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 (

PDF file, 116KB.

Supplementary table ST1 shows adverse events in all domains other than GI, GU and haematological

Supplementary figure SF4 shows (A) Kaplan-Meier plot to estimate median progression free survival as time from first docetaxel (or trial registration if no docetaxel received) until PSA progression per PCWG. Median progression free survival = 20.5 months. (B) Kaplan Meier plot to estimate median overall survival as time from first docetaxel (or trial registration if no docetaxel received) until death. Median not reached.

PDF file, 22KB, Description of pathological specimens (Table S1) and immunohistochemical detection of c-FLIP in prostate tissues (Table S2).

Purpose:Radium-223 is an alpha-emitting radionuclide associated with overall survival (OS) improvement in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) to prostate extends OS in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) limited to less than 4 metastases. We hypothesized that combination radium-223 + pelvic EBRT could safely deliver maximal radiotherapy doses to primary and metastatic prostate cancer and may improve disease control.Patients and Methods:Thirty patients with de novo bone metastatic mHSPC who had commenced androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and docetaxel were recruited to this single-arm, open-label, prospective clinical trial: Neo-adjuvant Androgen Deprivation Therapy, Pelvic Radiotherapy and RADium-223 (ADRRAD; for new presentation T1–4 N0–1 M1B adenocarcinoma of prostate). Study treatments were: ADT, 6 cycles of radium-223 q28 days, conventionally fractionated prostate radiotherapy (74 Gy) and simultaneous integrated boost to pelvic lymph nodes (60 Gy).Results:No grade 4/5 toxicity was observed. Three patients experienced grade 3 leukopenia, and 1 each experienced grade 3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia; all were asymptomatic. One patient each experienced grade 3 dysuria and grade 3 urinary infection. No grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was observed. On treatment completion, there was a signal of efficacy; 24 (80%) patients had whole-body MRI evidence of tumor response or stability. Twenty-seven (90%) patients showed a reduction in alkaline phosphatase (ALP) compared with pretreatment levels. Median progression-free survival was 20.5 months.Conclusions:This is the first trial of combination ADT, radium-223, and EBRT to pelvis, post docetaxel. The combination was safe, with an efficacy signal. Multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCT) are warranted.

PDF file, 41KB, Effects of SAHA and bicalutamide in inducing apoptosis detected by Annexin-V labelling.

PDF file, 252KB, The HDAC inhibitor Droxinostat down-regulates c-FLIP expression in androgen-dependent CaP cells and potentiates bicalutamide-induced apoptosis.

PDF file, 72KB, Characterization of differential AR and NF-κB activity in prostate cancer cell lines and the response to SAHA and bicalutamide.

PDF file, 202KB, Silencing of c-FLIP induces spontaneous apoptosis in CaP cells.

PDF file, 175KB, Castrate-resistant cells are insensitive to bicalutamide and SAHA.

Purpose: To characterize the importance of cellular Fas-associated death domain (FADD)–like interleukin 1β-converting enzyme (FLICE) inhibitory protein (c-FLIP), a key regulator of caspase-8 (FLICE)–promoted apoptosis, in modulating the response of prostate cancer cells to androgen receptor (AR)–targeted therapy.Experimental Design: c-FLIP expression was characterized by immunohistochemical analysis of prostatectomy tissue. The functional importance of c-FLIP to survival and modulating response to bicalutamide was studied by molecular and pharmacologic interventions.Results: c-FLIP expression was increased in high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and prostate cancer tissue relative to normal prostate epithelium (P < 0.001). Maximal c-FLIP expression was detected in castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC; P < 0.001). In vitro, silencing of c-FLIP induced spontaneous apoptosis and increased 22Rv1 and LNCaP cell sensitivity to bicalutamide, determined by flow cytometry, PARP cleavage, and caspase activity assays. The histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi), droxinostat and SAHA, also downregulated c-FLIP expression, induced caspase-8- and caspase-3/7–mediated apoptosis, and increased apoptosis in bicalutamide-treated cells. Conversely, the elevated expression of c-FLIP detected in the CRPC cell line VCaP underpinned their insensitivity to bicalutamide and SAHA in vitro. However, knockdown of c-FLIP induced spontaneous apoptosis in VCaP cells, indicating its relevance to cell survival and therapeutic resistance.Conclusion: c-FLIP reduces the efficacy of AR-targeted therapy and maintains the viability of prostate cancer cells. A combination of HDACi with androgen deprivation therapy may be effective in early-stage disease, using c-FLIP expression as a predictive biomarker of sensitivity. Direct targeting of c-FLIP, however, may be relevant to enhance the response of existing and novel therapeutics in CRPC. Clin Cancer Res; 18(14); 3822–33. ©2012 AACR.

