Timing of Radiotherapy (RT) After Radical Prostatectomy (RP): Long-term outcomes in the RADICALS-RT trial [NCT00541047]

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of radiotherapy (RT) after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer has been uncertain. RADICALS-RT compared efficacy and safety of adjuvant RT versus an observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure.

METHODS

RADICALS-RT was a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with ≥1 risk factor (pT3/4, Gleason 7-10, positive margins, pre-op PSA≥10ng/ml) for recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Patients were randomised 1:1 to adjuvant RT ("Adjuvant-RT") or an observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure ("Salvage-RT") defined as PSA≥0.1ng/ml or 3 consecutive rises. Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned RT schedule (52.5Gy/20 fractions or 66Gy/33 fractions) and treatment centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom-from-distant metastasis, designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with Salvage-RT (control) to 95% at 10yr with Adjuvant-RT. Secondary outcome measures were bPFS, freedom-from-non-protocol hormone therapy, safety and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used; HR<1 favours Adjuvant-RT.

FINDINGS

Between Oct-2007 and Dec-2016, 1396 participants from UK, Denmark, Canada and Ireland were randomised: 699 Salvage-RT, 697 Adjuvant-RT. Allocated groups were balanced with median age 65yr. 93% (649/697) Adjuvant-RT reported RT within 6m after randomisation; 39% (270/699) Salvage-RT reported RT during follow-up. Median follow-up was 7.8 years. With 80 distant metastasis events, 10yr FFDM was 93% for Adjuvant-RT and 90% for Salvage-RT: HR=0.68 (95%CI 0·43-1·07, p=0·095). Of 109 deaths, 17 were due to prostate cancer. Overall survival was not improved (HR=0.980, 95%CI 0.667-1.440, p=0.917). Adjuvant-RT reported worse urinary and faecal incontinence one year after randomisation (p=0.001); faecal incontinence remained significant after ten years (p=0.017).

INTERPRETATION

Long-term results from RADICALS-RT confirm adjuvant RT after radical prostatectomy increases the risk of urinary and bowel morbidity, but does not meaningfully improve disease control. An observation policy with salvage RT for PSA failure should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy.

Randomised Phase II Feasibility Trial of Image-guided External Beam Radiotherapy With or Without High Dose Rate Brachytherapy Boost in Men with Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer (CCTG PR15/ NCT01982786)

AIMS

We conducted a multicentre feasibility study to assess the ability to randomise patients between image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) and IGRT + high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy boost and to adhere to appropriate radiation quality assurance standards.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The primary end point was to determine the ability to randomise 60 patients over an 18 month period. Arm 1 (IGRT) patients received 78 Gy in 39 fractions or 60 Gy in 20 fractions (physician's preference), whereas arm 2 (IGRT + HDR) received 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions with HDR boost of 15 Gy. The secondary end points included >grade 3 acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0 at 3 months, validation of a prospectively defined radiation oncology quality assurance to assess treatment compliance. All analyses were descriptive; no formal comparisons between treatment arms were carried out.

RESULTS

Between April 2014 and September 2015, 57 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-defined intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients were randomised between IGRT alone (arm 1; n = 29) and IGRT plus HDR brachytherapy boost (arm 2; n = 28). Overall, 93% received the treatment as randomised. There were four patients (one on IGRT arm 1 and three patients on the IGRT + HDR arm 2) who were treated differently from randomisation assignment. For the 29 patients receiving IGRT (arm 1), there were 14 cases reported with minor deviations and three with major deviations. For patients on IGRT + HDR (arm 2), there were 18 cases reported with minor deviations and two with major deviations. At 3 months in the IGRT group (arm 1), one patient reported grade 3 diarrhoea, whereas in the IGRT + HDR group (arm 2), two patients reported grade 3 haematuria. No other gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities were reported.

CONCLUSION

The pilot study showed the feasibility of randomisation between treatment with IGRT alone versus IGRT + HDR boost. Treatment compliance was good, including adherence to quality assurance standards.

OV21/PETROC: a randomized Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup phase II study of intraperitoneal versus intravenous chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and optimal debulking surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer

Background

The purpose of this multistage, adaptively, designed randomized phase II study was to evaluate the role of intraperitoneal (i.p.) chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and optimal debulking surgery in women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

Patients and methods

We carried out a multicenter, two-stage, phase II trial. Eligible patients with stage IIB-IVA EOC treated with platinum-based intravenous (i.v.) NACT followed by optimal (<1 cm) debulking surgery were randomized to one of the three treatment arms: (i) i.v. carboplatin/paclitaxel, (ii) i.p. cisplatin plus i.v./i.p. paclitaxel, or (iii) i.p. carboplatin plus i.v./i.p. paclitaxel. The primary end point was 9-month progressive disease rate (PD9). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL).

