Celecoxib plus hormone therapy versus hormone therapy alone for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: first results from the STAMPEDE multiarm, multistage, randomised controlled trial

Calcineurin Inhibitor in NEuRoloGically deceased donors to decrease kidney delayed graft function study: study protocol of the CINERGY Pilot randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Most solid organ transplants originate from donors meeting criteria for death by neurological criteria (DNC). Within the organ donor, physiological responses to brain death increase the risk of ischaemia reperfusion injury and delayed graft function. Donor preconditioning with calcineurin inhibition may reduce this risk.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We designed a multicentre placebo-controlled pilot randomised trial involving nine organ donation hospitals and all 28 transplant programmes in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Québec. We planned to enrol 90 DNC donors and their approximately 324 organ recipients, totalling 414 participants. Donors receive an intravenous infusion of either tacrolimus 0.02 mg/kg over 4 hours prior to organ retrieval, or a matching placebo, while monitored in an intensive care unit for any haemodynamic changes during the infusion. Among all study organ recipients, we record measures of graft function for the first 7 days in hospital and we will record graft survival after 1 year. We examine the feasibility of this trial with respect to the proportion of all eligible donors enrolled and the proportion of all eligible transplant recipients consenting to receive a CINERGY organ transplant and to allow the use of their health data for study purposes. We will report these feasibility outcomes as proportions with 95% CIs. We also record any barriers encountered in the launch and in the implementation of this trial with detailed source documentation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We will disseminate trial results through publications and presentations at participating sites and conferences. This study has been approved by Health Canada (HC6-24-c241083) and by the Research Ethics Boards of all participating sites and in Québec (MP-31-2020-3348) and Clinical Trials Ontario (Project #3309).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05148715.

Radiographic Progression-Free Survival and Clinical Progression-Free Survival as Potential Surrogates for Overall Survival in Men With Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Despite major increases in the longevity of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), most men still die of prostate cancer. Phase III trials assessing new therapies in mHSPC with overall survival (OS) as the primary end point will take approximately a decade to complete. We investigated whether radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and clinical PFS (cPFS) are valid surrogates for OS in men with mHSPC and could potentially be used to expedite future phase III clinical trials.

METHODS

We obtained individual patient data (IPD) from 9 eligible randomized trials comparing treatment regimens (different androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] strategies or ADT plus docetaxel in the control or research arms) in mHSPC. rPFS was defined as the time from random assignment to radiographic progression or death from any cause whichever occurred first; cPFS was defined as the time from random assignment to the date of radiographic progression, symptoms, initiation of new treatment, or death, whichever occurred first. We implemented a two-stage meta-analytic validation model where conditions of patient-level and trial-level surrogacy had to be met. We then computed the surrogate threshold effect (STE).

RESULTS

IPD from 6,390 patients randomly assigned from 1994 to 2012 from 13 units were pooled for a stratified analysis. The median OS, rPFS, and cPFS were 4.3 (95% CI, 4.2 to 4.5), 2.4 (95% CI, 2.3 to 2.5), and 2.3 years (95% CI, 2.2 to 2.4), respectively. The STEs were 0.80 and 0.81 for rPFS and cPFS end points, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Both rPFS and cPFS appear to be promising surrogate end points for OS. The STE of 0.80 or higher makes it viable for either rPFS or cPFS to be used as the primary end point that is surrogate for OS in phase III mHSPC trials with testosterone suppression alone as the backbone therapy and would expedite trial conduct.

Effect of Concomitant Medications on Treatment Response and Survival in De Novo Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Secondary Analysis of the LATITUDE Study

PURPOSE

It is unclear whether exposure to commonly prescribed medications influences survival and treatment response in patients with de novo high-risk metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) treated with androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs).

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of the LATITUDE trial to determine whether receipt of concomitant medications influenced the effect of abiraterone acetate and prednisone, in addition to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), on overall survival (OS) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) in patients with de novo mPCa. We focused on 7 commonly prescribed classes of medications: metformin, statins, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors, aspirin, acetaminophen, and NSAIDs (nonselective COX inhibitors). To account for multiple testing, a two-sided p < 0.0024 was set as the threshold for statistical significance.

RESULTS

Overall, 1135 patients were eligible. There was some evidence of a differential treatment effect from abiraterone among patients who received concomitant NSAIDs (hazard ratio [HR] for OS: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.42-0.70) versus those who did not (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.60-0.91), though this did not reach significance (interaction p = 0.05). A similar non-significant finding of heterogeneity of effect from abiraterone was noted among patients who received concomitant aspirin (HR for OS: 0.93 [0.63-1.36]) versus those who did not (HR: 0.61 [0.51-0.73]) (interaction p = 0.04). Receipt of NSAIDs was independently associated with a significantly inferior OS (HR: 1.37 [1.15-1.62]; p < 0.001) and higher relative incidence of PCSM (sHR: 1.47 [1.21-1.78]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory analysis did not find statistically significant evidence of differences in treatment effects from ADT plus abiraterone in de novo high-risk mPCa based on the receipt of concurrent medications. The receipt of NSAIDs was independently associated with increased PCSM and inferior OS.

Cardiovascular/anti-inflammatory drugs repurposed for treating or preventing cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Due to encouraging pre-clinical data and supportive observational studies, there has been growing interest in applying cardiovascular drugs (including aspirin, angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors, statins, and metformin) approved to treat diseases such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus to the field of oncology. Moreover, given growing costs with cancer care, these medications have offered a potentially more affordable avenue to treat or prevent recurrence of cancer. We sought to investigate the anti-cancer effects of drugs repurposed from cardiology or anti-inflammatories to treat cancer. We specifically evaluated the following drug classes: HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins), cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors, aspirin, metformin, and both angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. We also included non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) because they exert a similar mechanism to aspirin by blocking prostaglandins and reducing inflammation that is thought to promote the development of cancer.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review using PubMed and Web of Science with search terms including "aspirin," "NSAID," "statin" (including specific statin drug names), "metformin," "ACE inhibitors," and "ARBs" (including specific anti-hypertensive drug names) in combination with "cancer." Searches were limited to human studies published between 2000 and 2023.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The number and percentage of studies reported positive results and pooled estimates of overall survival, progression-free survival, response, and disease-free survival.

RESULTS

We reviewed 3094 titles and included 67 randomized clinical trials. The most common drugs that were tested were metformin (n = 21; 30.9%), celecoxib (n = 20; 29.4%), and simvastatin (n = 8; 11.8%). There was only one study that tested cardiac glycosides and none that studied ACE inhibitors. The most common tumor types were non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 19; 27.9%); breast (n = 8; 20.6%), colorectal (n = 7; 10.3%), and hepatocellular (n = 6; 8.8%). Most studies were conducted in a phase II trial (n = 38; 55.9%). Most studies were tested in metastatic cancers (n = 49; 72.1%) and in the first-line setting (n = 36; 521.9%). Four studies (5.9%) were stopped early because of difficulty with accrual. The majority of studies did not demonstrate an improvement in either progression-free survival (86.1% of studies testing progression-free survival) or in overall survival (94.3% of studies testing overall survival). Progression-free survival was improved in five studies (7.4%), and overall survival was improved in three studies (4.4%). Overall survival was significantly worse in two studies (3.8% of studies testing overall survival), and progression-free survival was worse in one study (2.8% of studies testing progression-free survival).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Despite promising pre-clinical and population-based data, cardiovascular drugs and anti-inflammatory medications have overall not demonstrated benefit in the treatment or preventing recurrence of cancer. These findings may help guide future potential clinical trials involving these medications when applied in oncology.

Myeloid-derived suppressor cells in cancer and cancer therapy

Anticancer agents continue to dominate the list of newly approved drugs, approximately half of which are immunotherapies. This trend illustrates the considerable promise of cancer treatments that modulate the immune system. However, the immune system is complex and dynamic, and can have both tumour-suppressive and tumour-promoting effects. Understanding the full range of immune modulation in cancer is crucial to identifying more effective treatment strategies. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) are a heterogeneous population of myeloid cells that develop in association with chronic inflammation, which is a hallmark of cancer. Indeed, MDSCs accumulate in the tumour microenvironment, where they strongly inhibit anticancer functions of T cells and natural killer cells and exert a variety of other tumour-promoting effects. Emerging evidence indicates that MDSCs also contribute to resistance to cancer treatments, particularly immunotherapies. Conversely, treatment approaches designed to eliminate cancer cells can have important additional effects on MDSC function, which can be either positive or negative. In this Review, we discuss the interplay between MDSCs and various other cell types found in tumours as well as the mechanisms by which MDSCs promote tumour progression. We also discuss the relevance and implications of MDSCs for cancer therapy.

