Mount Vernon Cancer Centre

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) is an antibody-drug conjugate incorporating the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted antitumor properties of trastuzumab with the cytotoxic activity of the microtubule-inhibitory agent DM1. The antibody and the cytotoxic agent are conjugated by means of a stable linker. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, who had previously been treated with trastuzumab and a taxane, to T-DM1 or lapatinib plus capecitabine. The primary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by independent review), overall survival, and safety. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (investigator-assessed), the objective response rate, and the time to symptom progression. Two interim analyses of overall survival were conducted. RESULTS: Among 991 randomly assigned patients, median progression-free survival as assessed by independent review was 9.6 months with T-DM1 versus 6.4 months with lapatinib plus capecitabine (hazard ratio for progression or death from any cause, 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 0.77; P<0.001), and median overall survival at the second interim analysis crossed the stopping boundary for efficacy (30.9 months vs. 25.1 months; hazard ratio for death from any cause, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.85; P<0.001). The objective response rate was higher with T-DM1 (43.6%, vs. 30.8% with lapatinib plus capecitabine; P<0.001); results for all additional secondary end points favored T-DM1. Rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were higher with lapatinib plus capecitabine than with T-DM1 (57% vs. 41%). The incidences of thrombocytopenia and increased serum aminotransferase levels were higher with T-DM1, whereas the incidences of diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia were higher with lapatinib plus capecitabine. CONCLUSIONS: T-DM1 significantly prolonged progression-free and overall survival with less toxicity than lapatinib plus capecitabine in patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and a taxane. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; EMILIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00829166.).

BACKGROUND: The BRAF inhibitors vemurafenib and dabrafenib have shown efficacy as monotherapies in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. Combining dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib, as compared with dabrafenib alone, enhanced antitumor activity in this population of patients. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 704 patients with metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600 mutation to receive either a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg once daily) or vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) orally as first-line therapy. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: At the preplanned interim overall survival analysis, which was performed after 77% of the total number of expected events occurred, the overall survival rate at 12 months was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67 to 77) in the combination-therapy group and 65% (95% CI, 59 to 70) in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio for death in the combination-therapy group, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.89; P=0.005). The prespecified interim stopping boundary was crossed, and the study was stopped for efficacy in July 2014. Median progression-free survival was 11.4 months in the combination-therapy group and 7.3 months in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.69; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 64% in the combination-therapy group and 51% in the vemurafenib group (P<0.001). Rates of severe adverse events and study-drug discontinuations were similar in the two groups. Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma and keratoacanthoma occurred in 1% of patients in the combination-therapy group and 18% of those in the vemurafenib group. CONCLUSIONS: Dabrafenib plus trametinib, as compared with vemurafenib monotherapy, significantly improved overall survival in previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, without increased overall toxicity. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01597908.).

BACKGROUND: Activating mutations in serine-threonine protein kinase B-RAF (BRAF) are found in 50% of patients with advanced melanoma. Selective BRAF-inhibitor therapy improves survival, as compared with chemotherapy, but responses are often short-lived. In previous trials, MEK inhibition appeared to be promising in this population. METHODS: In this phase 3 open-label trial, we randomly assigned 322 patients who had metastatic melanoma with a V600E or V600K BRAF mutation to receive either trametinib, an oral selective MEK inhibitor, or chemotherapy in a 2:1 ratio. Patients received trametinib (2 mg orally) once daily or intravenous dacarbazine (1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area) or paclitaxel (175 mg per square meter) every 3 weeks. Patients in the chemotherapy group who had disease progression were permitted to cross over to receive trametinib. Progression-free survival was the primary end point, and overall survival was a secondary end point. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival was 4.8 months in the trametinib group and 1.5 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death in the trametinib group, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.63; P<0.001). At 6 months, the rate of overall survival was 81% in the trametinib group and 67% in the chemotherapy group despite crossover (hazard ratio for death, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.92; P=0.01). Rash, diarrhea, and peripheral edema were the most common toxic effects in the trametinib group and were managed with dose interruption and dose reduction; asymptomatic and reversible reduction in the cardiac ejection fraction and ocular toxic effects occurred infrequently. Secondary skin neoplasms were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: Trametinib, as compared with chemotherapy, improved rates of progression-free and overall survival among patients who had metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; METRIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01245062.).