Results

Between 2009 and 2015, 275 patients were randomized; i.p. cisplatin containing arm did not progress beyond the first stage of the study after failing to meet the pre-set superiority rule. The final analysis compared i.v. carboplatin/paclitaxel (n = 101) with i.p. carboplatin, i.v./i.p. paclitaxel (n = 102). The intention to treat PD9 was lower in the i.p. carboplatin arm compared with the i.v. carboplatin arm: 24.5% (95% CI 16.2% to 32.9%) versus 38.6% (95% CI 29.1% to 48.1%) P = 0.065. The study was underpowered to detect differences in PFS: HR PFS 0.82 (95% CI 0.57-1.17); P = 0.27 and OS HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.47-1.35) P = 0.40. The i.p. carboplatin-based regimen was well tolerated with no reduction in QOL or increase in toxicity compared with i.v. administration alone.

Conclusion

In women with stage IIIC or IVA EOC treated with NACT and optimal debulking surgery, i.p. carboplatin-based chemotherapy is well tolerated and associated with an improved PD9 compared with i.v. carboplatin-based chemotherapy.

Clinical trial number

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01622543.

OV21/PETROC: a randomized Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup phase II study of intraperitoneal versus intravenous chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and optimal debulking surgery in epithelial ovarian cancer

Background

The purpose of this multistage, adaptively, designed randomized phase II study was to evaluate the role of intraperitoneal (i.p.) chemotherapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and optimal debulking surgery in women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

Patients and methods

We carried out a multicenter, two-stage, phase II trial. Eligible patients with stage IIB-IVA EOC treated with platinum-based intravenous (i.v.) NACT followed by optimal (<1 cm) debulking surgery were randomized to one of the three treatment arms: (i) i.v. carboplatin/paclitaxel, (ii) i.p. cisplatin plus i.v./i.p. paclitaxel, or (iii) i.p. carboplatin plus i.v./i.p. paclitaxel. The primary end point was 9-month progressive disease rate (PD9). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and quality of life (QOL).

Results

Between 2009 and 2015, 275 patients were randomized; i.p. cisplatin containing arm did not progress beyond the first stage of the study after failing to meet the pre-set superiority rule. The final analysis compared i.v. carboplatin/paclitaxel (n = 101) with i.p. carboplatin, i.v./i.p. paclitaxel (n = 102). The intention to treat PD9 was lower in the i.p. carboplatin arm compared with the i.v. carboplatin arm: 24.5% (95% CI 16.2% to 32.9%) versus 38.6% (95% CI 29.1% to 48.1%) P = 0.065. The study was underpowered to detect differences in PFS: HR PFS 0.82 (95% CI 0.57-1.17); P = 0.27 and OS HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.47-1.35) P = 0.40. The i.p. carboplatin-based regimen was well tolerated with no reduction in QOL or increase in toxicity compared with i.v. administration alone.

Conclusion

In women with stage IIIC or IVA EOC treated with NACT and optimal debulking surgery, i.p. carboplatin-based chemotherapy is well tolerated and associated with an improved PD9 compared with i.v. carboplatin-based chemotherapy.

Clinical trial number

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01622543.

Impact of baseline BMI and weight change in CCTG adjuvant breast cancer trials

Background

We hypothesized that increased baseline BMI and BMI change would negatively impact clinical outcomes with adjuvant breast cancer systemic therapy.

Methods

Data from chemotherapy trials MA.5 and MA.21; endocrine therapy MA.12, MA.14 and MA.27; and trastuzumab HERA/MA.24 were analyzed. The primary objective was to examine the effect of BMI change on breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) landmarked at 5 years; secondary objectives included BMI changes at 1 and 3 years; BMI changes on disease-specific survival (DSS) and overall survival (OS); and effects of baseline BMI. Stratified analyses included trial therapy and composite trial stratification factors.