How is overall survival assessed in randomised clinical trials in cancer and are subsequent treatment lines considered? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Overall survival is the "gold standard" endpoint in cancer clinical trials. It plays a key role in determining the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a new intervention and whether it is recommended for use in standard of care. The assessment of overall survival usually requires trial participants to be followed up for a long period of time. In this time, they may stop receiving the trial intervention and receive subsequent anti-cancer treatments, which also aim to extend survival, during trial follow-up. This can potentially change the interpretation of overall survival in the context of the clinical trial. This review aimed to determine how overall survival has been assessed in cancer clinical trials and whether subsequent anti-cancer treatments are considered.

METHODS

Two searches were conducted using MEDLINE within OVID© on the 9th of November 2021. The first sought to identify papers publishing overall survival results from randomised controlled trials in eight reputable journals and the second to identify papers mentioning or considering subsequent treatments. Papers published since 2010 were included if presenting or discussing overall survival in the context of treating cancer.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-four papers were included. The majority of these were presenting clinical trial results (98, 73%). Of these, 45 (46%) reported overall survival as a (co-) primary endpoint. A lower proportion of papers including overall survival as a (co-) primary endpoint compared to a secondary endpoint were published in recent years. The primary analysis of overall survival varied across the papers. Fifty-nine (60%) mentioned subsequent treatments. Seven papers performed additional analysis, primarily when patients in the control arm received the experimental treatment during trial follow-up (treatment switching).

DISCUSSION

Overall survival has steadily moved from being the primary to a secondary endpoint. However, it is still of interest with papers presenting overall survival results with the caveat of subsequent treatments, but little or no investigation into their effect. This review shows that there is a methodological gap for what researchers should do when trial participants receive anti-cancer treatment during trial follow-up. Future research will identify the stakeholder opinions, on how this methodological gap should be addressed.

Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial-Based Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

To compare the effects of different treatment strategies for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) using a network meta-analysis.

Methods

English databases (PubMed, Embase, and medRxiv) and Chinese databases (Wanfang and CNKI) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of mHSPC from inception to June 1, 2021. The overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) reported by the included studies were extracted from each study for network meta-analysis. Moreover, the priority ranks of the treatment methods were determined.

Results

A total of 18 RCTs with 14,682 patients were included in this study. Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) + apalutamide (APA) showed the highest probability of improving the OS (96.2%) and FFS (68.0%). In addition, the patients were stratified into ten subgroups as follows: low/high tumor burden (CHAARTED criteria); Gleason score ≤7/≥8; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) = 0/≥1; with/without prechemotherapy; and cooperative with/without concomitant radiotherapy. For the improvement of OS, the leading treatments were as follows: (1) ADT + enzalutamide (ENZA) (64.1%)/ADT + abiraterone acetate + prednisone (AAP) (54.3%); (2) ADT + ENZA (41.9%)/ADT + APA (39.2%); (3) ADT + ENZA (39.2%)/ADT + APA (32.1%); (4) ADT + radiotherapy (51%)/ADT + ENZA (76.7%); (5) ADT + AAP (51%)/ADT + AAP (60%).

Conclusion

Three endocrine therapy drugs, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and APA, exhibited the best effects in improving the OS and FFS in all patients and subgroups; however, APA had the most prominent treatment effects. Therefore, ADT + APA should be applied as the common treatment for patients with HSPC based on objective and clinical conditions. Trial Registration. This meta-analysis has been registered on the PROSPERO website (Trial number: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/CRD42020221062).

Approach for reporting master protocol study designs on ClinicalTrials.gov: qualitative analysis

OBJECTIVE

To describe an approach for reporting master protocol research programs (MPRPs) that is consistent with existing good reporting practices and that uses structured information to convey the overall master protocol and design of each substudy.

DESIGN

Qualitative analysis.

DATA SOURCES

ClinicalTrials.gov trial registry.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Established goals and related practices of the trial reporting system were outlined, examples and key characteristics of MPRPs were reviewed, and specific challenges in registering and reporting summary results to databases designed for traditional clinical trial designs that rely on a model of one study per protocol were identified.

RESULTS

A reporting approach is proposed that accommodates the complex study design of MPRPs and their results. This approach involves the use of separate registration records for each substudy within one MPRP protocol (with potential exceptions noted).

CONCLUSIONS

How the proposed approach allows for clear, descriptive, structured information about each substudy's prespecified design and supports timely reporting of results after completion of each substudy is described and illustrated. Although the focus is on reporting to ClinicalTrials.gov, the approach supports broader application across trial registries and results databases. This paper is intended to stimulate further discussion of this approach among stakeholders, build awareness about the need to improve reporting of MPRPs, and encourage harmonization across trial registries globally.

Combination therapy in metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer: A Systematic review and network meta-analysis

Introduction

Studies directly comparing the different combination therapies offered to men with metastatic castration sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC), are not available yet. This study was designed using the network meta-analysis (NMA) framework to provide a comparison of the different available options for the treatment of men with mCSPC.

Methods

A systematic search was performed and the prospective randomized controlled trials reporting the overall survival (OS) or failure-free survival (FFS) were selected for review. A total of 14 studies were included in the NMA.

Results

The addition of abiraterone, apalutamide, docetaxel, and docetaxel with zoledronic acid to the androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) demonstrated a significant improvement in the OS. In indirect comparison, abiraterone had a higher impact on the OS as compared to docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0-1.46) and docetaxel with zoledronic acid (HR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.05-1.63) but not apalutamide. Furthermore, apalutamide was not different than docetaxel or docetaxel with zoledronic acid. There was a significant improvement in the FFS with the combination of abiraterone, apalutamide, docetaxel (HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.46-0.81), docetaxel with zoledronic acid (HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.43-0.9), and enzalutamide (HR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.25-0.61) as compared to the ADT alone. Similar to the indirect comparison of OS, abiraterone outperformed docetaxel (HR: 1.66, 95% CI: 1.12-2.47), docetaxel with zoledronic acid (HR: 1.69, 95% CI: 1.06-2.68), and enzalutamide (HR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.63-1.80), but not apalutamide in terms of impact on the FFS.

Conclusion

Overall, abiraterone demonstrated better OS and FFS outcomes as compared to all the other combination strategies in this NMA.

RAMPART: A model for a regulatory-ready academic-led phase III trial in the adjuvant renal cell carcinoma setting

The development of therapeutics in oncology is a highly active research area for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, but also has a strong academic base. Many new agents have been developed in recent years, most with specific biological targets. This has mandated the need to look at different ways to streamline the evaluation of new agents. One solution has been the development of adaptive trial designs that allow the evaluation of multiple agents, concentrating on the most promising agents while screening out those which are unlikely to benefit patients. Another way forward has been the growth of partnerships between academia and industry with the shared goal of designing and conducting high quality clinical trials which answer important clinical questions as efficiently as possible. The RAMPART trial (NCT03288532) brings together both of these processes in an attempt to improve outcomes for patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), where no globally acceptable adjuvant strategy after nephrectomy currently exist. RAMPART is led by the MRC CTU at University College London (UCL), in collaboration with other international academic groups and industry. We aim to facilitate the use of data from RAMPART, (dependent on outcomes), for a future regulatory submission that will extend the license of the agents being investigated. We share our experience in order to lay the foundations for an effective trial design and conduct framework and to guide others who may be considering similar collaborations. Trial Registration: ISRCTN #: ISRCTN53348826, NCT #: NCT03288532, EUDRACT #: 2017-002329-39. CTA #: 20363/0380/001-0001. MREC #: 17/LO/1875. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03288532 RAMPART grant number: MC_UU_12023/25. . RAMPART Protocol version 5.0.

Guidelines for Reporting Trial Protocols and Completed Trials Modified Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Extenuating Circumstances: The CONSERVE 2021 Statement

IMPORTANCE

Extenuating circumstances can trigger unplanned changes to randomized trials and introduce methodological, ethical, feasibility, and analytical challenges that can potentially compromise the validity of findings. Numerous randomized trials have required changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but guidance for reporting such modifications is incomplete.

OBJECTIVE

As a joint extension for the CONSORT and SPIRIT reporting guidelines, CONSERVE (CONSORT and SPIRIT Extension for RCTs Revised in Extenuating Circumstances) aims to improve reporting of trial protocols and completed trials that undergo important modifications in response to extenuating circumstances.

EVIDENCE

A panel of 37 international trial investigators, patient representatives, methodologists and statisticians, ethicists, funders, regulators, and journal editors convened to develop the guideline. The panel developed CONSERVE following an accelerated, iterative process between June 2020 and February 2021 involving (1) a rapid literature review of multiple databases (OVID Medline, OVID EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL) and gray literature sources from 2003 to March 2021; (2) consensus-based panelist meetings using a modified Delphi process and surveys; and (3) a global survey of trial stakeholders.