On May 3, 2008, a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-sponsored open consensus conference was held in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, during the 2008 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine Meeting. Approximately 100 experts and stakeholders summarized the current understanding of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) and reached consensus on the use of DW-MRI as a cancer imaging biomarker. DW-MRI should be tested as an imaging biomarker in the context of well-defined clinical trials, by adding DW-MRI to existing NCI-sponsored trials, particularly those with tissue sampling or survival indicators. Where possible, DW-MRI measurements should be compared with histologic indices including cellularity and tissue response. There is a need for tissue equivalent diffusivity phantoms; meanwhile, simple fluid-filled phantoms should be used. Monoexponential assessments of apparent diffusion coefficient values should use two b values (>100 and between 500 and 1000 mm2/sec depending on the application). Free breathing with multiple acquisitions is superior to complex gating techniques. Baseline patient reproducibility studies should be part of study designs. Both region of interest and histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient measurements should be obtained. Standards for measurement, analysis, and display are needed. Annotated data from validation studies (along with outcome measures) should be made publicly available. Magnetic resonance imaging vendors should be engaged in this process. The NCI should establish a task force of experts (physicists, radiologists, and oncologists) to plan, organize technical aspects, and conduct pilot trials. The American College of Radiology Imaging Network infrastructure may be suitable for these purposes. There is an extraordinary opportunity for DW-MRI to evolve into a clinically valuable imaging tool, potentially important for drug development.

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 .).

BACKGROUND: V600E or V600K mutation have prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival when receiving treatment with BRAF inhibitors plus MEK inhibitors. However, long-term clinical outcomes in these patients remain undefined. To determine 5-year survival rates and clinical characteristics of the patients with durable benefit, we sought to review long-term data from randomized trials of combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. METHODS: We analyzed pooled extended-survival data from two trials involving previously untreated patients who had received BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus MEK inhibitor trametinib (2 mg once daily) in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials. The median duration of follow-up was 22 months (range, 0 to 76). The primary end points in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials were progression-free survival and overall survival, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 563 patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (211 in the COMBI-d trial and 352 in the COMBI-v trial). The progression-free survival rates were 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17 to 24) at 4 years and 19% (95% CI, 15 to 22) at 5 years. The overall survival rates were 37% (95% CI, 33 to 42) at 4 years and 34% (95% CI, 30 to 38) at 5 years. In multivariate analysis, several baseline factors (e.g., performance status, age, sex, number of organ sites with metastasis, and lactate dehydrogenase level) were significantly associated with both progression-free survival and overall survival. A complete response occurred in 109 patients (19%) and was associated with an improved long-term outcome, with an overall survival rate of 71% (95% CI, 62 to 79) at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: V600E or V600K mutation. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-d ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01584648; COMBI-v ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01597908.).