Results

In pre-/peri-/early post-menopausal chemotherapy trials (N = 2793), baseline BMI did not impact any endpoint and increased BMI from baseline did not significantly affect BCFI (P = 0.85) after 5 years although it was associated with worse BCFI (P = 0.03) and DSS (P = 0.07) after 1 year. BMI increase by 3 and 5 years was associated with better DSS (P = 0.01; 0.01) and OS (P = 0.003; 0.05). In pre-menopausal endocrine therapy trial MA.12 (N = 672), patients with higher baseline BMI had worse BCFI (P = 0.02) after 1 year, worse DSS (P = 0.05; 0.004) after 1 and 5 years and worse OS (P = 0.01) after 5 years. Increased BMI did not impact BCFI (P = 0.90) after 5 years, although it was associated with worse BCFI (P = 0.01) after 1 year. In post-menopausal endocrine therapy trials MA.14 and MA.27 (N = 8236), baseline BMI did not significantly impact outcome for any endpoint. BMI change did not impact BCFI or DSS after 1 or 3 years, although a mean increased BMI of 0.3 was associated with better OS (P = 0.02) after 1 year. With the administration of trastuzumab (N = 1395) baseline BMI and BMI change did not significantly impact outcomes.

Conclusions

Higher baseline BMI and BMI increases negatively affected outcomes only in pre-/peri-/early post-menopausal trial patients. Otherwise, BMI increases similar to those expected in healthy women either did not impact outcome or were associated with better outcomes.

Clinical Trials numbers

CAN-NCIC-MA5; National Cancer Institute (NCI)-V90-0027; MA.12-NCT00002542; MA.14-NCT00002864; MA.21-NCT00014222; HERA, NCT00045032;CAN-NCIC-MA24; MA-27-NCT00066573.

Outcomes in women with invasive ductal or invasive lobular early stage breast cancer treated with anastrozole or exemestane in CCTG (NCIC CTG) MA.27

BACKGROUND

Histological subtype, (invasive ductal breast cancer (IDBC)/invasive lobular breast cancer (ILBC)), might be a marker for differential response to endocrine therapy in breast cancer.

METHODS

Clinical trial MA.27 compared 5 years of adjuvant anastrozole or exemestane in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor positive early breast cancer. We evaluated IDBC versus ILBC (based on original pathology reports) as predictor for event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

A total of 5709 patients (5021 with IDBC and 688 with ILBC) were included (1876 were excluded because of missing or other histological subtype). Median follow-up was 4.1 years. Overall, histological subtype did not influence OS or EFS (HR (hazard ratio) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.79-1.63], P = 0.49 and HR 1.04, 95% CI [0.77-1.41], P = 0.81, respectively). There was no significant difference in OS between treatment with exemestane versus treatment with anastrozole in the IDBC group (HR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.73-1.16], P = 0.46). In the ILBC group, a marginally significant difference in favour of treatment with anastrozole was seen (HR = 1.79, 95% CI [0.98-3.27], P = 0.055). In multivariable analysis a prognostic effect of the interaction between treatment and histological subtype on OS (but not on EFS) was noted, suggesting a better outcome for patients with ILBC on anastrozole (HR 2.1, 95% CI [0.99-4.29], P = 0.05). After stepwise selection in the multivariable model, a marginally significant prognostic effect for the interaction variable (treatment with histological subtype) on OS (but not on EFS) was noted (Ratio of HR 2.1, 95% CI [1.00-4.31], P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest an interaction effect between treatment and histology (P = 0.05) on OS. Here, patients with ILBC cancers had a better OS when treated with anastrozole versus exemestane, whereas no difference was noted for patients with IDBC.

CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION

NCT00066573.

Abstract P1-09-08: Predictive effect of cytotoxic tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: A correlative study with CCTG MA.31

Background and Objectives: The presence of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), particularly CD8+ cytotoxic T-cells, has been associated with improved prognosis in patients with HER2+ breast cancer. Increasing levels of TILs also appear to predict response to adjuvant trastuzumab in early breast cancer, although they did not predict benefit of combined trastuzumab-lapatinib neoadjuvant dual therapy over monotherapy in NeoALLTO. CCTG MA.31 randomized 652 women with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer to treatment with trastuzumab (T) vs. lapatinib (L), in combination with taxane (Tax) chemotherapy for 24 weeks, followed by the same HER2-targeted monotherapy. Final results from MA.31 found trastuzumab was superior to lapatinib for the primary endpoint of progression free survival (PFS): the hazard ratio (HR) for lapatinib to trastuzumab was 1.37 (95% CI, 1.13-1.65). Although both agents block HER2 signaling, trastuzumab has additional mechanisms of action via the immune system. We hypothesized that TIL levels may predict response to HER2-targeted therapy (trastuzumab vs. lapatinib).