PDF file, 214KB, SAHA targets the AR pathway in androgen-dependent CaP cells.

PDF file, 80KB, Bar graphs illustrating the effect of SAHA, bicalutamide or their combined administration upon (A), the AR-target gene PSA or (B) the NF-κB target gene Bcl-2 in VCaP cells.

What is this summary about? Few life-prolonging treatment options are available for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This article provides an overview of the current systemic treatments available for mCRPC and reviews studies that investigate the optimal timing for the use of radium-223. The aim is to illustrate possible systemic treatment sequences to maximize benefit from radium-223 therapy. What is metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer & how is it treated? Prostate cancer is called mCRPC when it spreads to organs outside of the prostate (such as the lymph nodes, bones, liver, or lungs) and no longer responds to hormonal therapy. There are several treatment options available for mCRPC, such as abiraterone, enzalutamide, radium-223, docetaxel, cabazitaxel, olaparib, rucaparib, sipuleucel-T, and 177Lu-PSMA. It is important to understand the risks and benefits associated with each treatment and whether current use may have an impact on future treatment options, including eligibility in certain clinical trials. Maintaining bone health is also an important part of prostate cancer care. What is radium-223? Radium-223 is a radioactive molecule that releases strong radiation within a very small range around itself. It mainly travels to the bone where the prostate cancer has spread and kills the cancer cells in that area. Results from a clinical study named ALSYMPCA showed that men who received radium-223 lived longer in addition to having less bone pain. The most common side effects of radium-223 are nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Radium-223 minimally suppresses the bone marrow, which means that it slightly reduces the levels of red and white blood cells.

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.

Contains fulltext : 291600.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

PURPOSE The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trial 22991 ( NCT00021450 ) showed that 6 months of concomitant and adjuvant androgen suppression (AS) improves event- (EFS, Phoenix) and clinical disease-free survival (DFS) of intermediate- and high-risk localized prostatic carcinoma, treated by external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) at 70-78 Gy. We report the long-term results in intermediate-risk patients treated with 74 or 78 Gy EBRT, as per current guidelines. PATIENT AND METHODS Of 819 patients randomly assigned between EBRT or EBRT plus AS started on day 1 of EBRT, 481 entered with intermediate risk (International Union Against Cancer TNM 1997 cT1b-c or T2a with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥ 10 ng/mL or Gleason ≤ 7 and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL, N0M0) and had EBRT planned at 74 (342 patients, 71.1%) or 78 Gy (139 patients, 28.9%). We report the trial primary end point EFS, DFS, distant metastasis–free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS) by intention-to-treat stratified by EBRT dose at two-sided α = 5%. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 12.2 years, 92 of 245 patients and 132 of 236 had EFS events in the EBRT plus AS and EBRT arm, respectively, mostly PSA relapse (48.7%) or death (45.1%). EBRT plus AS improved EFS and DFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.53; CI, 0.41 to 0.70; P < .001 and HR = 0.67; CI, 0.49 to 0.90; P = .008). At 10 years, DMFS was 79.3% (CI, 73.4 to 84.0) with EBRT plus AS and 72.7% (CI, 66.2 to 78.2) with EBRT (HR = 0.74; CI, 0.53 to 1.02; P = .065). With 140 deaths (EBRT plus AS: 64; EBRT: 76), 10-year OS was 80.0% (CI, 74.1 to 84.7) with EBRT plus AS and 74.3% (CI, 67.8 to 79.7) with EBRT, but not statistically significantly different (HR = 0.74; CI, 0.53 to 1.04; P = .082). CONCLUSION Six months of concomitant and adjuvant AS statistically significantly improves EFS and DFS in intermediate-risk prostatic carcinoma, treated by irradiation at 74 or 78 Gy. The effects on OS and DMFS did not reach statistical significance.