BACKGROUND: Based on previous findings, we hypothesised that radiotherapy to the prostate would improve overall survival in men with metastatic prostate cancer, and that the benefit would be greatest in patients with a low metastatic burden. We aimed to compare standard of care for metastatic prostate cancer, with and without radiotherapy. METHODS: We did a randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 117 hospitals in Switzerland and the UK. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. We randomly allocated patients open-label in a 1:1 ratio to standard of care (control group) or standard of care and radiotherapy (radiotherapy group). Randomisation was stratified by hospital, age at randomisation, nodal involvement, WHO performance status, planned androgen deprivation therapy, planned docetaxel use (from December, 2015), and regular aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. Standard of care was lifelong androgen deprivation therapy, with up-front docetaxel permitted from December, 2015. Men allocated radiotherapy received either a daily (55 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks) or weekly (36 Gy in six fractions over 6 weeks) schedule that was nominated before randomisation. The primary outcome was overall survival, measured as the number of deaths; this analysis had 90% power with a one-sided α of 2·5% for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·75. Secondary outcomes were failure-free survival, progression-free survival, metastatic progression-free survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, and symptomatic local event-free survival. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, adjusted for stratification factors. The primary outcome analysis was by intention to treat. Two prespecified subgroup analyses tested the effects of prostate radiotherapy by baseline metastatic burden and radiotherapy schedule. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00268476. FINDINGS: Between Jan 22, 2013, and Sept 2, 2016, 2061 men underwent randomisation, 1029 were allocated the control and 1032 radiotherapy. Allocated groups were balanced, with a median age of 68 years (IQR 63-73) and median amount of prostate-specific antigen of 97 ng/mL (33-315). 367 (18%) patients received early docetaxel. 1082 (52%) participants nominated the daily radiotherapy schedule before randomisation and 979 (48%) the weekly schedule. 819 (40%) men had a low metastatic burden, 1120 (54%) had a high metastatic burden, and the metastatic burden was unknown for 122 (6%). Radiotherapy improved failure-free survival (HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·68-0·84; p<0·0001) but not overall survival (0·92, 0·80-1·06; p=0·266). Radiotherapy was well tolerated, with 48 (5%) adverse events (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 3-4) reported during radiotherapy and 37 (4%) after radiotherapy. The proportion reporting at least one severe adverse event (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or worse) was similar by treatment group in the safety population (398 [38%] with control and 380 [39%] with radiotherapy). INTERPRETATION: Radiotherapy to the prostate did not improve overall survival for unselected patients with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Astellas, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to identify a five-fraction schedule of adjuvant radiotherapy (radiation therapy) delivered in 1 week that is non-inferior in terms of local cancer control and is as safe as an international standard 15-fraction regimen after primary surgery for early breast cancer. Here, we present 5-year results of the FAST-Forward trial. METHODS: FAST-Forward is a multicentre, phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial done at 97 hospitals (47 radiotherapy centres and 50 referring hospitals) in the UK. Patients aged at least 18 years with invasive carcinoma of the breast (pT1-3, pN0-1, M0) after breast conservation surgery or mastectomy were eligible. We randomly allocated patients to either 40 Gy in 15 fractions (over 3 weeks), 27 Gy in five fractions (over 1 week), or 26 Gy in five fractions (over 1 week) to the whole breast or chest wall. Allocation was not masked because of the nature of the intervention. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral breast tumour relapse; assuming a 2% 5-year incidence for 40 Gy, non-inferiority was predefined as ≤1·6% excess for five-fraction schedules (critical hazard ratio [HR] of 1·81). Normal tissue effects were assessed by clinicians, patients, and from photographs. This trial is registered at isrctn.com, ISRCTN19906132. FINDINGS: Between Nov 24, 2011, and June 19, 2014, we recruited and obtained consent from 4096 patients from 97 UK centres, of whom 1361 were assigned to the 40 Gy schedule, 1367 to the 27 Gy schedule, and 1368 to the 26 Gy schedule. At a median follow-up of 71·5 months (IQR 71·3 to 71·7), the primary endpoint event occurred in 79 patients (31 in the 40 Gy group, 27 in the 27 Gy group, and 21 in the 26 Gy group); HRs versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were 0·86 (95% CI 0·51 to 1·44) for 27 Gy in five fractions and 0·67 (0·38 to 1·16) for 26 Gy in five fractions. 5-year incidence of ipsilateral breast tumour relapse after 40 Gy was 2·1% (1·4 to 3·1); estimated absolute differences versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were -0·3% (-1·0 to 0·9) for 27 Gy in five fractions (probability of incorrectly accepting an inferior five-fraction schedule: p=0·0022 vs 40 Gy in 15 fractions) and -0·7% (-1·3 to 0·3) for 26 Gy in five fractions (p=0·00019 vs 40 Gy in 15 fractions). At 5 years, any moderate or marked clinician-assessed normal tissue effects in the breast or chest wall was reported for 98 of 986 (9·9%) 40 Gy patients, 155 (15·4%) of 1005 27 Gy patients, and 121 of 1020 (11·9%) 26 Gy patients. Across all clinician assessments from 1-5 years, odds ratios versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were 1·55 (95% CI 1·32 to 1·83, p<0·0001) for 27 Gy in five fractions and 1·12 (0·94 to 1·34, p=0·20) for 26 Gy in five fractions. Patient and photographic assessments showed higher normal tissue effect risk for 27 Gy versus 40 Gy but not for 26 Gy versus 40 Gy. INTERPRETATION: 26 Gy in five fractions over 1 week is non-inferior to the standard of 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks for local tumour control, and is as safe in terms of normal tissue effects up to 5 years for patients prescribed adjuvant local radiotherapy after primary surgery for early-stage breast cancer. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

