Explore the vast range of titles available.

Adding abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisolone (P) to standard of care (SOC) improves survival in newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer (PC) patients starting hormone therapy. Our objective was to determine the value for money to the English National Health Service (NHS) of adding AAP to SOC. We used a decision analytic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of providing AAP in the English NHS. Between 2011–2014, the STAMPEDE trial recruited 1917 men with high-risk localised, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic PC starting first-line androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), and they were randomised to receive SOC plus AAP, or SOC alone. Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated using STAMPEDE trial data supplemented with literature data where necessary, adjusting for baseline patient and disease characteristics. British National Formulary (BNF) prices (£98/day) were applied for AAP. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%/year. AAP was not cost-effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £149,748/QALY gained in the non-metastatic (M0) subgroup, with 2.4% probability of being cost-effective at NICE’s £30,000/QALY threshold; and the metastatic (M1) subgroup had an ICER of £47,503/QALY gained, with 12.0% probability of being cost-effective. Scenario analysis suggested AAP could be cost-effective in M1 patients if priced below £62/day, or below £28/day in the M0 subgroup. AAP could dominate SOC in the M0 subgroup with price below £11/day. AAP is effective for non-metastatic and metastatic disease but is not cost-effective when using the BNF price. AAP currently only has UK approval for use in a subset of M1 patients. The actual price currently paid by the English NHS for abiraterone acetate is unknown. Broadening AAP’s indication and having a daily cost below the thresholds described above is recommended, given AAP improves survival in both subgroups and its cost-saving potential in M0 subgroup.

Introduction An impactful clinical trial will have real-life benefits for patients and society beyond the academic environment. This study analyses case studies of cancer trials to understand how impact is evidenced for cancer trials and how impact evaluation can be more routinely adopted and improved. Methods The United Kingdom (UK) Government allocates research funding to higher-education institutions based on an assessment of the institutions’ previous research efforts, in an exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF). In addition to each institution’s journal publications and research environment, for the first time in 2014, allocation of funding was also dependent on an evaluation of the wider, societal impact of research conducted. In the REF2014, impact assessment was performed by evaluation of impact case studies. In this study, case studies ( n  = 6637) submitted by institutions for the REF2014 were accessed and those focussing on cancer trials were identified. Manual content analysis was then used to assess the characteristics of the cancer trials discussed in the case studies, the impact described and the methods used by institutions to demonstrate impact. Results Forty-six case studies describing 106 individual cancer trials were identified. The majority were phase III randomised controlled trials and those recruiting patients with breast cancer. A list of indicators of cancer trial impact was generated using the previous literature and developed inductively using these case studies. The most common impact from a cancer trial identified in the case studies was on policy, in particular citation of trial findings in clinical guidelines. Impact on health outcomes and the economy were less frequent and health outcomes were often predicted rather than evidenced. There were few descriptions identified of trialists making efforts to maximise trial impact. Discussion Cancer trial impact narratives for the next REF assessment exercise in 2021 can be improved by evidencing actual rather than predicted Impact, with a clearer identification of the beneficiaries of cancer trials and the processes through which trial results are used. Clarification of the individuals responsible for performing impact evaluations of cancer trials and the provision of resources to do so needs to be addressed if impact evaluation is to be sustainable.

Drugs targeting angiogenesis and immunotherapy have transformed outcomes in renal cancer but may contribute to progressive kidney disease. We linked healthcare databases in the West of Scotland (spanning 2010-2020) to identify adults with renal cancer who received one or both classes of drugs. Over two years following initiation, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) slope was modelled using linear mixed-effects models. Additional renal outcomes used competing risk regression considering the competing risk of death. Amongst 357 adults (62.5% male; median age 63.0 years, IQI 55.0-71.0), there was no significant change in eGFR (annual eGFR change +1.03 mL/min/1.73 m²/year, 95%CI -1.64 to +3.70), nor in subgroups of patients who had nephrectomy, metastatic cancer or an eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² prior to systemic therapy. A ≥ 40% decline in eGFR occurred in 82 people (23.0%) within one year of starting systemic therapy and was associated with pre-existing diabetes (subhazard ratio 1.89, 95%CI 1.05-3.41). Anti-angiogenic and immune therapy had no substantial impact on the average change in eGFR but people with diabetes are at higher risk of clinically significant renal events. With appropriate monitoring, more widespread use of these agents in patients with renal impairment may be warranted.