FINDINGS

The rapid review yielded 41 673 citations, of which 38 titles were relevant, including emerging guidance from regulatory and funding agencies for managing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on trials. However, no generalizable guidance for all circumstances in which trials and trial protocols might face unanticipated modifications were identified. The CONSERVE panel used these findings to develop a consensus reporting guidelines following 4 rounds of meetings and surveys. Responses were received from 198 professionals from 34 countries, of whom 90% (n = 178) indicated that they understood the concept definitions and 85.4% (n = 169) indicated that they understood and could use the implementation tool. Feedback from survey respondents was used to finalize the guideline and confirm that the guideline's core concepts were applicable and had utility for the trial community. CONSERVE incorporates an implementation tool and checklists tailored to trial reports and trial protocols for which extenuating circumstances have resulted in important modifications to the intended study procedures. The checklists include 4 sections capturing extenuating circumstances, important modifications, responsible parties, and interim data analyses.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

CONSERVE offers an extension to CONSORT and SPIRIT that could improve the transparency, quality, and completeness of reporting important modifications to trials in extenuating circumstances such as COVID-19.

Design of a New Fermented Beverage from Medicinal Plants and Organic Sugarcane Molasses via Lactic Fermentation

Functional beverages obtained using medicinal plants and fermented with lactic acid bacteria are gaining much interest from the scientific community, driven by the growing demand for food and beverages with beneficial properties. In this work, three different batches of medicinal plants and organic sugarcane molasses, named FB-lc, FB-sp and FB-lcsp, were prepared and fermented by using Lactobacillus acidophilus ATCC 43121, Bifidobacterium breve B632 and a mix of both strains’ culture, respectively. The three fermented beverages revealed a high level of polyphenols (expressed as gallic acid equivalent), ranging from 182.50 to 315.62 µg/mL. The highest content of flavonoids (152.13 µg quercetin equivalent/mL) and tannins (93.602 µg catechin equivalent/mL) was detected in FB-lcsp trial. The IR spectroscopy analysis showed a decrease in sugar (pyranose forms, D-glucopyranose and rhamnosides). In addition, the aromatic compounds of the fermented beverages, detected by GC-MS headspace analysis, showed twenty-four interesting volatile compounds, which could give positive aroma attributes to the flavor of the beverages. The highest antioxidant activity was observed in the beverage obtained by the mix culture strains. Accordingly, the production of these beverages can be further investigated for considering their well-being effects on human health.

The Emerging Role of COX-2, 15-LOX and PPARγ in Metabolic Diseases and Cancer: An Introduction to Novel Multi-target Directed Ligands (MTDLs)

Emerging evidence supports an intertwining framework for the involvement of different inflammatory pathways in a common pathological background for a number of disorders. Of importance are pathways involving arachidonic acid metabolism by cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and 15-lipoxygenase (15-LOX). Both enzyme activities and their products are implicated in a range of pathophysiological processes encompassing metabolic impairment leading to adipose inflammation and the subsequent vascular and neurological disorders, in addition to various pro- and antitumorigenic effects. A further layer of complexity is encountered by the disparate, and often reciprocal, modulatory effect COX-2 and 15-LOX activities and metabolites exert on each other or on other cellular targets, the most prominent of which is peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ). Thus, effective therapeutic intervention with such multifaceted disorders requires the simultaneous modulation of more than one target. Here, we describe the role of COX-2, 15-LOX, and PPARγ in cancer and complications of metabolic disorders, highlight the value of designing multi-target directed ligands (MTDLs) modifying their activity, and summarizing the available literature regarding the rationale and feasibility of design and synthesis of these ligands together with their known biological effects. We speculate on the potential impact of MTDLs in these disorders as well as emphasize the need for structured future effort to translate these early results facilitating the adoption of these, and similar, molecules in clinical research.

Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Review of the Current Treatment Landscape

PURPOSE

In recent years, the treatment options for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) have expanded significantly. In addition to androgen deprivation therapy, the systemic treatments now include docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, and apalutamide. Radiation to the primary is also an option for select low-volume patients.

METHODS

We conducted a review of the pivotal trials that have changed the practice of mHSPC.

RESULTS

We describe an overview of the trials that investigated docetaxel (CHAARTED and STAMPEDE-Docetaxel), abiraterone (LATTITUDE and STAMPEDE-Abiraterone), enzalutamide (ARCHES, ENZAMET), apalutamide (TITAN), and radiation to the primary (STAMPEDE-Radiation).

DISCUSSION

The treatment of mHSPC is a complex topic, and treatment choice should be individualized. Patient preferences, cost, volume of disease, and side effect profiles are important in determining which option is the best for an individual patient.

Nomogram predicting survival to assist decision-making of radical prostatectomy in patients with metastatic prostate cancer

Background

Radical prostatectomy (RP) has heterogeneous effects on survival of patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). A reliable model to predict risk of cancer-specific mortality (CSM) and the potential benefit derived from RP is needed.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with mPCa were identified using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004–2015) and categorized in RP versus nonlocal treatment (NLT). Based on the Fine and Gray competing risks model in 8,463 NLT patients, a nomogram was created to predict CSM in mPCa patients. Decision tree analysis was then utilized for patient stratification. The effect of RP was evaluated among 3 different subgroups.

Results

A total of 8,863 patients were identified for analysis. Four hundred (4.5%) patients received RP. The 5-year cumulative incidence of CSM was 52.4% for the entire patients. Based on nomogram scores, patients were sorted into three risk groups using decision tree analysis. In the low- and intermediate-risk group, RP was found to be significantly correlated with a 21.7% risk reduction of 5-year CSM, and 25.0% risk reduction of 5-year CSM, respectively, whereas RP was not associated with CSM in high-risk group (hazard ratio =0.748, 95% confidence interval 0.485–1.150; P=0.190).

Conclusions

We developed a novel nomogram and corresponding patient stratification predicting CSM in mPCa patients. A newly identified patient subgroup with low-, and intermediate-risk of CSM might benefit more from RP. These results should be further validated and improved by ongoing prospective trials.

Bisphosphonates or RANK-ligand-inhibitors for men with prostate cancer and bone metastases: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Different bone-modifying agents like bisphosphonates and receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand (RANKL)-inhibitors are used as supportive treatment in men with prostate cancer and bone metastases to prevent skeletal-related events (SREs). SREs such as pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, surgery and radiotherapy to the bone, and hypercalcemia lead to morbidity, a poor performance status, and impaired quality of life. Efficacy and acceptability of the bone-targeted therapy is therefore of high relevance. Until now recommendations in guidelines on which bone-modifying agents should be used are rare and inconsistent.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of bisphosphonates and RANKL-inhibitors as supportive treatment for prostate cancer patients with bone metastases and to generate a clinically meaningful treatment ranking according to their safety and efficacy using network meta-analysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies by electronically searching the bibliographic databases Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase until 23 March 2020. We searched the Cochrane Library and various trial registries and screened abstracts of conference proceedings and reference lists of identified trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing different bisphosphonates and RANKL-inihibitors with each other or against no further treatment or placebo for men with prostate cancer and bone metastases. We included men with castration-restrictive and castration-sensitive prostate cancer and conducted subgroup analyses according to this criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We defined proportion of participants with pain response and the adverse events renal impairment and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) as the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were SREs in total and each separately (see above), mortality, quality of life, and further adverse events such as grade 3 to 4 adverse events, hypocalcemia, fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea. We conducted network meta-analysis and generated treatment rankings for all outcomes, except quality of life due to insufficient reporting on this outcome. We compiled ranking plots to compare single outcomes of efficacy against outcomes of acceptability of the bone-modifying agents. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-five trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Twenty-one trials could be considered in the quantitative analysis, of which six bisphosphonates (zoledronic acid, risedronate, pamidronate, alendronate, etidronate, or clodronate) were compared with each other, the RANKL-inhibitor denosumab, or no treatment/placebo. By conducting network meta-analysis we were able to compare all of these reported agents directly and/or indirectly within the network for each outcome. In the abstract only the comparisons of zoledronic acid and denosumab against the main comparator (no treatment/placebo) are described for outcomes that were predefined as most relevant and that also appear in the 'Summary of findings' table. Other results, as well as results of subgroup analyses regarding castration status of participants, are displayed in the Results section of the full text. Treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases the proportion of participants with pain response when compared to no treatment/placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 2.32; per 1000 participants 121 more (19 less to 349 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 1013 participants). For this outcome none of the trials reported results for the comparison with denosumab. The adverse event renal impairment probably occurs more often when treated with zoledronic acid compared to treatment/placebo (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.45; per 1000 participants 78 more (10 more to 180 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 6 trials including 1769 participants). Results for denosumab could not be included for this outcome, since zero events cannot be considered in the network meta-analysis, therefore it does not appear in the ranking. Treatment with denosumab results in increased occurrence of the adverse event ONJ (RR 3.45, 95% CI 1.06 to 11.24; per 1000 participants 30 more (1 more to 125 more); high-certainty evidence; 4 trials, 3006 participants) compared to no treatment/placebo. When comparing zoledronic acid to no treatment/placebo, the confidence intervals include the possibility of benefit or harm, therefore treatment with zoledronic acid probably neither reduces nor increases ONJ (RR 1.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 4.87; per 1000 participants 11 more (3 less to 47 more); moderate-certainty evidence; network based on 4 trials including 3006 participants). Compared to no treatment/placebo, treatment with zoledronic acid (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97) and denosumab (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96) may result in a reduction of the total number of SREs (per 1000 participants 75 fewer (131 fewer to 14 fewer) and 131 fewer (215 fewer to 19 fewer); both low-certainty evidence; 12 trials, 5240 participants). Treatment with zoledronic acid and denosumab likely neither reduces nor increases mortality when compared to no treatment/placebo (zoledronic acid RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; per 1000 participants 48 fewer (97 fewer to 5 more); denosumab RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11; per 1000 participants 34 fewer (111 fewer to 54 more); both moderate-certainty evidence; 13 trials, 5494 participants). Due to insufficient reporting, no network meta-analysis was possible for the outcome quality of life. One study with 1904 participants comparing zoledronic acid and denosumab showed that more zoledronic acid-treated participants than denosumab-treated participants experienced a greater than or equal to five-point decrease in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General total scores over a range of 18 months (average relative difference = 6.8%, range -9.4% to 14.6%) or worsening of cancer-related quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When considering bone-modifying agents as supportive treatment, one has to balance between efficacy and acceptability. Results suggest that Zoledronic acid likely increases both the proportion of participants with pain response, and the proportion of participants experiencing adverse events However, more trials with head-to-head comparisons including all potential agents are needed to draw the whole picture and proof the results of this analysis.