The publication of the GEC-ESTRO recommendations one decade ago was a significant step forward for reaching international consensus on adaptive target definition and dose reporting in image guided adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT) in locally advanced cervical cancer. Since then, IGABT has been spreading, particularly in Europe, North America and Asia, and the guidelines have proved their broad acceptance and applicability in clinical practice. However, a unified approach to volume contouring and reporting does not imply a unified administration of treatment, and currently both external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and IGABT are delivered using a large variety of techniques and prescription/fractionation schedules. With IGABT, local control is excellent in limited and well-responding tumours. The major challenges are currently loco-regional control in advanced tumours, treatment-related morbidity, and distant metastatic disease. Emerging evidence from the RetroEMBRACE and EMBRACE I studies has demonstrated that clinical outcome is related to dose prescription and technique. The next logical step is to demonstrate excellent clinical outcome with the most advanced EBRT and brachytherapy techniques based on an evidence-based prospective dose and volume prescription protocol. The EMBRACE II study is an interventional and observational multicentre study which aims to benchmark a high level of local, nodal and systemic control while limiting morbidity, using state of the art treatment including an advanced target volume selection and contouring protocol for EBRT and brachytherapy, a multi-parametric brachytherapy dose prescription protocol (clinical validation of dose constraints), and use of advanced EBRT (IMRT and IGRT) and brachytherapy (IC/IS) techniques (clinical validation). The study also incorporates translational research including imaging and tissue biomarkers.

Pain is common in cancer patients, particularly in the advanced stage of disease when the prevalence is estimated to be more than 70% [1], contributing to poor physical and emotional well-being. The most comprehensive systematic review indicates pain prevalence ranging from 33% in patients after curative treatment, to 59% in patients on anticancer treatment and to 64% in patients with metastatic, advanced or terminal disease [2]. Pain has a high prevalence earlier in disease in specific cancer types such as pancreatic (44%) and head and neck cancer (40%) [3].

BACKGROUND: Uveal melanoma is a disease that is distinct from cutaneous melanoma, with a low tumor mutational burden and a 1-year overall survival of approximately 50% in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. Data showing a proven overall survival benefit with a systemic treatment are lacking. Tebentafusp is a bispecific protein consisting of an affinity-enhanced T-cell receptor fused to an anti-CD3 effector that can redirect T cells to target glycoprotein 100-positive cells. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned previously untreated HLA-A*02:01-positive patients with metastatic uveal melanoma in a 2:1 ratio to receive tebentafusp (tebentafusp group) or the investigator's choice of therapy with single-agent pembrolizumab, ipilimumab, or dacarbazine (control group), stratified according to the lactate dehydrogenase level. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 378 patients were randomly assigned to either the tebentafusp group (252 patients) or the control group (126 patients). Overall survival at 1 year was 73% in the tebentafusp group and 59% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.71; P<0.001) in the intention-to-treat population. Progression-free survival was also significantly higher in the tebentafusp group than in the control group (31% vs. 19% at 6 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.94; P = 0.01). The most common treatment-related adverse events in the tebentafusp group were cytokine-mediated events (due to T-cell activation) and skin-related events (due to glycoprotein 100-positive melanocytes), including rash (83%), pyrexia (76%), and pruritus (69%). These adverse events decreased in incidence and severity after the first three or four doses and infrequently led to discontinuation of the trial treatment (2%). No treatment-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with tebentafusp resulted in longer overall survival than the control therapy among previously untreated patients with metastatic uveal melanoma. (Funded by Immunocore; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03070392; EudraCT number, 2015-003153-18.).