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.

304 Background: Five-year results from the CHHiP trial indicated that moderate hypofractionation of 60 Gray (Gy)/20 fractions (f) was non-inferior to 74Gy/37f (Lancet Oncology, 2016). Reporting of long-term efficacy and side effects is essential in a patient population that remain at risk of recurrence years after treatment. Here we report specific co-morbidity data collected at 10 years and an update of efficacy. Methods: Between October 2002 and June 2011, 3216 men with node negative T1b-T3a localised prostate cancer with risk of seminal vesical involvement ≤30% were randomised (1:1:1 ratio) to 74Gy/37f (control), 60Gy/20f or 57Gy/19f. Patients received 3-6 months of androgen deprivation prior to radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical failure (Phoenix consensus guidelines) or clinical failure (BCF). The non-inferiority design specified a critical hazard ratio (HR) of 1.208 for each hypofractionated schedule compared to control. Data on specific radiotherapy related co-morbidities were collected at 10-year follow-up and are presented as frequency and percentages. Analysis was by intention-to-treat; HRs quoted are unadjusted. Results: With a median follow up of 12.1 years, 10-year BCF-free rates (95% CI) were 74Gy: 76.0% (73.1%, 78.6%); 60Gy: 79.8% (77.1%, 82.3%) and 57Gy: 73.4% (70.5%, 76.1%). For 60Gy/20f, non-inferiority was confirmed: HR60=0.84 (90% CI 0.72, 0.97) with borderline significance for superiority (HR=0.84 (95% CI 0.70, 1.00). As in the primary analysis, for 57Gy/19f, non-inferiority could not be declared: HR57=1.13 (90% CI 0.98, 1.30). 10-year overall survival (95% CI) was 78.5% (75.9%, 81.0%), 82.9% (80.4%, 85.0%) and 79.9% (77.3%, 82.2%) in the 74Gy, 60Gy and 57Gy groups. Bone fractures were reported in 2% (15/700), 2% (19/771) and 3% (22/719) of patients in the 74Gy, 60Gy and 57Gy groups respectively at 10 years. The most common intervention reported was a sigmoidoscopy with 12% (79/681), 8% (60/739) and 9% (65/702) in the 74Gy, 60Gy and 57Gy groups respectively. Of those patients who underwent a sigmoidoscopy it was due to symptoms for 81% (63/78) 81% (48/59) and 85% (55/65) of patients in the 74Gy, 60Gy and 57Gy group respectively. Frequencies of all other pre-specified co-morbidities or related interventions (ureteric obstruction, bowel strictures, trans-urethral resection of prostate, urethrotomy, urethral dilatation or long term catheterisation or treatment of proctopathy with steroid, sucralfate, formalin, laser coagulation or rectal diversion) were

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) is useful for selected clinical indications in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) but it may have broader clinical utility owing to the emergence of lutetium-177-PSMA-617 ([To assess expert opinion on the use of PSMA-based imaging and therapy to develop interim guidance.A panel of 21 PCa experts from various disciplines received thematic topics and relevant literature. A questionnaire to assess proposed guidance statements regarding PSMA PET/CT and [Panellists voted anonymously on statements using a nine-point Likert scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 9 = strongly agree. Median scores were calculated and consensus was assessed using methods proposed by the Research and Development (RAND) corporation.Statements were developed to cover the following topics: PSMA PET/CT utility, clinical use, and choice of tracer; patient selection; and management of patients receiving [Adoption of PSMA PET/CT as an imaging tool to guide [A panel of experts in prostate cancer reached a consensus for the majority of statements proposed regarding the role of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-based imaging and therapy, particularly the use of PSMA-based imaging in patients suitable for [