Methods: MA.31 included HER2+ metastatic breast cancer patients, median age 55 years, and median follow-up 21.5 months. Overall TILs were counted per published guidelines on the original H&E stained sections used for pathology review at study entry. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed on unstained sections from tissue microarrays or individual formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded blocks to test expression of lymphocyte biomarkers CD8, FOXP3, CD56 and PD-1 on stromal and intra-tumoral TILs (sTILs, iTILs). Statistical analysis was conducted by CCTG for a total of 9 prespecified biomarker tests. Associations of TILs with PFS were evaluated by univariate stratified log-rank test with graphical Kaplan-Meier curves, and by stratified multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Predictive effect was examined with a test of interaction between treatment allocation and biomarker classification (high vs. low, using pre-established cutpoints).

Results: Of the 652 cases, 614 had slides for overall TIL assessment and 427 for IHC biomarker assessments. In this correlative study set, superiority of trastuzumab over lapatinib for PFS was confirmed in multivariate analysis (LTax/T vs. TTax/L: HR = 2.55, 95% CI = 1.43-4.55, p = 0.001). TIL counts by H&E were neither prognostic nor predictive in this set of metastatic HER2+ breast cancers. Lymphocyte IHC markers were not prognostic. However, prespecified stratified univariate analysis detected a significantly higher risk for lapatinib over trastuzumab (HR = 2.94, 95% CI = 1.40-6.17, p = 0.003) in patients with low CD8+ sTIL (&lt; 3) than was observed among those with high CD8+ sTIL (HR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.05-1.75, p = 0.019). This differential effect was confirmed in multivariate analysis (interaction test p = 0.042). The other tested biomarkers did not demonstrate significant predictive effects.

Conclusions: In this correlative study of metastatic HER2+ breast cancer, a low level of pre-existing stromal cytotoxic T cell infiltration predicts women who benefit most from trastuzumab over lapatinib. Overall TIL counts were neither prognostic nor predictive.

Citation Format: Liu S, Chen B, Burugu S, Leung S, Gao D, Virk S, Kos Z, Parulekar WR, Shepherd L, Gelmon K, Nielsen TO. Predictive effect of cytotoxic tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: A correlative study with CCTG MA.31 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-09-08.

Assessing the benefit-risk of new treatments using generalised pairwise comparisons: the case of erlotinib in pancreatic cancer

Background:

Efficacy and safety are the two considerations when characterising the effects of a new therapy. We sought to apply an innovative method of assessing the benefit–risk balance using data from a completed randomised controlled trial that compared erlotinib vs placebo added to gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (NCIC CTG PA.3).

Methods:

We applied generalised pairwise comparisons with several prioritised outcome measures (e.g., one or more benefit outcomes and one or more risk outcomes). Here, the first priority outcome was overall survival (OS) time. Differences in OS that exceeded 2 months were considered clinically meaningful. The second priority outcome was toxicity. The overall treatment effect was quantified using the proportion in favour of erlotinib, which can be interpreted as the net proportion of patients who have a better overall outcome with erlotinib as compared with placebo. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

In this trial 569 patients were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive gemcitabine plus either erlotinib or a matched placebo. Overall, the method indicated no statistically significant overall treatment effect in favour of erlotinib; if anything, the point estimate of the net proportion leaned in favour of the placebo group (overall proportion in favour of erlotinib=−3.6%, 95% CI, −14.2– 7.1% P=0.51). The net proportion was never in favour of the erlotinib group throughout all sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions:

Generalised pairwise comparisons make it possible to assess the benefit–risk balance of new treatments using a single statistical test for any number of prioritised outcomes. The benefit–risk assessment was not in favour of adding erlotinib to gemcitabine for the treatment of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

Defining the optimal treatment strategy for localized prostate cancer patients: a survey of ongoing studies at the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group

The designation "clinically localized prostate cancer" comprises a group of biologically heterogeneous tumours with different growth rates and risks of relapse. Because prostate cancer is primarily a disease of older men, treatment selection must take into account the prognosis of the tumour, patient age, comorbidities, side effects of treatment, and patient preferences. Clinical trials must identify the various prognostic groups and test the appropriate treatment strategies within these subgroups.