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting. METHODS: In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4-36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6-not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1-33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54-0·80], p<0·0001), progression-free survival (median 8·2 months [95% CI 6·9-10·0] vs 8·3 months [7·0-8·8]; HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·65-0·90], p=0·0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0·0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37·9 months [32·2-not estimable]; HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·59-0·86], p=0·0003), progression-free survival (median 9·7 months [95% CI 8·1-11·1] vs 9·7 months [8·3-11·1]; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73-0·98], p=0·027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0·015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest to implement multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and MR-guided biopsy (MRGB) for biopsy-naïve men with suspected prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: Primary objective was to compare and evaluate an MRI pathway and a transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSGB) pathway in biopsy-naïve men with prostate-specific antigen levels of ≥3ng/ml. DESIGN, SETTING, AND POPULATION: A prospective, multicenter, powered, comparative effectiveness study included 626 biopsy-naïve patients (from February 2015 to February 2018). INTERVENTION: All patients underwent prebiopsy mpMRI followed by systematic TRUSGB. Men with suspicious lesions on mpMRI also underwent MRGB prior to TRUSGB. MRGB was performed using the in-bore approach. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as grade group ≥2 (Gleason score ≥3+4) in any core. The main secondary objectives were the number of men who could avoid biopsy after nonsuspicious mpMRI, the number of biopsy cores taken, and oncologic follow-up. Differences in proportions were tested using McNemar's test with adjusted Wald confidence intervals for differences of proportions with matched pairs. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The MRI pathway detected csPCa in 159/626 (25%) patients and insignificant prostate cancer (insignPCa) in 88/626 patients (14%). TRUSGB detected csPCa in 146/626 patients (23%) and insignPCa in 155/626 patients (25%). Relative sensitivity of the MRI pathway versus the TRUSGB pathway was 1.09 for csPCa (p=0.17) and 0.57 for insignPCa (p<0.0001). The total number of biopsy cores reduced from 7512 to 849 (-89%). The MRI pathway enabled biopsy avoidance in 309/626 (49%) patients due to nonsuspicious mpMRI. Immediate TRUSGB detected csPCa in only 3% (10/309) of these patients, increasing to 4% (13/309) with 1-yr follow-up. At the same time, TRUSGB would overdetect insignPCa in 20% (63/309). "Focal saturation" by four additional perilesional cores to MRGB improved the detection of csPCa in 21/317 (7%) patients. Compared with the literature, our proportion of nonsuspicious mpMRI cases is significantly higher (27-36% vs 49%) and that of equivocal cases is lower (15-28% vs 6%). This is probably due to the high-quality standard in this study. Therefore, a limitation is the duplication of these results in less experienced centers. CONCLUSIONS: In biopsy-naïve men, the MRI pathway compared with the TRUSGB pathway results in an identical detection rate of csPCa, with significantly fewer insignPCa cases. In this high-quality standard study, almost half of men have nonsuspicious MRI, which is higher compared with other studies. Not performing TRUS biopsy is at the cost of missing csPCa only in 4%. PATIENT SUMMARY: We compared magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with MRI-guided biopsy against standard transrectal ultrasound biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men. Our results show that patients can benefit from MRI because biopsy may be omitted in half of men, and fewer indolent cancers are detected, without compromising the detection of harmful disease. Men also need fewer needles to make a diagnosis.

•The phase III IMpassion131 trial evaluated atezolizumab combined with paclitaxel as first-line therapy for aTNBC.•The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS, tested hierarchically in the PD-L1+ and then ITT populations.•Neither PFS nor OS was improved with the combination of atezolizumab plus paclitaxel in either population.•These findings may result from imbalances in prognostic features or chance findings in a relatively small trial.•IMpassion131 results highlight the need for further research into immunotherapy for TNBC. BackgroundIn the phase III IMpassion130 trial, combining atezolizumab with first-line nanoparticle albumin-bound-paclitaxel for advanced triple-negative breast cancer (aTNBC) showed a statistically significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive populations, and a clinically meaningful overall survival (OS) effect in PD-L1-positive aTNBC. The phase III KEYNOTE-355 trial adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy for aTNBC showed similar PFS effects. IMpassion131 evaluated first-line atezolizumab–paclitaxel in aTNBC.Patients and methodsEligible patients [no prior systemic therapy or ≥12 months since (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy] were randomised 2:1 to atezolizumab 840 mg or placebo (days 1, 15), both with paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15), every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Stratification factors were tumour PD-L1 status, prior taxane, liver metastases and geographical region. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS, tested hierarchically first in the PD-L1-positive [immune cell expression ≥1%, VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) assay] population, and then in the ITT population. OS was a secondary endpoint.ResultsOf 651 randomised patients, 45% had PD-L1-positive aTNBC. At the primary PFS analysis, adding atezolizumab to paclitaxel did not improve investigator-assessed PFS in the PD-L1-positive population [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-1.12; P = 0.20; median PFS 6.0 months with atezolizumab–paclitaxel versus 5.7 months with placebo–paclitaxel]. In the PD-L1-positive population, atezolizumab–paclitaxel was associated with more favourable unconfirmed best overall response rate (63% versus 55% with placebo–paclitaxel) and median duration of response (7.2 versus 5.5 months, respectively). Final OS results showed no difference between arms (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.76-1.64; median 22.1 months with atezolizumab–paclitaxel versus 28.3 months with placebo–paclitaxel in the PD-L1-positive population). Results in the ITT population were consistent with the PD-L1-positive population. The safety profile was consistent with known effects of each study drug.ConclusionCombining atezolizumab with paclitaxel did not improve PFS or OS versus paclitaxel alone.ClinicalTrials.govNCT03125902. In the phase III IMpassion130 trial, combining atezolizumab with first-line nanoparticle albumin-bound-paclitaxel for advanced triple-negative breast cancer (aTNBC) showed a statistically significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive populations, and a clinically meaningful overall survival (OS) effect in PD-L1-positive aTNBC. The phase III KEYNOTE-355 trial adding pembrolizumab to chemotherapy for aTNBC showed similar PFS effects. IMpassion131 evaluated first-line atezolizumab–paclitaxel in aTNBC. Eligible patients [no prior systemic therapy or ≥12 months since (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy] were randomised 2:1 to atezolizumab 840 mg or placebo (days 1, 15), both with paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15), every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Stratification factors were tumour PD-L1 status, prior taxane, liver metastases and geographical region. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS, tested hierarchically first in the PD-L1-positive [immune cell expression ≥1%, VENTANA PD-L1 (SP142) assay] population, and then in the ITT population. OS was a secondary endpoint. Of 651 randomised patients, 45% had PD-L1-positive aTNBC. At the primary PFS analysis, adding atezolizumab to paclitaxel did not improve investigator-assessed PFS in the PD-L1-positive population [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-1.12; P = 0.20; median PFS 6.0 months with atezolizumab–paclitaxel versus 5.7 months with placebo–paclitaxel]. In the PD-L1-positive population, atezolizumab–paclitaxel was associated with more favourable unconfirmed best overall response rate (63% versus 55% with placebo–paclitaxel) and median duration of response (7.2 versus 5.5 months, respectively). Final OS results showed no difference between arms (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.76-1.64; median 22.1 months with atezolizumab–paclitaxel versus 28.3 months with placebo–paclitaxel in the PD-L1-positive population). Results in the ITT population were consistent with the PD-L1-positive population. The safety profile was consistent with known effects of each study drug. Combining atezolizumab with paclitaxel did not improve PFS or OS versus paclitaxel alone.