Inflammation as a Driver of Prostate Cancer Metastasis and Therapeutic Resistance

Simple Summary

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy in men, with a high mortality rate when disease progresses to metastasis and therapeutic resistance. Evidence implicates inflammation as a driver of prostate cancer risk and has a significant impact on processes in the tumor microenvironment that facilitate progression to advanced therapeutically resistant disease. In this review, we discuss the sources of inflammation in the prostate, the functional contribution of the critical inflammatory effectors to prostate cancer initiation and metastatic progression, and the therapeutic challenges that they impose on treatment of advanced disease and overcoming therapeutic resistance. Full understanding of the role of inflammation in prostate cancer progression to advanced metastatic disease and tumor relapse will aid in the development of personalized predictive biomarkers and therapy to reduce the burden and mortality in prostate cancer patients.

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy among men, and progression to metastasis and the emergence of therapeutically resistant disease confers a high mortality rate. Growing evidence implicates inflammation as a driver of prostate cancer development and progression, resulting in increased cancer risk for prostate cancer. Population-based studies revealed that the use of antinflammatory drugs led to a 23% risk reduction prostate cancer occurrence, a negative association that was stronger in men who specifically used COX-2 inhibitors. Furthermore, patients that were taking aspirin had a 21% reduction in prostate cancer risk, and further, long-term users of daily low dose aspirin had a 29% prostate cancer risk reduction as compared to the controls. Environmental exposure to bacterial and viral infections, exposure to mutagenic agents, and genetic variations predispose the prostate gland to inflammation, with a coordinated elevated expression of inflammatory cytokines (IL-6, TGF-β). It is the dynamics within the tumor microenvironment that empower these cytokines to promote survival and growth of the primary tumor and facilitate disease progression by navigating the immunoregulatory network, phenotypic epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), angiogenesis, anoikis resistance, and metastasis. In this review, we discuss the sources of inflammation in the prostate, the functional contribution of the critical inflammatory effectors to prostate cancer initiation and metastatic progression, and the therapeutic challenges that they impose on treatment of advanced disease and overcoming therapeutic resistance. Growing mechanistic evidence supports the significance of inflammation in localized prostate cancer, and the systemic impact of the process within the tumor microenvironment on disease progression to advanced therapeutically-resistant prostate cancer. Rigorous exploitation of the role of inflammation in prostate cancer progression to metastasis and therapeutic resistance will empower the development of precise biomarker signatures and effective targeted therapeutics to reduce the clinical burden and lethal disease in the future.

Application of Anti-Inflammatory Agents in Prostate Cancer

Chronic inflammation is a major cause of human cancers. The environmental factors, such as microbiome, dietary components, and obesity, provoke chronic inflammation in the prostate, which promotes cancer development and progression. Crosstalk between immune cells and cancer cells enhances the secretion of intercellular signaling molecules, such as cytokines and chemokines, thereby orchestrating the generation of inflammatory microenvironment. Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) play pivotal roles in inflammation-associated cancer by inhibiting effective anti-tumor immunity. Anti-inflammatory agents, such as aspirin, metformin, and statins, have potential application in chemoprevention of prostate cancer. Furthermore, pro-inflammatory immunity-targeted therapies may provide novel strategies to treat patients with cancer. Thus, anti-inflammatory agents are expected to suppress the “vicious cycle” created by immune and cancer cells and inhibit cancer progression. This review has explored the immune cells that facilitate prostate cancer development and progression, with particular focus on the application of anti-inflammatory agents for both chemoprevention and therapeutic approach in prostate cancer.

The adaptive designs CONSORT extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design

Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised.This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process.The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text.The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Trials journal websites."To maximise the benefit to society, you need to not just do research but do it well" Douglas G Altman.

The Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) statement: a checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design

Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised.This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process.The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text.The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits.

An overview of platform trials with a checklist for clinical readers

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to outline key considerations for general clinical readers when critically evaluating publications on platform trials and for researchers when designing these types of clinical trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

In this review, we describe key concepts of platform trials with case study discussion of two hallmark platform trials in STAMPEDE and I-SPY2. We provide reader's guide to platform trials with a critical appraisal checklist.

RESULTS

Platform trials offer flexibilities of dropping ineffective arms early based on interim data and introducing new arms into the trial. For platform trials, it is important to consider how interventions are compared and evaluated throughout and how new interventions are introduced. For intervention comparisons, it is important to consider what the primary analysis is, what and how many interventions are active simultaneously, and allocation between different arms. Interim evaluation considerations should include the number and timing of interim evaluations and outcomes and statistical rules used to drop interventions. New interventions are usually introduced based on scientific merits, so consideration of these merits is important, together with the timing and mechanisms in which new interventions are added.

CONCLUSION

More efforts are needed to improve the scientific literacy of platform trials. Our review provides an overview of the important concepts of platform trials.

Decreased biochemical progression in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer using a novel mefenamic acid anti-inflammatory therapy: A randomized controlled trial

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common non-dermatological cancer in men and is a growing public health problem. Castration-resistant disease (CRD) is the most advanced stage of the disease and is difficult to control. Patients with CRD may no longer accept conventional therapies as they are not in appropriate clinical conditions or they refuse to receive it. Given that inflammation is an essential component of CRD origin and progression, anti-inflammatory agents could be a therapeutic option with fenamates as one of the proposed choices. A prospective, randomized, double-blinded, 2-arm, parallel group, phase II-III clinical trial was performed involving 20 patients with CRD-PCa (with a prostate specific antigen level <100 ng/ml) that were undergoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and did not accept any established treatment for that disease stage. In addition to ADT, 10 patients received placebo and 10 received mefenamic acid (500 mg orally every 12 h) for 6 months. The primary endpoint was the change in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at 6 months. The PSA levels decreased significantly with mefenamic acid (an average 42% decrease), whereas there was an average 55% increase in the placebo group (P=0.024). In the patients treated with the placebo, 70% had biochemical disease progression (an increase of ≥25% in PSA levels), which did not occur in any of the patients treated with mefenamic acid (relative risk=0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.85; P=0.033). There was a significant increase in quality of life (EQ-5D-5L score) and body mass index (BMI) with the experimental treatment. In conclusion, mefenamic acid administration decreased biochemical progression in patients with castration resistant PCa, improved their quality of life and increased their BMI. Future studies are required in order to strengthen the findings of the present clinical trial. Trial registration, Cuban Public Registry of Clinical Trials Database RPCEC00000248, August 2017.

Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: Current Perspective on the Evolving Therapeutic Landscape

INTRODUCTION

The treatment landscape for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has changed dramatically in the past five years, despite little change in the preceding 20 years. Such rapid change can make it difficult for clinicians to remain abreast of the current literature and synthesize the relevant data to inform evidence-based treatment decisions.

METHODOLOGY

We performed a narrative, comprehensive review of treatment options for patients with mHSPC as of December 31, 2019. Specifically, we focused on phase II and III randomized controlled trials assessing the role of chemotherapy, novel androgen axis targeting agents, local-(prostate) directed therapy, and metastasis-directed therapy.

RESULTS

The data support a survival benefit with the addition of four different agents to androgen deprivation among men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer-docetaxel, abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide, and apalutamide. While not directly compared, the efficacy of these agents appears similar. That said, there are differences in their toxicity profiles and notable differences in cost between agents. Although analyses encompassing men with low- and high-volume metastases failed to demonstrate a significant survival benefit for radiotherapy treatment to the prostate, new data demonstrates a benefit for men with low-volume metastatic disease. Ongoing trials will assess whether this applies to local surgical treatment. Similarly, metastasis-directed therapy appears beneficial among carefully selected patients.

CONCLUSION

Treatment options for patients with mHSPC are rapidly changing following years of stagnation. A number of systemic therapies offer benefit without significant clinical differences between them. The role for local treatment of the prostate as well as metastatic sites continues to evolve.

Efficacy of three neuroprotective drugs in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (MS-SMART): a phase 2b, multiarm, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial

Background

Neurodegeneration is the pathological substrate that causes major disability in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. A synthesis of preclinical and clinical research identified three neuroprotective drugs acting on different axonal pathobiologies. We aimed to test the efficacy of these drugs in an efficient manner with respect to time, cost, and patient resource.

Methods

We did a phase 2b, multiarm, parallel group, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial at 13 clinical neuroscience centres in the UK. We recruited patients (aged 25–65 years) with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis who were not on disease-modifying treatment and who had an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 4·0–6·5. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) at baseline, by a research nurse using a centralised web-based service, to receive twice-daily oral treatment of either amiloride 5 mg, fluoxetine 20 mg, riluzole 50 mg, or placebo for 96 weeks. The randomisation procedure included minimisation based on sex, age, EDSS score at randomisation, and trial site. Capsules were identical in appearance to achieve masking. Patients, investigators, and MRI readers were unaware of treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was volumetric MRI percentage brain volume change (PBVC) from baseline to 96 weeks, analysed using multiple regression, adjusting for baseline normalised brain volume and minimisation criteria. The primary analysis was a complete-case analysis based on the intention-to-treat population (all patients with data at week 96). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01910259.

Findings

Between Jan 29, 2015, and June 22, 2016, 445 patients were randomly allocated amiloride (n=111), fluoxetine (n=111), riluzole (n=111), or placebo (n=112). The primary analysis included 393 patients who were allocated amiloride (n=99), fluoxetine (n=96), riluzole (n=99), and placebo (n=99). No difference was noted between any active treatment and placebo in PBVC (amiloride vs placebo, 0·0% [95% CI −0·4 to 0·5; p=0·99]; fluoxetine vs placebo −0·1% [–0·5 to 0·3; p=0·86]; riluzole vs placebo −0·1% [–0·6 to 0·3; p=0·77]). No emergent safety issues were reported. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and similar across study groups (ten [9%] patients in the amiloride group, seven [6%] in the fluoxetine group, 12 [11%] in the riluzole group, and 13 [12%] in the placebo group). The most common serious adverse events were infections and infestations. Three patients died during the study, from causes judged unrelated to active treatment; one patient assigned amiloride died from metastatic lung cancer, one patient assigned riluzole died from ischaemic heart disease and coronary artery thrombosis, and one patient assigned fluoxetine had a sudden death (primary cause) with multiple sclerosis and obesity listed as secondary causes.

Interpretation

The absence of evidence for neuroprotection in this adequately powered trial indicates that exclusively targeting these aspects of axonal pathobiology in patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis is insufficient to mitigate neuroaxonal loss. These findings argue for investigation of different mechanistic targets and future consideration of combination treatment trials. This trial provides a template for future simultaneous testing of multiple disease-modifying medicines in neurological medicine.

Funding

Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, an MRC and NIHR partnership, UK Multiple Sclerosis Society, and US National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

The future of clinical trials in urological oncology

Well-designed clinical trials in urological oncology help to guide treatment decisions and aid in counselling patients, ultimately serving to improve outcomes. Since the term evidence-based medicine was first used by Gordon Guyatt in 1991, a renewed emphasis on methodology, transparent trial design and study reporting has helped to improve clinical research and in turn, the landscape of medical literature. Novel clinical trial designs (including multi-arm, multistage trials, basket and umbrella studies and research from big data sources, such as electronic health records, administrative claims databases and quality monitoring registries) are well suited to advance innovation in urological oncology. Existing urological clinical trials are often limited by small numbers, are statistically underpowered and many face difficulties with accrual. Thus, efforts to improve trial design are of considerable importance. The development and use of standard outcome sets and adherence to reporting guidelines offer researchers the opportunity to guide value-oriented care, minimize research waste and efficiently identify solutions to the unanswered questions in urology cancer care.

Systematic review of basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials: a landscape analysis of master protocols

BACKGROUND

Master protocols, classified as basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials, are novel designs that investigate multiple hypotheses through concurrent sub-studies (e.g., multiple treatments or populations or that allow adding/removing arms during the trial), offering enhanced efficiency and a more ethical approach to trial evaluation. Despite the many advantages of these designs, they are infrequently used.

METHODS

We conducted a landscape analysis of master protocols using a systematic literature search to determine what trials have been conducted and proposed for an overall goal of improving the literacy in this emerging concept. On July 8, 2019, English-language studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases and hand searches of published reviews and registries.

RESULTS

We identified 83 master protocols (49 basket, 18 umbrella, and 16 platform trials). The number of master protocols has increased rapidly over the last five years. Most have been conducted in the US (n = 44/83) and investigated experimental drugs (n = 82/83) in the field of oncology (n = 76/83). The majority of basket trials were exploratory (i.e., phase I/II; n = 47/49) and not randomized (n = 44/49), and more than half (n = 28/48) investigated only a single intervention. The median sample size of basket trials was 205 participants (interquartile range, Q3-Q1 [IQR]: 500-90 = 410), and the median study duration was 22.3 (IQR: 74.1-42.9 = 31.1) months. Similar to basket trials, most umbrella trials were exploratory (n = 16/18), but the use of randomization was more common (n = 8/18). The median sample size of umbrella trials was 346 participants (IQR: 565-252 = 313), and the median study duration was 60.9 (IQR: 81.3-46.9 = 34.4) months. The median number of interventions investigated in umbrella trials was 5 (IQR: 6-4 = 2). The majority of platform trials were randomized (n = 15/16), and phase III investigation (n = 7/15; one did not report information on phase) was more common in platform trials with four of them using seamless II/III design. The median sample size was 892 (IQR: 1835-255 = 1580), and the median study duration was 58.9 (IQR: 101.3-36.9 = 64.4) months.

CONCLUSIONS

We anticipate that the number of master protocols will continue to increase at a rapid pace over the upcoming decades. More efforts to improve awareness and training are needed to apply these innovative trial design methods to fields outside of oncology.

Main Inflammatory Cells and Potentials of Anti-Inflammatory Agents in Prostate Cancer

Prostate cancer is the most common type of cancer and the leading cause of cancer deaths among men in many countries. Preventing progression is a major concern for prostate cancer patients on active surveillance, patients with recurrence after radical therapies, and patients who acquired resistance to systemic therapies. Inflammation, which is induced by various factors such as infection, microbiome, obesity, and a high-fat diet, is the major etiology in the development of prostate cancer. Inflammatory cells play important roles in tumor progression. Various immune cells including tumor-associated neutrophils, tumor-infiltrating macrophages, myeloid-derived suppressor cells, and mast cells promote prostate cancer via various intercellular signaling. Further basic studies examining the relationship between the inflammatory process and prostate cancer progression are warranted. Interventions by medications and diets to control systemic and/or local inflammation might be effective therapies for prostate cancer progression. Epidemiological investigations and basic research using human immune cells or mouse models have revealed that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, metformin, statins, soy isoflavones, and other diets are potential interventions for preventing progression of prostate cancer by suppressing inflammation. It is essential to evaluate appropriate indications and doses of each drug and diet.