Introduction: Radium-223 dichloride ([223Ra]RaCl2), a radiopharmaceutical that delivers α-particles to regions of bone metastatic disease, has been proven to improve overall survival of men with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). mCRPC patients enrolled on the ADRRAD clinical trial are treated with a mixed field exposure comprising radium-223 (223Ra) and intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). While absorbed dose estimation is an important step in the characterisation of wider systemic radiation risks in nuclear medicine, uncertainties remain for novel radiopharmaceuticals such as 223Ra. Methods: 24-Colour karyotyping was used to quantify the spectrum of chromosome aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytes of ADRRAD patients at incremental times during their treatment. Dicentric equivalent frequencies were used in standard models for estimation of absorbed blood dose. To account for the mixed field nature of the treatment, existing models were used to determine the ratio of the component radiation types. Additionally, a new approach (M-FISHLET), based on the ratio of cells containing damage consistent with high-LET exposure (complex chromosomal exchanges) and low-LET exposure (simple exchanges), was used as a pseudo ratio for 223Ra:IMRT dose. Results: Total IMRT estimated doses delivered to the blood after completion of mixed radiotherapy (after 37 IMRT fractions and two [223Ra]RaCl2 injections) were in the range of 1.167 ± 0.092 and 2.148 ± 0.096 Gy (dose range across all models applied). By the last treatment cycle analysed in this study (four [223Ra]RaCl2 injections), the total absorbed 223Ra dose to the blood was estimated to be between 0.024 ± 0.027 and 0.665 ± 0.080 Gy, depending on the model used. Differences between the models were observed, with the observed dose variance coming from inter-model as opposed to inter-patient differences. The M-FISHLET model potentially overestimates the 223Ra absorbed blood dose by accounting for further PBL exposure in the vicinity of metastatic sites. Conclusions: The models presented provide initial estimations of cumulative dose received during incremental IMRT fractions and [223Ra]RaCl2 injections, which will enable improved understanding of the doses received by individual patients. While the M-FISHLET method builds on a well-established technique for external exposures, further consideration is needed to evaluate this method and its use in assessing non-targeted exposure by 223Ra after its localization at bone metastatic sites.

Radium-223 (We evaluated the effects ofThese results suggest that

Background Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), which has a proven role in prostate cancer management, has been associated with various cardiovascular diseases. However few studies have investigated these associations by type of ADT, particularly for newer ADTs such as the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist degarelix. We investigated the risk of cardiovascular disease by type of ADT in a real world setting.MethodsMen newly diagnosed with prostate cancer, from 2009 to 2015, were identified from the Scottish Cancer Registry. ADTs were identified from the nationwide Prescribing Information System. Cardiovascular events were based upon hospitalisation (from hospital records) or death from cardiovascular disease (from death records). Cox regression calculated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for cardiovascular events with time-varying ADT exposure, comparing ADT users with untreated patients, after adjusting for potential confounders including prior cardiovascular disease.Results The cohort contained 20,216 prostate cancer patients, followed for 73,570 person years, during which there were 3,853 cardiovascular events. ADT was associated with a 25% increase in cardiovascular events (adjusted HR=1.25 95% CI 1.16, 1.35). This reflected increases in cardiovascular events associated with GnRH agonists (adjusted HR=1.26 95% CI 1.16, 1.36), degarelix (adjusted HR=1.49 95% CI 1.16, 1.90), but not bicalutamide monotherapy (adjusted HR=1.01 95% CI 0.82, 1.25). Conclusions There were increased risks of cardiovascular disease with use of GnRH agonists and degarelix, but not with bicalutamide monotherapy. This is the first study to observe increased cardiovascular risks with degarelix, but the cause of this association is unclear and merits further investigation.

Background: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but there are still many aspects of management that lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed some of these topics to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. Objective: To present the results from the APCCC 2019. Design, setting, and participants: Similar to prior conferences, experts identified 10 important areas of controversy regarding the management of advanced prostate cancer: locally advanced disease, biochemical recurrence after local therapy, treating the primary tumour in the metastatic setting, metastatic hormone-sensitive/naive prostate cancer, nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, bone health and bone metastases, molecular characterisation of tissue and blood, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity, and adverse effects of hormonal therapy and their management. A panel of 72 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 123 predefined questions, which were developed by both voting and nonvoting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. Results and limitations: Panellists voted based on their opinions rather than a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions had varying degrees of support by the panel, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material. Conclusions: These voting results from a panel of prostate cancer experts can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of advanced prostate management for which high-level evidence is sparse. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient-specific factors, such as disease extent and location, prior lines of therapy, comorbidities, and treatment preferences, together with current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Clinical trial enrolment for men with advanced prostate cancer should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2019 once again identified important questions that merit assessment in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference, which has been held three times since 2015, aims to share the knowledge of world experts in prostate cancer management with health care providers worldwide. At the end of the conference, an expert panel discusses and votes on predefined consensus questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision making. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology.

Patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) may be at greater risk for severe illness, hospitalisation, or death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to male gender, older age, potential immunosuppressive treatments, or comorbidities. Thus, the optimal management of APC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex. In October 2021, during the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2021, the 73 voting members of the panel members discussed and voted on 13 questions on this topic that could help clinicians make treatment choices during the pandemic. There was a consensus for full COVID-19 vaccination and booster injection in APC patients. Furthermore, the voting results indicate that the expert's treatment recommendations are influenced by the vaccination status: the COVID-19 pandemic altered management of APC patients for 70% of the panellists before the vaccination was available but only for 25% of panellists for fully vaccinated patients. Most experts (71%) were less likely to use docetaxel and abiraterone in unvaccinated patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For fully vaccinated patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, there was a consensus (77%) to follow the usual treatment schedule, whereas in unvaccinated patients, 55% of the panel members voted for deferring radiation therapy. Finally, there was a strong consensus for the use of telemedicine for monitoring APC patients. Patient summary: In the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021, the panellists reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine in prostate cancer patients and use of telemedicine for monitoring these patients., NA

Background: innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. Objective: to present the voting results from APCCC 2021. Design, setting, and participants: the experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. Results and limitations: the voting reflected the opinions of panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material. Conclusions: these voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making., National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Practitioner Fellowship; Prostate Cancer Foundation; Peter MacCallum Foundation; NHMRC Investigator Grant

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

Patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) may be at greater risk for severe illness, hospitalisation, or death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to male gender, older age, potential immunosuppressive treatments, or comorbidities. Thus, the optimal management of APC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex. In October 2021, during the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2021, the 73 voting members of the panel members discussed and voted on 13 questions on this topic that could help clinicians make treatment choices during the pandemic. There was a consensus for full COVID-19 vaccination and booster injection in APC patients. Furthermore, the voting results indicate that the expert’s treatment recommendations are influenced by the vaccination status: the COVID-19 pandemic altered management of APC patients for 70% of the panellists before the vaccination was available but only for 25% of panellists for fully vaccinated patients. Most experts (71%) were less likely to use docetaxel and abiraterone in unvaccinated patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For fully vaccinated patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, there was a consensus (77%) to follow the usual treatment schedule, whereas in unvaccinated patients, 55% of the panel members voted for deferring radiation therapy. Finally, there was a strong consensus for the use of telemedicine for monitoring APC patients. Patient summary In the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021, the panellists reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine in prostate cancer patients and use of telemedicine for monitoring these patients.

Purpose: Radium-223 is an alpha-emitting radionuclide associated with overall survival (OS) improvement in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) to prostate extends OS in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) limited to less than 4 metastases. We hypothesized that combination radium-223 + pelvic EBRT could safely deliver maximal radiotherapy doses to primary and metastatic prostate cancer and may improve disease control. Patients and Methods: Thirty patients with de novo bone metastatic mHSPC who had commenced androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and docetaxel were recruited to this single-arm, open-label, prospective clinical trial: Neo-adjuvant Androgen Deprivation Therapy, Pelvic Radiotherapy and RADium-223 (ADRRAD; for new presentation T1–4 N0–1 M1B adenocarcinoma of prostate). Study treatments were: ADT, 6 cycles of radium-223 q28 days, conventionally fractionated prostate radiotherapy (74 Gy) and simultaneous integrated boost to pelvic lymph nodes (60 Gy). Results: No grade 4/5 toxicity was observed. Three patients experienced grade 3 leukopenia, and 1 each experienced grade 3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia; all were asymptomatic. One patient each experienced grade 3 dysuria and grade 3 urinary infection. No grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was observed. On treatment completion, there was a signal of efficacy; 24 (80%) patients had whole-body MRI evidence of tumor response or stability. Twenty-seven (90%) patients showed a reduction in alkaline phosphatase (ALP) compared with pretreatment levels. Median progression-free survival was 20.5 months. Conclusions: This is the first trial of combination ADT, radium-223, and EBRT to pelvis, post docetaxel. The combination was safe, with an efficacy signal. Multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCT) are warranted.