BACKGROUND: In advanced prostate cancer (APC), successful drug development as well as advances in imaging and molecular characterisation have resulted in multiple areas where there is lack of evidence or low level of evidence. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2017 addressed some of these topics. OBJECTIVE: To present the report of APCCC 2017. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Ten important areas of controversy in APC management were identified: high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer; "oligometastatic" prostate cancer; castration-naïve and castration-resistant prostate cancer; the role of imaging in APC; osteoclast-targeted therapy; molecular characterisation of blood and tissue; genetic counselling/testing; side effects of systemic treatment(s); global access to prostate cancer drugs. A panel of 60 international prostate cancer experts developed the program and the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 150 predefined questions, which have been developed following a modified Delphi process. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Voting is based on panellist opinion, and thus is not based on a standard literature review or meta-analysis. The outcomes of the voting had varying degrees of support, as reflected in the wording of this article, as well as in the detailed voting results recorded in Supplementary data. CONCLUSIONS: The presented expert voting results can be used for support in areas of management of men with APC where there is no high-level evidence, but individualised treatment decisions should as always be based on all of the data available, including disease extent and location, prior therapies regardless of type, host factors including comorbidities, as well as patient preferences, current and emerging evidence, and logistical and economic constraints. Inclusion of men with APC in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2017 again identified important areas in need of trials specifically designed to address them. PATIENT SUMMARY: The second Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017 did provide a forum for discussion and debates on current treatment options for men with advanced prostate cancer. The aim of the conference is to bring the expertise of world experts to care givers around the world who see less patients with prostate cancer. The conference concluded with a discussion and voting of the expert panel on predefined consensus questions, targeting areas of primary clinical relevance. The results of these expert opinion votes are embedded in the clinical context of current treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer and provide a practical guide to clinicians to assist in the discussions with men with prostate cancer as part of a shared and multidisciplinary decision-making process.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in 112 countries, and accounts for 15% of cancers. In this Commission, we report projections of prostate cancer cases in 2040 on the basis of data for demographic changes worldwide and rising life expectancy. Our findings suggest that the number of new cases annually will rise from 1·4 million in 2020 to 2·9 million by 2040. This surge in cases cannot be prevented by lifestyle changes or public health interventions alone, and governments need to prepare strategies to deal with it. We have projected trends in the incidence of prostate cancer and related mortality (assuming no changes in treatment) in the next 10–15 years, and make recommendations on how to deal with these issues.&#13;\nFor the Commission, we established four working groups, each of which examined a different aspect of prostate cancer: epidemiology and future projected trends in cases, the diagnostic pathway, treatment, and management of advanced disease, the main problem for most men diagnosed with prostate cancer worldwide. Throughout we have separated problems in high-income countries (HICs) from those in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), although we acknowledge that this distinction can be an oversimplification (some rich patients in LMICs can access high-quality care, whereas many patients in HICs, especially the USA, cannot because of inadequate insurance coverage). The burden of disease globally is already substantial, but options to improve care are already available at moderate cost. We found that late diagnosis is widespread worldwide, but especially in LMICs, where it is the norm. Early diagnosis improves prognosis and outcomes, and reduces societal and individual costs, and we recommend changes to the diagnostic pathway that can be immediately implemented. For men diagnosed with advanced disease, optimal use of available technologies, adjusted to the resource levels available, could produce improved outcomes. We also found that demographic changes (ie, changing age structures and increasing life expectancy) in LMICs will drive big increases in prostate cancer, and cases are also projected to rise in high-income countries. This projected rise in cases has driven the main thrust of our recommendations throughout. Dealing with this rise in cases will require urgent and radical interventions, particularly in LMICs, including an emphasis on education (both of health professionals and the general population) linked to outreach programmes to increase awareness. If implemented, these interventions would shift the case mix from advanced to earlier-stage disease, which in turn would necessitate different treatment approaches: earlier diagnosis would prompt a shift from palliative to curative therapies based around surgery and radiotherapy. Although age-adjusted mortality from prostate cancer is falling in HICs, it is rising in LMICs. And, despite large, well known differences in disease incidence and mortality by ethnicity (eg, incidence in men of African heritage is roughly double that in men of European heritage), most prostate cancer research has disproportionally focused on men of European heritage. Without urgent action, these trends will cause global deaths from prostate cancer to rise rapidly.