Quality-of-Life Assessment and Reporting in Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review of Phase 3 Trials Testing Anticancer Drugs Published Between 2012 and 2018

Quality of life (QoL) is not included among the end points in many studies, and QoL results are underreported in many phase 3 oncology trials. We performed a systematic review to describe QoL prevalence and heterogeneity in QoL reporting in recently published prostate cancer phase 3 trials. A PubMed search was performed to identify primary publications of randomized phase 3 trials testing anticancer drugs in prostate cancer, issued between 2012 and 2018. We analyzed QoL inclusion among end points, presence of QoL results, and methodology of QoL analysis. Seventy-two publications were identified (15 early-stage, 20 advanced hormone-sensitive, and 37 castration-resistant prostate cancer [CRPC]). QoL was not listed among study end points in 23 studies (31.9%) (40.0% early stage, 40.0% advanced hormone sensitive, and 24.3% CRPC). QoL results were absent in 15 (30.6%) of 49 primary publications of trials that included QoL among end points. Overall, as a result of absent end point or unpublished results, QoL data were lacking in 38 (52.8%) primary publications (53.3% early stage, 55.0% in advanced hormone sensitive, and 51.4% in CRPC). The most commonly used QoL tools were Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) (21, 53.8%) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) (14, 35.9%); most common methods of analysis were mean changes or mean scores (28, 71.8%), time to deterioration (14, 35.9%), and proportion of patients with response (10, 25.6%). In conclusion, QoL data are lacking in a not negligible proportion of recently published phase 3 trials in prostate cancer, although the presence of QoL results is better in positive trials, especially in CRPC. The methodology of QoL analysis is heterogeneous for type of instruments, analysis, and presentation of results.

The Range and Scientific Value of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

The randomized, controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard of scientific evidence for the attribution of clinical effects (benefits and harms) to medical interventions. Many different designs for RCTs have been developed in order to counter legitimate critical objections and to better adapt the trials to the continually changing challenges that face clinical research.

METHODS

The diversity and adaptability of randomized trial designs are presented and discussed on the basis of a selective literature review and specific illustrative examples.

RESULTS

A wide range of RCT designs enables adaptation to special research tasks and clinical framework conditions. These include (among others) crossover trials, n=1 trials, factorial RCT designs, and cluster-randomized trials. In addition, adaptive designs such as modern platform trials and pragmatic RCTs with simplified clinical questions and less severely restricted patient groups make broad recruitment of patients possible even in routine clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

Only the randomized allocation of subjects to the treatment and control groups, which is the defining property of RCTs, can adequately ensure that traits of the subjects which might disturb or bias a comparison of two or more medical interventions, will be evenly distributed across groups, regardless of whether these traits are known or unknown. The methodological variants and further elaborations of the RCT that are discussed here will help protect patients by enabling the assessment of the benefits and harms of medical methods and products on the basis of robust evidence even in the present era of rapid innovation.

Elimination of CD4lowHLA-G+ T cells overcomes castration-resistance in prostate cancer therapy

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a main treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) but the disease often recurs and becomes castration-resistant in nearly all patients. Recent data implicate the involvement of immune cells in the development of this castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). In particular, T cells have been found to be expanded in both PCa patients and mouse models shortly after androgen deprivation. However, whether or which of the T cell subtypes play an important role during the development of CRPC is unknown. Here we identified a novel population of CD4^lowHLA-G⁺ T cells that undergo significant expansion in PCa patients after ADT. In mouse PCa models, a similar CD4^low T cell population expands during the early stages of CRPC onset. These cells are identified as IL-4-expressing T_H17 cells, and are shown to be associated with CRPC onset in patients and essential for the development of CRPC in mouse models. Mechanistically, CD4^lowHLA-G⁺ T cells drive androgen-independent growth of prostate cancer cells by modulating the activity and migration of CD11b^lowF4/80^hi macrophages. Furthermore, following androgen deprivation, elevated PGE₂-EP2 signaling inhibited the expression of CD4 in thymocytes, and subsequently induced the polarization of CD4^low naïve T cells towards the IL-4-expressing T_H17 phenotype via up-regulation of IL23R. Therapeutically, inactivating PGE₂ signaling with celecoxib at a time when CD4^lowHLA-G⁺ T cells appeared, but not immediately following androgen deprivation, dramatically suppressed the onset of CRPC. Collectively, our results indicate that an unusual population of CD4^lowHLA-G⁺ T cells is essential for the development of CRPC and point to a new therapeutic avenue of combining ADT with PGE₂ inhibition for the treatment of prostate cancer.

COX-2 mediates pro-tumorigenic effects of PKCε in prostate cancer

The pro-oncogenic kinase PKCε is overexpressed in human prostate cancer and cooperates with loss of the tumor suppressor Pten for the development of prostatic adenocarcinoma. However, the effectors driving PKCε-mediated phenotypes remain poorly defined. Here, using cellular and mouse models, we showed that PKCε overexpression acts synergistically with Pten loss to promote NF-κB activation and induce cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) expression, phenotypic traits which are also observed in human prostate tumors. Targeted disruption of PKCε from prostate cancer cells impaired COX-2 induction and PGE2 production. Notably, COX-2 inhibitors selectively killed prostate epithelial cells overexpressing PKCε, and this ability was greatly enhanced by Pten loss. Long-term COX-2 inhibition markedly reduced adenocarcinoma formation, as well as angiogenesis in a mouse model of prostate-specific PKCε expression and Pten loss. Overall, our results provide strong evidence for the involvement of the canonical NF-κB pathway and its target gene COX2 as PKCε effectors, and highlight the potential of PKCε as a useful biomarker for the use of COX inhibition for chemopreventive and/or chemotherapeutic purposes in prostate cancer.

Regular aspirin use and gene expression profiles in prostate cancer patients

PURPOSE

Pharmacoepidemiology studies suggest prognostic benefits of aspirin in prostate cancer. We hypothesized that aspirin induces transcriptional changes in tumors or normal prostate tissue.

METHODS

We analyzed the prostatic transcriptome from men diagnosed with prostate cancer during follow-up of the Physicians' Health Study 1 (PHS, n = 149), initially a randomized controlled trial of aspirin. Aspirin target genes were identified through systematic literature review and a drug target database. We compared target gene expression according to regular aspirin use at cancer diagnosis and used whole-transcriptome gene set enrichment analysis to identify gene sets associated with aspirin use. Results were validated in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS, n = 254) and in Connectivity Map.

RESULTS

Of 12 target genes identified from prior studies and 540 genes from the drug target database, none were associated with aspirin use. Twenty-one gene sets were enriched in tumor tissue of aspirin users, 18 of which were clustered around ribosome function and translation. These gene sets were associated with exposure to cyclooxygenase inhibitors in Connectivity Map. Their association with cancer prognosis was U-shaped in both cohorts. No gene sets were enriched in normal tissue. In HPFS, neither the target genes nor the gene sets were associated with aspirin use.

CONCLUSIONS

Regular aspirin use may affect ribosome function in prostate tumors. Other putative target genes had similar expression in tumors from aspirin users and non-users. If results are corroborated by experimental studies, a potential benefit of aspirin may be limited to a subset of prostate cancer patients.

Treatment in the STAMPEDE era for castrate resistant prostate cancer in the UK: ongoing challenges and underappreciated clinical problems

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to explore the opinions of healthcare professionals regarding the management of men with advanced prostate cancer with particular emphasis on treatment timing and sequencing; treatment adverse-effects and exercise a supportive therapy.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with a purposively selected group of healthcare professionals involved in prostate cancer care within the NHS, conducted over the phone or face to face. A total of 37 healthcare professionals participated in the interviews including urologists, clinical oncologists, medical oncologists, clinical nurse specialists, general practitioners, physiotherapists, exercise specialists, service managers, clinical commissioners and primary care physicians.

RESULTS

The availability of newer treatments for advanced prostate cancer as well as results from the STAMPEDE and CHAARTED trials has resulted in new challenges for patients and HCPs. This includes the impact of an increased workload on oncologists, a potential lack of clinical continuity between urology and oncology and uncertainties regarding optimal selection, timing and sequencing of chemotherapy and second-line treatment. Fitness for treatment in advanced prostate cancer populations remains a significant barrier to accessing therapies for patients with a poor performance status. Among this, muscle wastage can significantly affect performance status and consequentially compromise cancer therapy. Exercise was regarded as a potential therapy to mitigate the adverse-effects of treatment including the prevention or reduction in muscle wastage.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of data guiding clinicians in this post STAMPEDE and CHAARTED era, work is needed to reassess and optimize the prostate cancer care pathway as it evolves. Exercise should be explored as a therapeutic option to mitigate the effects of long term ADT. Further study from a wider cohort of both prostate cancer care specialists and patients will aid in establishing a highly functioning pathway with optimal individualised care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Sustained exercise TrAining for Men wIth prostate caNcer on Androgen deprivation: the STAMINA programme (RP-DG-1213-10,010). REC Reference: 15/SW/0260 IRAS Project ID: 178340 Hospital ID: STH 18391 approved on 24/08/2015.

