Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"Uncompromising and utterly un-PC cop Brant is teamed up with an unlikely partner in Sgt Porter Nash as they hunt down vigilante cop killer Barry Weiss\"--Container.

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. 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. 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). Radiotherapy to the prostate did not improve overall survival for unselected patients with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Astellas, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Leveraging adaptive tumour immunity to control mesothelioma via immune checkpoint blockade is now a standard therapeutic approach. However, the determinants of sensitivity remain elusive. Low non-synonymous mutation burden and programmed death-ligand 1 expression, an abundance of immunosuppressive immune cell infiltration, and 9p21 deletion should all mitigate responses to therapy. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a double blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III trial of the PD1 inhibitor, nivolumab (ClinicalTrial.gov registration: NCT03063450). After 37.2 months of follow-up, the primary endpoint of progression free-survival, but not overall survival was met. The nivolumab response rate was 10.3%, and related grade 3 or above adverse events occurred in 20.4% versus 7.2% for placebo. Progression-free and overall survival were longer in nivolumab-treated responders versus non-responders. In an exploratory multiomic analysis, blinded whole exome, transcriptome and multiplex immune profiling were used to interrogate R- versus NR-subgroups. Non-synonymous and neoantigen mutation burden were no different between groups, however R-mesotheliomas were infiltrated with activated CD8 + T- and CD19 + B-lymphocytes, organised into tertiary lymphoid structures. B-cell infiltration correlated with pro-inflammatory chemokines including IL24 and CCL19. Conversely, epithelial-mesenchymal transition and mitosis were associated with resistance to nivolumab. These findings illuminate features which can be leveraged to advance precision immunotherapy in this rare cancer setting. The sensitivity of mesothelioma to the treatment of immune checkpoint blockade remains elusive. Here this group reports a double blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III trial of PD1 inhibitor (Nivolumab) on 332 patients with relapsed mesothelioma, and to uncover determinants of efficacy.

Recurrence is common after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. We investigated the effect of adding nintedanib to neoadjuvant chemotherapy on response and survival in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. NEOBLADE was a parallel-arm, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial of neoadjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy with nintedanib or placebo in locally advanced muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1, were recruited from 15 hospitals in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to nintedanib or placebo using permuted blocks with random block sizes of two or four, stratified by centre and glomerular filtration rate. Treatments were allocated using an interactive web-based system, and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation throughout the study. Patients received oral nintedanib (150 mg or 200 mg twice daily for 12 weeks) or placebo, in addition to usual neoadjuvant chemotherapy with intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and intravenous cisplatin 70 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 3-weekly cycle. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response rate, assessed at cystectomy or at day 8 of cyclde 3 (plus or minus 7 days) if cystectomy did not occur. Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with EudraCT, 2012-004895-01, and ISRCTN, 56349930, and has completed planned recruitment. Between Dec 4, 2014, and Sept 3, 2018, 120 patients were recruited and were randomly allocated to receive nintedanib (n=57) or placebo (n=63). The median follow-up for the study was 33·5 months (IQR 14·0–44·0). Pathological complete response in the intention-to-treat population was reached in 21 (37%) of 57 patients in the nintedanib group and 20 (32%) of 63 in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR] 1·25, 70% CI 0·84–1·87; p=0·28). Grade 3 or worse toxicities were observed in 53 (93%) of 57 participants who received nintedanib and 50 (79%) of 63 patients in the placebo group (OR 1·65, 95% CI 0·74–3·65; p=0·24). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were thromboembolic events (17 [30%] of 57 patients in the nintedanib group vs 13 [21%] of 63 patients in the placebo group [OR 1·63, 95% CI 0·71–3·76; p=0·29]) and decreased neutrophil count (22 [39%] in the nintedanib group vs seven [11%] in the placebo group [5·03, 1·95–13·00; p=0·0006]). 45 treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in the nintedanib group and 43 occurred in the placebo group. One treatment-related death occurred in the placebo group, which was due to myocardial infarction. The addition of nintedanib to chemotherapy was safe but did not improve the rate of pathological complete response in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Boehringer Ingelheim.

Background The treatment landscape for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) has evolved rapidly since immuno-oncology (IO) therapies were introduced. This study used recent data to assess real-world treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in aNSCLC in the United Kingdom. Methods Electronic prescribing records of treatment-naive patients starting first-line (1 L) treatment for aNSCLC between June 2016 and March 2018 (follow-up until December 2018) in the United Kingdom were assessed retrospectively. Patient characteristics and treatment patterns were analyzed descriptively. Outcomes assessed included overall survival (OS), time to treatment discontinuation, time to next treatment, and real-world tumor response. Results In all, 1003 patients were evaluated (median age, 68 years [range, 28–93 years]; 53.9% male). Use of 1 L IO monotherapy (0–25.9%) and targeted therapy (11.8–15.9%) increased during the study period, but chemotherapy remained the most common 1 L treatment at all time points (88.2–58.2%). Median OS was 9.5 months (95% CI, 8.8–10.7 months) for all patients, 8.1 months (95% CI, 7.4–8.9 months) with chemotherapy, 14.0 months (95% CI, 10.7–20.6 months) with IO monotherapy, and 20.2 months (95% CI, 16.0–30.5 months) with targeted therapy. In the 28.6% of patients who received second-line treatment, IO monotherapy was the most common drug class (used in 51.6%). Conclusions Although use of 1 L IO monotherapy for aNSCLC increased in the United Kingdom during the study period, most patients received 1 L chemotherapy. An OS benefit for first-line IO monotherapy vs chemotherapy was observed but was numerically smaller than that reported in clinical trials. Targeted therapy was associated with the longest OS, highlighting the need for improved treatment options for tumors lacking targetable mutations.

