informed consent was provided by all women who entered the trial. The protocol had the appropriate national research ethics committee approval for the countries where the study was conducted. Patients entered the trial after immediate primary surgery, or before neoadjuvant chemotherapy with subsequent planned delayed primary surgery. The trial coprimary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival. Data analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, and were powered to detect a hazard ratio of 0·75 in progression-free survival. The main comparisons were between the control group (group 1) and each of the weekly research groups (groups 2 and 3).\ud Findings:\ud Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 women were randomly assigned to treatment. 72% (365), completed six protocol-defined treatment cycles in group 1, 60% (305) in group 2, and 63% (322) in group 3, although 90% (454), 89% (454), and 85% (437) completed six platinum-based chemotherapy cycles, respectively. Paclitaxel dose intensification was achieved with weekly treatment (median total paclitaxel dose 1010 mg/m2 in group 1; 1233 mg/m2 in group 2; 1274 mg/m2 in group 3). By February, 2017, 1018 (65%) patients had experienced disease progression. No significant progression-free survival increase was observed with either weekly regimen (restricted mean survival time 24·4 months [97·5% CI 23·0–26·0] in group 1, 24·9 months [24·0–25·9] in group 2, 25·3 months [23·9–26·9] in group 3; median progression-free survival 17·7 months [IQR 10·6–not reached] in group 1, 20·8 months [11·9–59·0] in group 2, 21·0 months [12·0–54·0] in group 3; log-rank p=0·35 for group 2 vs group 1; group 3 vs 1 p=0·51). Although grade 3 or 4 toxic effects increased with weekly treatment, these effects were predominantly uncomplicated. Febrile neutropenia and sensory neuropathy incidences were similar across groups.\ud Interpretation:\ud Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy can be delivered successfully as first-line treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer but does not significantly improve progression-free survival compared with standard 3-weekly chemotherapy in predominantly European populations.\ud Funding:\ud Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, Cancer Australia.

Background Abiraterone acetate received licencing for use in only "high-risk" metastatic hormone-naive prostate cancer (mHNPC) following the LATITUDE trial findings. However, a "risk"-related effect was not seen in the STAMPEDE trial. There remains uncertainty as to whether men with LATITUDE "low-risk" M1 disease benefit from androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with abiraterone acetate and prednisolone (AAP). Objective Evaluation of heterogeneity of effect between LATITUDE high- and low-risk M1 prostate cancer patients receiving ADT + AAP in the STAMPEDE trial. Design, setting, and participants A post hoc subgroup analysis of the 2017 STAMPEDE "abiraterone comparison". Staging scans for M1 patients contemporaneously randomised to ADT or ADT + AAP within the STAMPEDE trial were evaluated centrally and blind to treatment assignment. Stratification was by risk according to the criteria set out in the LATITUDE trial. Exploratory subgroup stratification incorporated the CHAARTED criteria. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS) and the secondary outcome measure was failure-free survival (FFS). Further exploratory analysis evaluated clinical skeletal-related events, progression-free survival (PFS), and prostate cancer-specific death. Standard Cox-regression and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were employed for analysis. Results and limitations A total of 901 M1 STAMPEDE patients were evaluated after exclusions. Of the patients, 428 (48%) were identified as having a low risk and 473 (52%) a high risk. Patients receiving ADT + AAP had significantly improved OS (low-risk hazard ratio [HR]: 0.66, 95% confidence interval or CI [0.44–0.98]) and FFS (low-risk HR: 0.24, 95% CI [0.17–0.33]) compared with ADT alone. Heterogeneity of effect was not seen between low- and high-risk groups for OS or FFS. For OS benefit in low risk, the number needed to treat was four times greater than that for high risk. However, this was not observed for the other measured endpoints. Conclusions Men with mHNPC gain treatment benefit from ADT + AAP irrespective of risk stratification for "risk" or "volume". Patient summary Coadministration of abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is associated with prolonged overall survival and disease control, compared with ADT alone, in all men with metastatic disease starting hormone therapy for the first time.