ObjectiveTo determine the cost-effectiveness of salvage cryotherapy (SC) in men with radiation recurrent prostate cancer (RRPC).DesignCost-utility analysis using decision analytic modelling by a Markov model.Setting and methodsCompared SC and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in a cohort of patients with RRPC (biopsy proven local recurrence, no evidence of metastatic disease). A literature review captured published data to inform the decision model, and resource use data were from the Scottish Prostate Cryotherapy Service. The model was run in monthly cycles for RRPC men, mean age of 70 years. The model was run over the patient lifetime, to assess changes in patient health states and the associated quality of life, survival and cost impacts. Results are reported in terms of the discounted incremental costs and discounted incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained between the 2 alternative interventions. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis used a 10 000 iteration Monte Carlo simulation.ResultsSC has a high upfront treatment cost, but delays the ongoing monthly cost of ADT. SC is the dominant strategy over the patient lifetime; it is more effective with an incremental 0.56 QALY gain (95% CI 0.28 to 0.87), and less costly with a reduced lifetime cost of £29 719 (€37 619) (95% CI −51 985 to −9243). For a ceiling ratio of £30 000, SC has a 100% probability to be cost-effective. The cost neutral point was at 3.5 years, when the upfront cost of SC (plus any subsequent cumulative cost of side effects and ADT) equates the cumulative cost in the ADT arm. Limitations of our model may arise from its insensitivity to parameter or structural uncertainty.ConclusionsThe platform for SC versus ADT cost-effective analysis can be employed to evaluate other treatment modalities or strategies in RRPC. SC is the dominant strategy, costing less over a patient's lifetime with improvements in QALYs.Trial registration numberThis economic analysis was undertaken as part of the CROP RCT study ISRCTN:72677390; it was a pre-trial economic model developed and analysed during the pre-results stage of the RCT.

Demonstration of pharmacodynamic activity of new, targeted cancer drugs in tumour tissue is potentially important in guiding early drug development. However, delays between tumour sampling and sample fixation may result in variability of pharmacodynamic biomarkers. The aim of this study, was to assess the impact of delays in fixation on biomarkers of Src kinase activity. A total of 20 patients with locally advanced breast cancer and 5 with early bladder cancer had multiple tissue samples taken which were fixed at documented time points up to 60 min after biopsy. These were examined to determine if the amount of Paxillin, phospho-Paxillin, phospho-focal adhesion kinase (FAK) and total phospho-Tyrosine changed over time, using a quantitative lysate immunoassay. In breast cancer, there was an increase in the amount of phospho-Paxillin (60% per h; P  = 0.019) up to 60 min after biopsy. The amount of total Paxillin decreased (28% per h; P  = 0.034) over the same time course. In early bladder cancer, no changes were noted in any endpoints up to 45 min. Standardisation of the time taken between biopsy and fixation may be critical, particularly in studies using phosphorylated protein biomarkers.

The aim of this article was to evaluate afatinib (BIBW 2992), an ErbB family blocker, and nintedanib (BIBF 1120), a triple angiokinase inhibitor, in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. Patients were randomized to receive nintedanib (250 mg twice daily), afatinib (40 mg once daily [q.d.]), or alternating sequential 7-day nintedanib (250 mg twice daily) and afatinib (70 mg q.d. [Combi70]), which was reduced to 40 mg q.d. (Combi40) due to adverse events. The primary end point was progression-free rate at 12 weeks. Of the 85 patients treated 46, 20, 16 and three received nintedanib, afatinib, Combi40 and Combi70, respectively. At 12 weeks, the progression-free rate was 26% (seven out of 27 patients) for nintedanib, and 0% for afatinib and Combi40 groups. Two patients had a ≥50% decline in PSA (nintedanib and the Combi40 groups). The most common drug-related adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and lethargy. Nintedanib and/or afatinib demonstrated limited anti-tumor activity in unselected advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer patients.

Background Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a histopathologically and molecularly heterogeneous disease with the chromophobe subtype (chRCC) accounting for approximately 5% of all cases. The median overall survival of advanced RCC has improved significantly since the advent of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors. However, high-quality evidence for the use of new generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with advanced chRCC is lacking. Few published case reports have highlighted the use of temsirolimus in chRCC. Case presentation Here, we report the case of a 36-year-old Caucasian woman with metastatic chRCC with predominantly skeletal metastases who was refractory to sunitinib who demonstrated a durable clinical response to temsirolimus lasting 20 months. We review the available evidence pertaining to the use of new generation molecularly targeted agents, in particular mTOR inhibitors in chRCC and discuss their emerging role in the management of this disease which would aid the oncologists faced with the challenge of treating this rare type of RCC. Conclusion Conducting randomised clinical trials in this rarer sub-group of patients would be challenging and our case report and the evidence reviewed would guide the physicians to make informed decision regarding the management of these patients.