IntroductionThe presence of muscle mass depletion is associated with poor outcomes and survival in cancer. Alongside muscle mass, assessment of muscle strength or physical performance is essential for the diagnosis of sarcopenia. Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a prevalent form of cancer with high mortality, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) is commonly used to assess patients’ suitability for treatment. However, a significant proportion of patients with good PS are unable to complete multidisciplinary team (MDT)-planned treatment. Little is known about the ability of objective measurements of physical performance in predicting patients’ ability to complete MDT-planned treatment and outcomes in NSCLC.ObjectivesWe sought to establish whether physical performance, utilising the short physical performance battery (SPPB), alongside muscle mass measurements, was able to predict receipt and completion of MDT-planned treatment, with a focus on chemotherapy in NSCLC.Materials and methodsParticipants with NSCLC treated through a single lung cancer MDT and ECOG PS 0–2 were recruited and the following assessed: body composition [bioelectrical impedance (BIA) and whole body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in a subset], physical performance (SPPB), PS and nutritional status. We recorded receipt and completion of chemotherapy, as well as any adverse effects, hospitalisations, and treatment delays.ResultsWe included a total of 62 participants with NSCLC, and in 26 of these, the MDT-planned treatment was chemotherapy. Participants with earlier stage disease and weight loss of <10% were more likely to complete MDT-planned treatment (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05). Patients with a higher total SPPB score were more likely to complete more cycles of chemotherapy as well as the full course. Quicker gait speeds and sit-to-stand times were associated with completion of three or more cycles of chemotherapy (all p < 0.05). For every unit increase in SPPB score, there was a 28.2% decrease in adverse events, hospitalisations and delays of chemotherapy (incidence rate ratio 0.718, p = 0.001), whilst ECOG PS showed no correlation with these outcomes.ConclusionAssessing physical performance by SPPB is quick and simple to do in clinical settings and may give better indication of likely chemotherapy treatment course completion than muscle mass alone and ECOG PS. In turn, this may identify specific targets for early functional intervention and impact on MDT decision-making and prudent use of resources.

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.

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been the mainstay of treatment for advanced prostate cancer for decades, and has been shown to control disease and improve symptoms. In addition, for men with high-risk localized or locally advanced prostate cancer, short-course ADT in combination with radiotherapy improves survival. There is evidence that ADT increases cardiovascular risk, particularly in men with preexisting cardiovascular disease. This increased risk may apply even with short-course ADT. In an individual patient, the benefits of ADT should be balanced against the risk, and patients who require ADT should have risk factors for cardiovascular disease optimized. There is some evidence to suggest that more contemporary methods of delivering ADT may reduce cardiovascular risk.

Background Mesothelioma is an incurable, apoptosis-resistant cancer caused in most cases by previous exposure to asbestos and is increasing in incidence. It represents a growing health burden but remains under-researched, with limited treatment options. Early promising signals of activity relating to both PD-L1- and PD-1-targeted treatment in mesothelioma implicate a dependency of mesothelioma on this immune checkpoint. There is a need to evaluate checkpoint inhibitors in patients with relapsed mesothelioma where treatment options are limited. Methods The addition of 12 months of nivolumab (anti-PD1 antibody) to standard practice will be conducted in the UK using a randomised, placebo-controlled phase III trial (the Cancer Research UK CONFIRM trial). A total of 336 patients with pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma who have received at least two prior lines of therapy will be recruited from UK secondary care sites. Patients will be randomised 2:1 (nivolumab:placebo), stratified according to epithelioid/non-epithelioid, to receive either 240 mg nivolumab monotherapy or saline placebo as a 30-min intravenous infusion. Treatment will be for up to 12 months. We will determine whether the use of nivolumab increases overall survival (the primary efficacy endpoint). Secondary endpoints will include progression-free survival, objective response rate, toxicity, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Analysis will be performed according to the intention-to-treat principle using a Cox regression analysis for the primary endpoint (and for other time-to-event endpoints). Discussion The outcome of this trial will provide evidence of the potential benefit of the use of nivolumab in the treatment of relapsed mesothelioma. If found to be clinically effective, safe and cost-effective it is likely to become the new standard of care in the UK. Trial registration EudraCT Number: 2016–003111-35 (entered on 21 July 2016); ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03063450 . Registered on 24 February 2017.

IntroductionLung cancer is the most common cause of cancer mortality in the UK, and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately 85% of all lung cancers. Most patients present with inoperable disease; therefore, radiotherapy plays a major role in treatment. However, the majority of patients are not suitable for the gold standard treatment (concurrent chemoradiotherapy) due to performance status and comorbidities. Novel strategies integrating radiotherapy advances and radiobiological knowledge need to be evaluated in patients treated with sequential chemoradiotherapy. Four separate dose escalation accelerated radiotherapy schedules have been completed in UK (CHART-ED, IDEAL-CRT, I-START and Isotoxic IMRT). This study will compare these schedules with a UK standard sequential chemoradiotherapy schedule of 55 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks. As it would be impossible to test all schedules in a phase III study, the aim is to use a combined randomised phase II screening/‘pick the winner’ approach to identify the best schedule to take into a randomised phase III study against conventionally fractionated radiotherapy.Methods and analysisSuitable patients will have histologically/cytologically confirmed, stage III NSCLC and are able to undergo chemoradiotherapy treatment. The study will recruit 360 patients; 120 on the standard arm and 60 on each experimental arm. Patients will complete 2–4 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy before being randomised to one of the radiotherapy schedules. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival, with overall survival, time to local–regional failure, toxicity and cost-effectiveness as secondary objectives.Ethics and disseminationThe study has received ethical approval (research ethics committee (REC) reference: 16/WS/0165) from the West of Scotland REC 1. The trial is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented internationally.Trial registration number ISRCTN47674500.