Alpha emitters have always promised to deliver potential benefit in cancer therapy. Using the example of radium-223 (Xofigo) and the paradigm of ionising radiation, this review looks at targeted alpha therapy from the perspective of a radiation oncologist.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the effectiveness of 223RaCl2 for treating patients with symptomatic bone metastatic disease, its mechanisms of action are still unclear. Even established dosimetric approaches differ considerably in their conclusions. In silico tumour models bring a new perspective to this as they can quantitatively simulate the interaction of α-particles with the target(s). Here, we investigated three different mathematical models of tumour growth that take into account the radiation effect of Radium-223 treatments and compare the results to clinical data.METHODS: The well-established Gompertz growth model was applied to simulate metastatic tumour burden. Based on published measurements of Radium-223 uptake, we have incorporated the radiation effect of α-particles into the model and investigated three radium distribution scenarios - uniform exposure, exposure of only an outer layer, and exposure of a constant volume of the tumour. For each scenario, the times for various tumour stages to progress to the first symptomatic skeletal event were calculated.RESULTS: Uniform and outer-layer exposure scenarios showed very poor agreement with the Kaplan-Meier patient curves from clinical data. However, the constant volume effect predicted very similar outcomes to the observed clinical results, suggesting, depending on dose-rate, that relatively small fractions of the cell population see damage from Radium-223.CONCLUSIONS: The commonly-used assumption of uniform Radium-223 distribution does not accurately reflect clinical responses. The suggestion that only a sub-population of the tumour might be affected by Radium-223 shows that there is a pressing need to further study the tumour and drug kinetics in order to schedule more effective treatments in the future.

Highlights • Prostatic calculi are a frequent radiological finding and may aid prostate IGRT. • Incidence of prostatic calculi in a population of radiotherapy patients is reported. • Significant proportion of patients have calculi detectable on radiotherapy images. • Prostatic calculi may reduce the need for surgically implanted markers., Purpose This study aims to quantify the incidence and distribution of prostatic calculi in a population of prostate radiotherapy patients and assess their potential role in prostate image guided radiotherapy (IGRT). Methods & materials A retrospective analysis of trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS), computed tomography (CT) planning and treatment verification cone beam CT (CBCT) scans from radical prostate radiotherapy patients (external beam and brachytherapy) between 2012 and 2014 was undertaken by a single experienced observer. An internationally validated schema from the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data system (PIRADS) was used to map the location of calculi. The association of calculi with patient and disease characteristics was explored. Data was analysed using SPSS (IBM version 22.0) using descriptive statistical methods and logistic binary regression analysis. Results 389 scan sets from 254 patients were included in the analysis. The overall incidence of calculi was 85% (n = 218) of which 79% (n = 201) were intra-prostatic calculi. The mean number of intra-prostatic calculi was 2 (range 1–10) and the mean size of calculi was 3.7 mm (range 0.5–15 mm). Calculi were most frequently observed in the posterior of the mid-gland (PI-RADs 3p, 9p) and posterior of the apex (PI-RADs 5p, 11p). 99% (n = 135) of CT planning scans with a corresponding CBCT had calculi in the same PIRADs location and all calculi were visible at the last fraction. There was no statistically significant association of calculi and N stage, M stage or Gleason score. Conclusions A significant proportion of prostate radiotherapy patients have prostatic calculi detectable on pre radiotherapy imaging. Calculi observed on CT were also detectable on CBCT in 99% of cases and remain visible at the end of treatment. These findings add to the growing evidence base supporting the potential of calculi as an alternative to fiducial markers to aid prostate IGRT.