Objectives: A proportion of HIV-infected children with advanced disease develop severe malnutrition soon after antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation. We tested the hypothesis that systemic inflammation underlies the pathogenesis of severe malnutrition in HIV-infected children. Design: Cross-sectional laboratory substudy in 613 HIV-infected children initiating ART in Uganda and Zimbabwe. Methods: We measured C-reactive protein (CRP), TNFα, IL-6 and soluble CD14 by ELISA in cryopreserved plasma at baseline (pre-ART) and week-4 (children with severe malnutrition only). Independent associations between baseline biomarkers and subsequent hospitalization for severe malnutrition were identified using multivariable fractional polynomial logistic regression. Results: Compared with children without severe malnutrition (n = 574, median age 6.3 years, median baseline weight-for-age Z-score −2.2), children hospitalized for severe malnutrition post-ART (n = 39, median age 2.3 years, median baseline weight-for-age Z-score −4.8) had higher baseline CRP [median 13.5 (interquartile range 5.5, 41.1) versus 4.1 (1.4, 14.4) mg/l; P = 0.003] and IL-6 [median 9.2 (6.7, 15.6) versus 5.9 (4.6, 9.3) pg/ml; P < 0.0001], but similar overall TNFα, soluble CD14 and HIV viral load (all P > 0.06). In a multivariable model, higher pre-ART IL-6, lower TNFα and lower weight-for-age were independently associated with subsequent hospitalization for severe malnutrition. Between weeks 0 and 4, there was a significant rise in CRP, IL-6 and soluble CD14, and fall in TNFα and HIV viral load in children hospitalized for severe malnutrition (all P < 0.02). Conclusion: Pre-ART IL-6 and TNFα were more strongly associated with hospitalization for severe malnutrition than CD4+ cell count or viral load, highlighting the importance of inflammation at the time of ART initiation in HIV-infected children.

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

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

Background Safety data is required to be collected in all clinical trials and can be separated into two types of data, adverse events and serious adverse events. Often, these types of safety data are collected as two discrete data sets, where adverse events that also meet the criteria for seriousness should be reported in both datasets. Safety analyses are often conducted using only the adverse event dataset, which should feature all safety events reported. We investigated whether the reporting of safety in both datasets was systematically followed and explored the impact of this on safety analyses in ICON8, an ovarian cancer clinical trial. Methods Text searches of serious adverse event data identified events that could potentially match the data reported in the adverse event dataset (looking at pre-specified AE terms only). These serious adverse events were then mapped to adverse event data according to predefined criteria: (a) event term matches, (b) date of onset and date of assessment within 30 days of each other, (c) date of assessment lies between date of onset and date of resolution and (d) events confirmed to occur in the same chemotherapy cycle. A combined dataset of all unique safety events (whether originally reported in the adverse event or serious adverse event dataset) was created and safety analyses re-performed. Results 51,019 adverse events were reported in ICON8, of which 42,410 were included in the mapping exercise. One thousand five hundred six serious adverse event elements were reported, of which 668 were included in the mapping exercise. Sixty-one percent of serious adverse event elements was matched to an already-reported adverse event. Supplementing these additional safety events and re-performing safety analyses increased the proportion of patients with at least one grade 3 or worse safety events in all arms from 42 to 47% in the control arm and 61 to 65% and 52 to 59% in the research arms. The difference in proportions of grade 3 or worse event in the research arms compared to the control arm changed by 18% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12 to 24%) and 12% (95% CI 6 to 18%), respectively. Conclusions There was low agreement in mapping serious adverse events to already reported adverse events, with nearly 40% of serious adverse events included in the mapping exercise not mapped to an already reported adverse event. Any analyses of safety data that use only adverse event datasets or do not clearly account for serious adverse event data will likely be missing important safety information. Reporting standards should make clear which datasets were used for analyses.