The impact of celecoxib on outcomes in advanced prostate cancer patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy

Recent work suggests the selective Cox-2 inhibitor celecoxib delays progression to androgen independence in hormone sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC) through inhibition of the androgen receptor (AR) and ErbB signaling. However, human studies examining its effect on delaying disease progression while on hormone therapy are limited. This study explores the effect of celecoxib use on PC survival in VA patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for advanced PC. We retrospectively examined the association between celecoxib use (defined as duration of medication use ≥180 days) in men with PC being treated with ADT in national VA databases. Patients were diagnosed with PC from 2000-2008 and had follow-up through May 2016. Clinical, pathologic and demographic variables were compared by celecoxib use, using Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-squared tests. Associations between celecoxib use and overall survival (OS), skeletal related events (SRE), and cancer specific survival (CSS) were performed using adjusted Cox proportional hazard models. Overall, 87,344 patients with PC on ADT were identified. Patients on celecoxib (n=1,581) had lower PSA levels at both diagnosis (7.0 versus 8.7 ng/mL, P<0.001) and initiation of ADT (6.2 versus 7.3 ng/mL, P=0.002) compared to patients not taking celecoxib (n=85,763). Gleason score (P=0.14), death from PC (P=0.07), and number of SREs (P=0.18) were similar between groups. In the Cox multivariable analysis, celecoxib use was not associated with improved OS (hazard ratio, HR, 1.06, 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.93-1.21, P=0.38), risk of SRE (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.62-1.44, P=0.80), or improved CSS (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78-1.28, P=0.98). Despite an association with lower PSA levels, celecoxib use in PC patients on ADT was not associated with improved cancer outcomes.

High-Fat Diet-Induced Inflammation Accelerates Prostate Cancer Growth via IL6 Signaling

Purpose: High-fat diet (HFD) could induce prostate cancer progression. The aim of this study is to identify mechanisms of HFD-induced prostate cancer progression, focusing on inflammation.Experimental Design: We administered HFD and celecoxib to autochthonous immunocompetent Pb-Cre⁺;Pten(fl/fl) model mice for prostate cancer. Tumor growth was evaluated by tumor weight and Ki67 stain, and local immune cells were assessed by flow cytometry at 22 weeks of age. Cytokines which correlated with tumor growth were identified, and the changes of tumor growth and local immune cells after inhibition of the cytokine signals were evaluated in the mice. IHC analyses using prostatectomy specimens of obese patients were performed.Results: HFD accelerated tumor growth and increased the myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) fraction and M2/M1 macrophage ratio in the model mice. Celecoxib-suppressed tumor growth, and decreased both local MDSCs and M2/M1 macrophage ratio in HFD-fed mice. HFD-induced tumor growth was associated with IL6 secreted by prostatic macrophages, as were phosphorylated STAT3 (pSTAT3)-positive tumor cells. Anti-IL6 receptor antibody administration suppressed tumor growth, and decreased local MDSCs and pSTAT3-positive cell fractions in HFD-fed mice. The tumor-infiltrating CD11b-positive cell count was significantly higher in prostatectomy specimens of obese than those of nonobese patients with prostate cancer.Conclusions: HFD increased MDSCs and accelerated prostate cancer tumor growth via IL6/pSTAT3 signaling in the mice. This mechanism could exist in obese patients with prostate cancer. IL6-mediated inflammation could be a therapeutic target for prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 24(17); 4309-18. ©2018 AACR.

The role of vitamin E in the prevention of zoledronic acid-induced nephrotoxicity in rats: a light and electron microscopy study

INTRODUCTION

Bisphosphonates are widely used in metastatic cancer such as prostate and breast cancer, and their nephrotoxic effects have been established previously. In this study we aimed to evaluate both the nephrotoxic effects of zoledronic acid (ZA) and the protective effects of vitamin E (Vit-E) on this process under light and electron microscopy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 30 male Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into 3 groups. The first group constituted the control group. The second group was given i.v. ZA of 3 mg/kg once every 3 weeks for 12 weeks from the tail vein. The third group received the same dosage of ZA with an additional i.m. injection of 15 mg Vit-E every week for 12 weeks. Tissues were taken 4 days after the last dose of ZA for histopathological and ultrastructural evaluation. Paller score, tubular epithelial thickness and basal membrane thickness were calculated for each group.

RESULTS

For group 2, the p-values are all < 0.001 for Paller score, epitelial thickness, and basal membrane thickness. For group 3 (ZA + Vit. E), the p-values are < 0.001 for Paller score, 0.996 for epitelial thickness, and < 0.001 basal membrane thickness. Significant differences were also observed in ultrastructural changes for group 2. However, adding Vit-E to ZA administration reversed all the histopathological changes to some degree, with statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of ZA had nephrotoxic effects on rat kidney observed under both light and electron microscopy. Concomitant administration of Vit-E significantly reduces toxic histopathological effects of ZA.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment in high-risk prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

High-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa) represents a heterogeneous disease with potential risk for local and distant progression. In these patients, a multi-modal approach consisting of neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant systemic therapies has been proposed. The aim of this review is to summarize the emerging roles of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies in HRPCa patients. Areas covered: This review collects the most relevant phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the effect of neoadjuvant and adjuvant systemic therapies in combination with radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RT) for HRPCa patients. Specifically, the review examines the benefit provided by androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), chemotherapy (CHT), and novel antiandrogen agents in this setting. A search of bibliographic databases for peer-reviewed literature was conducted. Expert commentary: Three decades of RCTs demonstrated that adjuvant ADT is fundamental in HRPCa treated with RT. Conversely, ADT and CHT did not improve the survival of HRPCa patients managed with RP. The recent introduction of novel antiandrogen agents combined with an appropriated selection of patients at risk of cancer progression, may ultimately extend the indication of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy in surgical- and radio-treated patients.

The oncologic results of cryoablation in prostate cancer patients with bone metastases

OBJECTIVE

To explore the role of whole gland cryoablation plus ADT in prostate cancer (PCa) with bone metastases compared with ADT treatment alone in metastatic PCa.

METHODS

A total of 30 patients with biopsy-proven PCa with bone metastases underwent cryoablation and ADT treatment. The control group consisted of 30 men who were initially treated with ADT only and who were followed until progression, development of castration resistant PCa or death. Patients were pair matched for age, PSA level, clinical stage, preoperative biopsy Gleason score and bone metastases. Time to clinical progression, time to CRPC, cancer-specific survival and overall survival were analysed using descriptive statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Age at diagnosis, baseline PSA, biopsy Gleason score and ECOG status were comparable between the two groups. Prostate cryoablation was well tolerated and no serious complications occurred. At the last follow-up, patients in the cryoablation and ADT treatment group had a lower median PSA nadir (0.4 ng/ml vs. 0.8 ng/ml, p < 0.01) and longer time to CRPC (33 ± 0.9 mo vs. 22 ± 0.8 mo, p < 0.01). Further analyses detected the statistically significant benefits of cryoablation treatment not only in PFS (41 ± 1.4 mo vs. 22 ± 0.8 mo, p < 0.01), but also in CSS (52 ± 1.9 mo vs. 32 ± 2.4 mo, p ± 0.01) and OS (41 ± 1.5 mo vs. 28 ± 1.7 mo, p < 0.01). Moreover, there were fewer palliative procedures for local progression in the cryoablation group than the controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Cryoablation plus ADT might be a treatment option in the multimodality management of metastatic prostate cancer. Further investigations are warranted.

Testing many treatments within a single protocol over 10 years at MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL: Multi-arm, multi-stage platform, umbrella and basket protocols

There is real need to change how we do some of our clinical trials, as currently the testing and development process is too slow, too costly and too failure-prone often we find that a new treatment is no better than the current standard. Much of the focus on the development and testing pathway has been in improving the design of phase I and II trials. In this article, we present examples of new methods for improving the design of phase III trials (and the necessary lead up to them) as they are the most time-consuming and expensive part of the pathway. Key to all these methods is the aim to test many treatments and/or pose many therapeutic questions within one protocol.