BACKGROUND: Local cancer relapse risk after breast conservation surgery followed by radiotherapy has fallen sharply in many countries, and is influenced by patient age and clinicopathological factors. We hypothesise that partial-breast radiotherapy restricted to the vicinity of the original tumour in women at lower than average risk of local relapse will improve the balance of beneficial versus adverse effects compared with whole-breast radiotherapy. METHODS: IMPORT LOW is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done in 30 radiotherapy centres in the UK. Women aged 50 years or older who had undergone breast-conserving surgery for unifocal invasive ductal adenocarcinoma of grade 1-3, with a tumour size of 3 cm or less (pT1-2), none to three positive axillary nodes (pN0-1), and minimum microscopic margins of non-cancerous tissue of 2 mm or more, were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 40 Gy whole-breast radiotherapy (control), 36 Gy whole-breast radiotherapy and 40 Gy to the partial breast (reduced-dose group), or 40 Gy to the partial breast only (partial-breast group) in 15 daily treatment fractions. Computer-generated random permuted blocks (mixed sizes of six and nine) were used to assign patients to groups, stratifying patients by radiotherapy treatment centre. Patients and clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation. Field-in-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy was delivered using standard tangential beams that were simply reduced in length for the partial-breast group. The primary endpoint was ipsilateral local relapse (80% power to exclude a 2·5% increase [non-inferiority margin] at 5 years for each experimental group; non-inferiority was shown if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the local relapse hazard ratio [HR] was less than 2·03), analysed by intention to treat. Safety analyses were done in all patients for whom data was available (ie, a modified intention-to-treat population). This study is registered in the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN12852634. FINDINGS: Between May 3, 2007, and Oct 5, 2010, 2018 women were recruited. Two women withdrew consent for use of their data in the analysis. 674 patients were analysed in the whole-breast radiotherapy (control) group, 673 in the reduced-dose group, and 669 in the partial-breast group. Median follow-up was 72·2 months (IQR 61·7-83·2), and 5-year estimates of local relapse cumulative incidence were 1·1% (95% CI 0·5-2·3) of patients in the control group, 0·2% (0·02-1·2) in the reduced-dose group, and 0·5% (0·2-1·4) in the partial-breast group. Estimated 5-year absolute differences in local relapse compared with the control group were -0·73% (-0·99 to 0·22) for the reduced-dose and -0·38% (-0·84 to 0·90) for the partial-breast groups. Non-inferiority can be claimed for both reduced-dose and partial-breast radiotherapy, and was confirmed by the test against the critical HR being more than 2·03 (p=0·003 for the reduced-dose group and p=0·016 for the partial-breast group, compared with the whole-breast radiotherapy group). Photographic, patient, and clinical assessments recorded similar adverse effects after reduced-dose or partial-breast radiotherapy, including two patient domains achieving statistically significantly lower adverse effects (change in breast appearance [p=0·007 for partial-breast] and breast harder or firmer [p=0·002 for reduced-dose and p<0·0001 for partial-breast]) compared with whole-breast radiotherapy. INTERPRETATION: We showed non-inferiority of partial-breast and reduced-dose radiotherapy compared with the standard whole-breast radiotherapy in terms of local relapse in a cohort of patients with early breast cancer, and equivalent or fewer late normal-tissue adverse effects were seen. This simple radiotherapy technique is implementable in radiotherapy centres worldwide. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