Summary Background Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by delayed primary surgery (DPS) is an established strategy for women with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Although this therapeutic approach has been validated in randomised, phase 3 trials, evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST), and cancer antigen 125 (CA125) has not been reported. We describe RECIST and Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) CA125 responses in patients receiving platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS in the ICON8 trial. Methods ICON8 was an international, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial done across 117 hospitals in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Ireland. The trial included women aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, life expectancy of more than 12 weeks, and newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO; 1988) stage IC–IIA high-grade serous, clear cell, or any poorly differentiated or grade 3 histological subtype, or any FIGO (1988) stage IIB–IV epithelial cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneum. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive intravenous carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6) and intravenous paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 by body surface area) on day 1 of every 21-day cycle (control group; group 1); intravenous carboplatin (AUC5 or AUC6) on day 1 and intravenous dose-fractionated paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 by body surface area) on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 21-day cycle (group 2); or intravenous dose-fractionated carboplatin (AUC2) and intravenous dose-fractionated paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 by body surface area) on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 21-day cycle (group 3). The maximum number of cycles of chemotherapy permitted was six. Randomisation was done with a minimisation method, and patients were stratified according to GCIG group, disease stage, and timing and outcome of cytoreductive surgery. Patients and clinicians were not masked to group allocation. The scheduling of surgery and use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were determined by local multidisciplinary case review. In this post-hoc exploratory analysis of ICON8, progression-free survival was analysed using the landmark method and defined as the time interval between the date of pre-surgical planning radiological tumour assessment to the date of investigator-assessed clinical or radiological progression or death, whichever occurred first. This definition is different from the intention-to-treat primary progression-free survival analysis of ICON8, which defined progression-free survival as the time from randomisation to the date of first clinical or radiological progression or death, whichever occurred first. We also compared the extent of surgical cytoreduction with RECIST and GCIG CA125 responses. This post-hoc exploratory analysis includes only women recruited to ICON8 who were planned for neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS and had RECIST and/or GCIG CA125-evaluable disease. ICON8 is closed for enrolment and follow-up, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01654146 . Findings Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 women were enrolled in ICON8, of whom 779 (50%) were planned for neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS. Median follow-up was 29·5 months (IQR 15·6–54·3) for the neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS population. Of 564 women who had RECIST-evaluable disease at trial entry, 348 (62%) had a complete or partial response. Of 727 women who were evaluable by GCIG CA125 criteria at the time of diagnosis, 610 (84%) had a CA125 response. Median progression-free survival was 14·4 months (95% CI 9·2–28·0; 297 events) for patients with a RECIST complete or partial response and 13·3 months (8·1–20·1; 171 events) for those with RECIST stable disease. Median progression-free survival for women with a GCIG CA125 response was 13·8 months (95% CI 8·8–23·4; 544 events) and 9·7 months (5·8–14·5; 111 events) for those without a GCIG CA125 response. Complete cytoreduction (R0) was achieved in 187 (56%) of 335 women with a RECIST complete or partial response and 73 (42%) of 172 women with RECIST stable disease. Complete cytoreduction was achieved in 290 (50%) of 576 women with a GCIG CA125 response and 30 (30%) of 101 women without a GCIG CA125 response. Interpretation The RECIST-defined radiological response rate was lower than that frequently quoted to patients in the clinic. RECIST and GCIG CA125 responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer should not be used as individual predictive markers to stratify patients who are likely to benefit from DPS, but instead used in conjunction with the patient's clinical capacity to undergo cytoreductive surgery. A patient should not be denied surgery based solely on the lack of a RECIST or GCIG CA125 response. Funding Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia.

Bevacizumab is approved as a maintenance treatment in first-line setting in advanced-stage III-IV ovarian cancers, because GOG-0218 and ICON-7 phase III trials demonstrated progression-free survival benefits. However, only the subgroup of patients with high-risk diseases (stage IV, and incompletely resected stage III) derived an overall survival (OS) gain in the ICON-7 trial (4.8 months). The modeled CA-125 elimination rate constant K (KELIM) parameter, based on the longitudinal CA-125 kinetics during the first 100 days of chemotherapy, is a potential indicator of the tumor primary chemo-sensitivity. In the ICON-7 trial dataset, the OS of patients within the low- and high-risk disease groups was assessed according to treatment arms and KELIM. Among the patients with high-risk diseases, those with favorable standardized KELIM of at least 1.0 (n = 214, 46.7%) had no survival benefit from bevacizumab, whereas those with unfavorable KELIM less than 1.0 (n = 244, 53.2%) derived the highest OS benefit (absolute difference = 9.1 months, 2-sided log-rank P = .10; Cox hazard ratio = 0.78, 95% confidence interval = 0.58 to 1.04, 2-sided P = .09).