Abiraterone for Prostate Cancer Not Previously Treated with Hormone Therapy

BACKGROUND

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone improves survival in men with relapsed prostate cancer. We assessed the effect of this combination in men starting long-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), using a multigroup, multistage trial design.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive ADT alone or ADT plus abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and prednisolone (5 mg daily) (combination therapy). Local radiotherapy was mandated for patients with node-negative, nonmetastatic disease and encouraged for those with positive nodes. For patients with nonmetastatic disease with no radiotherapy planned and for patients with metastatic disease, treatment continued until radiologic, clinical, or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression; otherwise, treatment was to continue for 2 years or until any type of progression, whichever came first. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. The intermediate primary outcome was failure-free survival (treatment failure was defined as radiologic, clinical, or PSA progression or death from prostate cancer).

RESULTS

A total of 1917 patients underwent randomization from November 2011 through January 2014. The median age was 67 years, and the median PSA level was 53 ng per milliliter. A total of 52% of the patients had metastatic disease, 20% had node-positive or node-indeterminate nonmetastatic disease, and 28% had node-negative, nonmetastatic disease; 95% had newly diagnosed disease. The median follow-up was 40 months. There were 184 deaths in the combination group as compared with 262 in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.76; P<0.001); the hazard ratio was 0.75 in patients with nonmetastatic disease and 0.61 in those with metastatic disease. There were 248 treatment-failure events in the combination group as compared with 535 in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.34; P<0.001); the hazard ratio was 0.21 in patients with nonmetastatic disease and 0.31 in those with metastatic disease. Grade 3 to 5 adverse events occurred in 47% of the patients in the combination group (with nine grade 5 events) and in 33% of the patients in the ADT-alone group (with three grade 5 events).

CONCLUSIONS

Among men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer, ADT plus abiraterone and prednisolone was associated with significantly higher rates of overall and failure-free survival than ADT alone. (Funded by Cancer Research U.K. and others; STAMPEDE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00268476 , and Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN78818544 .).

Adding Celecoxib With or Without Zoledronic Acid for Hormone-Naïve Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Survival Results From an Adaptive, Multiarm, Multistage, Platform, Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose Systemic Therapy for Advanced or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy is a randomized controlled trial using a multiarm, multistage, platform design. It recruits men with high-risk, locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer who were initiating long-term hormone therapy. We report survival data for two celecoxib (Cel)-containing comparisons, which stopped accrual early at interim analysis on the basis of failure-free survival. Patients and Methods Standard of care (SOC) was hormone therapy continuously (metastatic) or for ≥ 2 years (nonmetastatic); prostate (± pelvic node) radiotherapy was encouraged for men without metastases. Cel 400 mg was administered twice a day for 1 year. Zoledronic acid (ZA) 4 mg was administered for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly for 2 years. Stratified random assignment allocated patients 2:1:1 to SOC (control), SOC + Cel, or SOC + ZA + Cel. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality. Results were analyzed with Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models adjusted for stratification factors. Results A total of 1,245 men were randomly assigned (Oct 2005 to April 2011). Groups were balanced: median age, 65 years; 61% metastatic, 14% N+/X M0, 25% N0M0; 94% newly diagnosed; median prostate-specific antigen, 66 ng/mL. Median follow-up was 69 months. Grade 3 to 5 adverse events were seen in 36% SOC-only, 33% SOC + Cel, and 32% SOC + ZA + Cel patients. There were 303 control arm deaths (83% prostate cancer), and median survival was 66 months. Compared with SOC, the adjusted hazard ratio was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.80 to 1.20; P = .847; median survival, 70 months) for SOC + Cel and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.05; P =.130; median survival, 76 months) for SOC + ZA + Cel. Preplanned subgroup analyses in men with metastatic disease showed a hazard ratio of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.62 to 0.98; P = .033) for SOC + ZA + Cel. Conclusion These data show no overall evidence of improved survival with Cel. Preplanned subgroup analyses provide hypotheses for future studies.

Inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2-mediated matriptase activation contributes to the suppression of prostate cancer cell motility and metastasis

Chronic inflammation plays an important role in cancer development and progression. Cyclooxygenases-2 (COX-2) is a key enzyme in generating prostaglandins causing inflammation, is often found to be overexpressed in prostate cancer (PCa) and is correlated with PCa cell invasion and metastasis. We aim to investigate the molecular mechanism of how COX-2 promotes PCa cell invasion and metastasis and to evaluate the effect of COX-2 inhibitors in a selected model of PCa progression. Our results showed that the expression of COX-2 and Interleukin 1β (IL-1β) was upregulated in highly invasive PCa cells and was correlated with the activated levels of membrane-anchored serine protease matriptase. The expression levels of COX-2 were increased and were correlated with matriptase levels in PCa specimens. Moreover, results showed that COX-2 overexpression or a COX-2 product Prostaglandin E₂ (PGE₂) caused an increase in matriptase activation and PCa cell invasion, whereas COX-2 silencing antagonized matriptase activation and cell invasion. In addition, the inhibition of COX-2-mediated matriptase activation by Celebrex and sulindac sulfide suppressed the androgen-independent and COX2-overexpressing PCa PC-3 cell invasion, tumor growth and lung metastasis in an orthotopic xenograft model. Our results indicate that COX-2/matriptase signaling contributes to the invasion, tumor growth and metastasis of COX-2-overexpressing and androgen-independent PCa cells.

Local Therapy Improves Survival in Metastatic Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatment of the primary, termed local therapy (LT), may improve survival in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) versus no local therapy (NLT).

OBJECTIVE

To assess cancer-specific mortality (CSM) after LT versus NLT in mPCa.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (2004-2013), 13 692 mPCa patients were treated with LT (radical prostatectomy [RP] or radiation therapy [RT]) or NLT.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Multivariable competing risk regression analyses (MVA CRR) tested CSM after propensity score matching (PSM) in two analyses, (1) NLT versus LT and (2) RP versus RT, and were complemented with interaction, sensitivity, unmeasured confounder, and landmark analyses.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Of 13 692 mPCa patients, 474 received LT: 313 underwent RP and 161 RT. In MVA CRR, after PSM, LT (n=474) results in lower CSM (subhazard ratio [SHR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-0.50) versus NLT (n=1896). In MVA CRR after PSM, RP (n=161) results in lower CSM (SHR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35-0.99) versus RT (n=161). Invariably, lowest CSM rates were recorded for Gleason ≤7, ≤cT3, and M1a substage. Interaction and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of results, and landmark analyses rejected the bias favouring LT. A strong unmeasured confounder (HR=5), affecting 30% of NLT patients, could obliterate LT benefit. Data were retrospective.

CONCLUSIONS

In mPCa, LT results in lower mortality relative to NLT. Within LT, lower mortality is recorded after RP than RT. Patients with most favourable grade, local stage, and metastatic substage derive most benefit from LT. They also derive most benefit from RP, when LT types are compared (RP vs RT). It is important to consider study limitations until ongoing clinical trials confirm the proposed benefits.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Individuals with prostate cancer that spreads outside of the prostate might still benefit from prostate-directed treatments, such as radiation or surgery, in addition to receiving androgen deprivation therapy.

Assessment of a prognostic model, PSA metrics and toxicities in metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer using data from Project Data Sphere (PDS)

Background

Prognostic models in metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) may have clinical utility. Using data from PDS, we aimed to 1) validate a contemporary prognostic model (Templeton et al., 2014) 2) evaluate prognostic impact of concomitant medications and PSA decrease 3) evaluate factors associated with docetaxel toxicity.

Methods

We accessed data on 2,449 mCRPC patients in PDS. The existing model was validated with a continuous risk score, time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and corresponding time-dependent Area under the Curve (tAUC). The prognostic effects of concomitant medications and PSA response were assessed by Cox proportional hazards models. One year tAUC was calculated for multivariable prognostic model optimized to our data. Conditional logistic regression models were used to assess associations with grade 3/4 adverse events (G3/4 AE) at baseline and after cycle 1 of treatment.

Results

Despite limitations of the PDS data set, the existing model was validated; one year AUC, was 0.68 (95% CI 95% CI, .66 to .71) to 0.78 (95%CI, .74 to .81) depending on the subset of datasets used. A new model was constructed with an AUC of .74 (.72 to .77). Concomitant medications low molecular weight heparin and warfarin were associated with poorer survival, Metformin and Cox2 inhibitors were associated with better outcome. PSA response was associated with survival, the effect of which was greatest early in follow-up. Age was associated with baseline risk of G3/4 AE. The odds of experiencing G3/4 AE later on in treatment were significantly greater for subjects who experienced a G3/4 AE in their first cycle (OR 3.53, 95% CI 2.53–4.91, p < .0001).

Conclusion

Despite heterogeneous data collection protocols, PDS provides access to large datasets for novel outcomes analysis. In this paper, we demonstrate its utility for validating existing models and novel model generation including the utility of concomitant medications in outcome analyses, as well as the effect of PSA response on survival and toxicity prediction.