5041 Background: Ra-223 extends OS in pts with mCRPC. Predictive markers of response to Ra-223 are needed to help select pts who would benefit most from Ra-223 therapy. The ALSYMPCA study suggested a correlation between ALP decline and longer OS. Here, we evaluated whether ALP decline is associated with OS in the global real-world REASSURE study. Methods: Pts treated with Ra-223 were grouped by baseline ALP ≤147 U/L vs >147 U/L and any ALP decline vs no decline at week 12 from the first Ra-223 dose. The 147 U/L cut-off was selected based on the highest upper limit of normal for ALP from literature. Pts with a trend of decreasing ALP at closest value to week 12 between weeks 8 and 16 were included in the any decline group. Association of ALP decline with OS was assessed in the ≤147 U/L and >147 U/L groups separately. Median OS is provided with an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]). Multivariate Cox models provided adjusted HRs (95% CI) for the association of ALP decline with OS. Some baseline covariates were not included in the models due to missing data. Results: 785 of 1465 pts had baseline ALP measurements, of whom 779 had week 12 ALP measurements: 443 had ≤147 U/L and 336 >147 U/L. In the ≤147 U/L group, median OS was 23.0 months (m) (95% CI 20.9–25.7) in pts with ALP decline (n=329) and 16.4 m (95% CI 14.1–20.4) in pts with no decline (n=114). In the >147 U/L group, median OS was 12.9 m (95% CI 11.7–14.3) in pts with ALP decline (n=295) and 8.1 m (95% CI 5.6–10.3) in pts with no decline (n=41). Comparison of unadjusted and adjusted HRs is shown in the Table. Conclusions: Pts with an ALP decline in first 12 weeks of Ra-223 treatment had longer OS. The effect of other baseline variables, including age, PSA, Hgb and prior treatments, provided adjustment but did not change this outcome. [Table: see text]

Background Results from large randomised controlled trials have shown that adding docetaxel to the standard of care (SOC) for men initiating hormone therapy for prostate cancer (PC) prolongs survival for those with metastatic disease and prolongs failure-free survival for those without. To date there has been no formal assessment of whether funding docetaxel in this setting represents an appropriate use of UK National Health Service (NHS) resources. Objective To assess whether administering docetaxel to men with PC starting long-term hormone therapy is cost-effective in a UK setting. Design, setting, and participants We modelled health outcomes and costs in the UK NHS using data collected within the STAMPEDE trial, which enrolled men with high-risk, locally advanced metastatic or recurrent PC starting first-line hormone therapy. Intervention SOC was hormone therapy for ≥2 yr and radiotherapy in some patients. Docetaxel (75 mg/m2) was administered alongside SOC for six three-weekly cycles. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The model generated lifetime predictions of costs, changes in survival duration, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results and limitations The model predicted that docetaxel would extend survival (discounted quality-adjusted survival) by 0.89 yr (0.51) for metastatic PC and 0.78 yr (0.39) for nonmetastatic PC, and would be cost-effective in metastatic PC (ICER £5514/QALY vs SOC) and nonmetastatic PC (higher QALYs, lower costs vs SOC). Docetaxel remained cost-effective in nonmetastatic PC when the assumption of no survival advantage was modelled. Conclusions Docetaxel is cost-effective among patients with nonmetastatic and metastatic PC in a UK setting. Clinicians should consider whether the evidence is now sufficiently compelling to support docetaxel use in patients with nonmetastatic PC, as the opportunity to offer docetaxel at hormone therapy initiation will be missed for some patients by the time more mature survival data are available. Patient summary Starting docetaxel chemotherapy alongside hormone therapy represents a good use of UK National Health Service resources for patients with prostate cancer that is high risk or has spread to other parts of the body., Take Home Message Docetaxel is a cost-effective intervention in patients with metastatic and nonmetastatic prostate cancer starting hormone therapy. Clinicians and National Health Service funding bodies should consider whether the evidence is now sufficiently compelling to support initiating docetaxel in patients with nonmetastatic disease.