Summary Background The optimal timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer is uncertain. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant radiotherapy versus an observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) biochemical progression. Methods We did a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with at least one risk factor (pathological T-stage 3 or 4, Gleason score of 7–10, positive margins, or preoperative PSA ≥10 ng/mL) for biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT). The study took place in trial-accredited centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to adjuvant radiotherapy or an observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for PSA biochemical progression (PSA ≥0·1 ng/mL or three consecutive rises). Masking was not deemed feasible. Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned radiotherapy schedule (52·5 Gy in 20 fractions or 66 Gy in 33 fractions), and centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom from distant metastases, designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with salvage radiotherapy (control) to 95% at 10 years with adjuvant radiotherapy. We report on biochemical progression-free survival, freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used. A hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1 favoured adjuvant radiotherapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. Findings Between Nov 22, 2007, and Dec 30, 2016, 1396 patients were randomly assigned, 699 (50%) to salvage radiotherapy and 697 (50%) to adjuvant radiotherapy. Allocated groups were balanced with a median age of 65 years (IQR 60–68). Median follow-up was 4·9 years (IQR 3·0–6·1). 649 (93%) of 697 participants in the adjuvant radiotherapy group reported radiotherapy within 6 months; 228 (33%) of 699 in the salvage radiotherapy group reported radiotherapy within 8 years after randomisation. With 169 events, 5-year biochemical progression-free survival was 85% for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 88% for those in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 1·10, 95% CI 0·81–1·49; p=0·56). Freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy at 5 years was 93% for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 92% for those in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·58–1·33; p=0·53). Self-reported urinary incontinence was worse at 1 year for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group (mean score 4·8 vs 4·0; p=0·0023). Grade 3–4 urethral stricture within 2 years was reported in 6% of individuals in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 4% in the salvage radiotherapy group (p=0·020). Interpretation These initial results do not support routine administration of adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adjuvant radiotherapy increases the risk of urinary morbidity. An observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for PSA biochemical progression should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy. Funding Cancer Research UK, MRC Clinical Trials Unit, and Canadian Cancer Society.

International audience; Previous studies have shown targeting different tissues via the transcutaneous (TC) and intramuscular injection (IM) with or without electroporation (EP) has the potential to trigger immune responses to DNA vaccination. The CUTHIVTHER 001 Phase I/II randomized controlled clinical trial was designed to determine whether the mode of DNA vaccination delivery (TC+IM or EP+IM) could influence the quality and function of induced cellular immune responses compared to placebo, in an HIV positive clade B cohort on antiretroviral therapy (ART). The GTU®MultiHIV B DNA vaccine DNA vaccine encoded a MultiHIV B clade fusion protein to target the cellular response. Overall the vaccine and regimens were safe and well-tolerated. There were robust pre-vaccination IFN-γ responses with no measurable change following vaccination compared to placebo. However, modest intracellular cytokine staining (ICS) responses were seen in the TC+IM group. A high proportion of individuals demonstrated potent viral inhibition at baseline that was not improved by vaccination. These results show that HIV positive subjects with nadir CD4+ counts ≥250 on suppressive ART display potent levels of cellular immunity and viral inhibition, and that DNA vaccination alone is insufficient to improve such responses. These data suggest that more potent prime-boost vaccination strategies are likely needed to improve pre-existing responses in similar HIV-1 cohorts (This study has been registered at http://ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT02457689).

This is an accepted manuscript of an abstract published by Elsevier in Annals of Oncology on 01/09/2021, available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2021.08.2098 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.