The addition of abiraterone and prednisolone to standard androgen-deprivation therapy as the first treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer improved overall and failure-free survival, with a small increase in high-grade toxic effects.

STAMPEDE has previously reported that radiotherapy (RT) to the prostate improved overall survival (OS) for patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer with low metastatic burden, but not those with high-burden disease. In this final analysis, we report long-term findings on the primary outcome measure of OS and on the secondary outcome measures of symptomatic local events, RT toxicity events, and quality of life (QoL). Patients were randomised at secondary care sites in the United Kingdom and Switzerland between January 2013 and September 2016, with 1:1 stratified allocation: 1,029 to standard of care (SOC) and 1,032 to SOC+RT. No masking of the treatment allocation was employed. A total of 1,939 had metastatic burden classifiable, with 42% low burden and 58% high burden, balanced by treatment allocation. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses used Cox regression and flexible parametric models (FPMs), adjusted for stratification factors age, nodal involvement, the World Health Organization (WHO) performance status, regular aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use, and planned docetaxel use. QoL in the first 2 years on trial was assessed using prospectively collected patient responses to QLQ-30 questionnaire. Patients were followed for a median of 61.3 months. Prostate RT improved OS in patients with low, but not high, metastatic burden (respectively: 202 deaths in SOC versus 156 in SOC+RT, hazard ratio (HR) = 0·64, 95% CI 0.52, 0.79, p < 0.001; 375 SOC versus 386 SOC+RT, HR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.96, 1.28, p = 0·164; interaction p < 0.001). No evidence of difference in time to symptomatic local events was found. There was no evidence of difference in Global QoL or QLQ-30 Summary Score. Long-term urinary toxicity of grade 3 or worse was reported for 10 SOC and 10 SOC+RT; long-term bowel toxicity of grade 3 or worse was reported for 15 and 11, respectively. Prostate RT improves OS, without detriment in QoL, in men with low-burden, newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer, indicating that it should be recommended as a SOC. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00268476, ISRCTN.com ISRCTN78818544.

BackgroundSTAMPEDE has previously reported that radiotherapy (RT) to the prostate improved overall survival (OS) for patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer with low metastatic burden, but not those with high-burden disease. In this final analysis, we report long-term findings on the primary outcome measure of OS and on the secondary outcome measures of symptomatic local events, RT toxicity events, and quality of life (QoL).Methods and findingsPatients were randomised at secondary care sites in the United Kingdom and Switzerland between January 2013 and September 2016, with 1:1 stratified allocation: 1,029 to standard of care (SOC) and 1,032 to SOC+RT. No masking of the treatment allocation was employed. A total of 1,939 had metastatic burden classifiable, with 42% low burden and 58% high burden, balanced by treatment allocation. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses used Cox regression and flexible parametric models (FPMs), adjusted for stratification factors age, nodal involvement, the World Health Organization (WHO) performance status, regular aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use, and planned docetaxel use. QoL in the first 2 years on trial was assessed using prospectively collected patient responses to QLQ-30 questionnaire. Patients were followed for a median of 61.3 months. Prostate RT improved OS in patients with low, but not high, metastatic burden (respectively: 202 deaths in SOC versus 156 in SOC+RT, hazard ratio (HR) = 0·64, 95% CI 0.52, 0.79, p < 0.001; 375 SOC versus 386 SOC+RT, HR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.96, 1.28, p = 0·164; interaction p < 0.001). No evidence of difference in time to symptomatic local events was found. There was no evidence of difference in Global QoL or QLQ-30 Summary Score. Long-term urinary toxicity of grade 3 or worse was reported for 10 SOC and 10 SOC+RT; long-term bowel toxicity of grade 3 or worse was reported for 15 and 11, respectively.ConclusionsProstate RT improves OS, without detriment in QoL, in men with low-burden, newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer, indicating that it should be recommended as a SOC.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00268476, ISRCTN.com ISRCTN78818544.