Radium-223 is an alpha-emitting radionuclide associated with overall survival (OS) improvement in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) to prostate extends OS in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) limited to less than 4 metastases. We hypothesized that combination radium-223 + pelvic EBRT could safely deliver maximal radiotherapy doses to primary and metastatic prostate cancer and may improve disease control.Thirty patients withNo grade 4/5 toxicity was observed. Three patients experienced grade 3 leukopenia, and 1 each experienced grade 3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia; all were asymptomatic. One patient each experienced grade 3 dysuria and grade 3 urinary infection. No grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was observed. On treatment completion, there was a signal of efficacy; 24 (80%) patients had whole-body MRI evidence of tumor response or stability. Twenty-seven (90%) patients showed a reduction in alkaline phosphatase (ALP) compared with pretreatment levels. Median progression-free survival was 20.5 months.This is the first trial of combination ADT, radium-223, and EBRT to pelvis, post docetaxel. The combination was safe, with an efficacy signal. Multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCT) are warranted.

Aim To explore the practice and views of uro-oncologists in the United Kingdom regarding their use of chemotherapy and androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTAs) in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Methods An expert-devised paper or online questionnaire was completed by members of the British Uro-oncology Group. Results All respondents stated that they would offer patients with newly diagnosed mHSPC docetaxel and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) if they were sufficiently fit to receive chemotherapy (this was the only option available at the time of the survey); 64% would strongly recommend docetaxel for those with high-volume metastatic disease and 31% for those with low-volume disease. Hypothetically, if both docetaxel and ARTAs were available in the United Kingdom for mHSPC, almost 65% of respondents would recommend an ARTA with ADT to these patients in at least one-half of all cases, with the strongest recommendations to patients with high-risk disease. Imaging for the response was conducted according to suspicion of disease progression, regardless of treatment, with the minority of clinicians recommending routine imaging. If a choice of therapy was available, docetaxel would be more likely to be offered to patients with liver or lung metastases, and ARTAs to patients with bone or lymph node only metastases. Almost all respondents would offer local radiotherapy to the primary tumour in patients with low-volume disease. Conclusion All the UK uro-oncologists surveyed stated that they would offer docetaxel in combination with ADT to all newly diagnosed patients with mHSPC if fit enough for chemotherapy. ARTAs would be offered to many patients if available, especially those with high-risk disease or those unfit to receive chemotherapy. Scanning was typically conducted following treatment only at the suspicion of disease progression.

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common non-cutaneous cancer in men and a notable cause of cancer mortality when it metastasises. The unfolded protein response (UPR) can be cytoprotective but when acutely activated can lead to cell death. In this study, we sought to enhance the acute activation of the UPR using radiation and ONC201, an UPR activator. Treating PCa cells with ONC201 quickly increased the expression of all the key regulators of the UPR and reduced the oxidative phosphorylation, with cell death occurring 72 h later. We exploited this time lag to sensitize prostate cancer cells to radiation through short-term treatment with ONC201. To understand how priming occurred, we performed RNA-Seq analysis and found that ONC201 suppressed the expression of cell cycle and DNA repair factors. In conclusion, we have shown that ONC201 can prime enhanced radiation response.

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 Hormone therapy is widely used in prostate cancer. However, studies have raised concerns that hormone therapy, particularly the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, could increase the risk of acute kidney injury. Methods Men newly diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer, from 2012 to 2017, were identified from the Scottish Cancer Registry. A matched comparison cohort of prostate cancer-free men was also identified. Hormone therapy use was determined from the Prescribing Information System in Scotland. The primary outcome was hospitalisations with acute kidney injury taken from Scottish hospital records (SMR01) up to June 2019. Time-dependent Cox regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for acute kidney injury by hormone therapy use. Results The prostate cancer cohort contained 10,751 patients followed for 41,997 person years, during which there were 618 hospitalisations with acute kidney injury. Prostate cancer patients had higher rates of acute kidney injury compared with cancer-free controls (adjusted HR = 1.47 95% CI 1.29, 1.69). However, prostate cancer patients currently using hormone therapy (adjusted HR = 1.14 95% CI 0.92, 1.41), including gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists (adjusted HR = 1.13 95% CI 0.90, 1.40), did not appear to have a marked increase in acute kidney injury compared with prostate cancer patients not using hormone therapy after adjusting for potential confounders. Conclusions In our cohort, there was little evidence that gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists were associated with marked increases in acute kidney injury.