BACKGROUND: Localised prostate cancer is commonly treated with external-beam radiotherapy. Moderate hypofractionation has been shown to be non-inferior to conventional fractionation. Ultra-hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy would allow shorter treatment courses but could increase acute toxicity compared with conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. We report the acute toxicity findings from a randomised trial of standard-of-care conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy versus five-fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk to intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer. METHODS: PACE is an international, phase 3, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. In PACE-B, eligible men aged 18 years and older, with WHO performance status 0-2, low-risk or intermediate-risk prostate adenocarcinoma (Gleason 4 + 3 excluded), and scheduled to receive radiotherapy were recruited from 37 centres in three countries (UK, Ireland, and Canada). Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) by computerised central randomisation with permuted blocks (size four and six), stratified by centre and risk group, to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (78 Gy in 39 fractions over 7·8 weeks or 62 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks, respectively) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (36·25 Gy in five fractions over 1-2 weeks). Neither participants nor investigators were masked to allocation. Androgen deprivation was not permitted. The primary endpoint of PACE-B is freedom from biochemical or clinical failure. The coprimary outcomes for this acute toxicity substudy were worst grade 2 or more severe Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxic effects score up to 12 weeks after radiotherapy. Analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01584258. PACE-B recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Aug 7, 2012, and Jan 4, 2018, we randomly assigned 874 men to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (n=441) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (n=433). 432 (98%) of 441 patients allocated to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy and 415 (96%) of 433 patients allocated to stereotactic body radiotherapy received at least one fraction of allocated treatment. Worst acute RTOG gastrointestinal toxic effect proportions were as follows: grade 2 or more severe toxic events in 53 (12%) of 432 patients in the conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy group versus 43 (10%) of 415 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group (difference -1·9 percentage points, 95% CI -6·2 to 2·4; p=0·38). Worst acute RTOG genitourinary toxicity proportions were as follows: grade 2 or worse toxicity in 118 (27%) of 432 patients in the conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy group versus 96 (23%) of 415 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group (difference -4·2 percentage points, 95% CI -10·0 to 1·7; p=0·16). No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Previous evidence (from the HYPO-RT-PC trial) suggested higher patient-reported toxicity with ultrahypofractionation. By contrast, our results suggest that substantially shortening treatment courses with stereotactic body radiotherapy does not increase either gastrointestinal or genitourinary acute toxicity. FUNDING: Accuray and National Institute of Health Research.

Cancer care is increasingly delivered by multidisciplinary teams. Cath Taylor and colleagues argue that stronger evidence is needed of their effectiveness

OBJECTIVE: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 health-related quality of life questionnaire is one of the most widely used cancer-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires worldwide. General population norm data can facilitate the interpretation of QLQ-C30 data obtained from cancer patients. This study aimed at systematically collecting norm data from the general population to develop European QLQ-C30 norm scores and to generate comparable norm data for individual countries in Europe and North America. METHODS: We collected QLQ-C30 data from the general population across 11 European Union (EU) countries, Russia, Turkey, Canada and United States (n ≥ 1000/country). Representative samples were stratified by sex and age groups (18-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69 and ≥ 70 years). After applying weights based on the United Nations population distribution statistics, we calculated QLQ-C30 domain scores to generate a 'European QLQ-C30 Norm' based on the EU countries. Further, we calculated QLQ-C30 norm scores for all 15 individual countries. RESULTS: A total of 15,386 respondents completed the online survey. For the EU sample, most QLQ-C30 domains showed differences by sex/age, with men scoring somewhat better health than women, while age effects varied across domains. Substantially larger differences were seen in inter-country comparisons, with Austrian and Dutch respondents reporting consistently better health compared with British and Polish respondents. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to systematically collect EORTC QLQ-C30 general population norm data across Europe and North America applying a consistent data collection method across 15 countries. These new norm data facilitate valid intra-country as well as inter-country comparisons and QLQ-C30 score interpretation.