Sindu Vivekanandan’s research while affiliated with Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and other places

Background: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (herein referred to as abiraterone) or enzalutamide added at the start of androgen deprivation therapy improves outcomes for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes and test whether combining enzalutamide with abiraterone and androgen deprivation therapy improves survival. Methods: We analysed two open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol, with no overlapping controls, conducted at 117 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restriction) had metastatic, histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; a WHO performance status of 0-2; and adequate haematological, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computerised algorithm and a minimisation technique to either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy; docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously for six cycles with prednisolone 10 mg orally once per day allowed from Dec 17, 2015) or standard of care plus abiraterone acetate 1000 mg and prednisolone 5 mg (in the abiraterone trial) orally or abiraterone acetate and prednisolone plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once a day (in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial). Patients were stratified by centre, age, WHO performance status, type of androgen deprivation therapy, use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pelvic nodal status, planned radiotherapy, and planned docetaxel use. The primary outcome was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started treatment. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of individual patient data was used to compare differences in survival between the two trials. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN78818544). Findings: Between Nov 15, 2011, and Jan 17, 2014, 1003 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=502) or standard of care plus abiraterone (n=501) in the abiraterone trial. Between July 29, 2014, and March 31, 2016, 916 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=454) or standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide (n=462) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. Median follow-up was 96 months (IQR 86-107) in the abiraterone trial and 72 months (61-74) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. In the abiraterone trial, median overall survival was 76·6 months (95% CI 67·8-86·9) in the abiraterone group versus 45·7 months (41·6-52·0) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·53-0·73]; p<0·0001). In the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, median overall survival was 73·1 months (61·9-81·3) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide group versus 51·8 months (45·3-59·0) in the standard of care group (HR 0·65 [0·55-0·77]; p<0·0001). We found no difference in the treatment effect between these two trials (interaction HR 1·05 [0·83-1·32]; pinteraction=0·71) or between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·70). In the first 5 years of treatment, grade 3-5 toxic effects were higher when abiraterone was added to standard of care (271 [54%] of 498 vs 192 [38%] of 502 with standard of care) and the highest toxic effects were seen when abiraterone and enzalutamide were added to standard of care (302 [68%] of 445 vs 204 [45%] of 454 with standard of care). Cardiac causes were the most common cause of death due to adverse events (five [1%] with standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide [two attributed to treatment] and one (<1%) with standard of care in the abiraterone trial). Interpretation: Enzalutamide and abiraterone should not be combined for patients with prostate cancer starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Clinically important improvements in survival from addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy are maintained for longer than 7 years. Funding: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.

Background Men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer are treated with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for 3 years, often combined with radiotherapy. We analysed new data from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials done in a multiarm, multistage platform protocol to assess the efficacy of adding abiraterone and prednisolone alone or with enzalutamide to ADT in this patient population. Methods These open-label, phase 3 trials were done at 113 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restrictions) had high-risk (defined as node positive or, if node negative, having at least two of the following: tumour stage T3 or T4, Gleason sum score of 8–10, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] concentration ≥40 ng/mL) or relapsing with high-risk features (≤12 months of total ADT with an interval of ≥12 months without treatment and PSA concentration ≥4 ng/mL with a doubling time of <6 months, or a PSA concentration ≥20 ng/mL, or nodal relapse) non-metastatic prostate cancer, and a WHO performance status of 0–2. Local radiotherapy (as per local guidelines, 74 Gy in 37 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles or the equivalent using hypofractionated schedules) was mandated for node negative and encouraged for node positive disease. In both trials, patients were randomly assigned (1:1), by use of a computerised algorithm, to ADT alone (control group), which could include surgery and luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists, or with oral abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and oral prednisolone (5 mg daily; combination-therapy group). In the second trial with no overlapping controls, the combination-therapy group also received enzalutamide (160 mg daily orally). ADT was given for 3 years and combination therapy for 2 years, except if local radiotherapy was omitted when treatment could be delivered until progression. In this primary analysis, we used meta-analysis methods to pool events from both trials. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was metastasis-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, biochemical failure-free survival, progression-free survival, and toxicity and adverse events. For 90% power and a one-sided type 1 error rate set to 1·25% to detect a target hazard ratio for improvement in metastasis-free survival of 0·75, approximately 315 metastasis-free survival events in the control groups was required. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety according to the treatment started within randomised allocation. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00268476, and with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN78818544. Findings Between Nov 15, 2011, and March 31, 2016, 1974 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The first trial allocated 455 to the control group and 459 to combination therapy, and the second trial, which included enzalutamide, allocated 533 to the control group and 527 to combination therapy. Median age across all groups was 68 years (IQR 63–73) and median PSA 34 ng/ml (14·7–47); 774 (39%) of 1974 patients were node positive, and 1684 (85%) were planned to receive radiotherapy. With median follow-up of 72 months (60–84), there were 180 metastasis-free survival events in the combination-therapy groups and 306 in the control groups. Metastasis-free survival was significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups (median not reached, IQR not evaluable [NE]–NE) than in the control groups (not reached, 97–NE; hazard ratio [HR] 0·53, 95% CI 0·44–0·64, p<0·0001). 6-year metastasis-free survival was 82% (95% CI 79–85) in the combination-therapy group and 69% (66–72) in the control group. There was no evidence of a difference in metatasis-free survival when enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate were administered concurrently compared with abiraterone acetate alone (interaction HR 1·02, 0·70–1·50, p=0·91) and no evidence of between-trial heterogeneity (I² p=0·90). Overall survival (median not reached [IQR NE–NE] in the combination-therapy groups vs not reached [103–NE] in the control groups; HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·48–0·73, p<0·0001), prostate cancer-specific survival (not reached [NE–NE] vs not reached [NE–NE]; 0·49, 0·37–0·65, p<0·0001), biochemical failure-free-survival (not reached [NE–NE] vs 86 months [83–NE]; 0·39, 0·33–0·47, p<0·0001), and progression-free-survival (not reached [NE–NE] vs not reached [103–NE]; 0·44, 0·36–0·54, p<0·0001) were also significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups than in the control groups. Adverse events grade 3 or higher during the first 24 months were, respectively, reported in 169 (37%) of 451 patients and 130 (29%) of 455 patients in the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone trial, respectively, and 298 (58%) of 513 patients and 172 (32%) of 533 patients of the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, respectively. The two most common events more frequent in the combination-therapy groups were hypertension (abiraterone trial: 23 (5%) in the combination-therapy group and six (1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 73 (14%) and eight (2%), respectively) and alanine transaminitis (abiraterone trial: 25 (6%) in the combination-therapy group and one (<1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 69 (13%) and four (1%), respectively). Seven grade 5 adverse events were reported: none in the control groups, three in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone group (one event each of rectal adenocarcinoma, pulmonary haemorrhage, and a respiratory disorder), and four in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with enzalutamide group (two events each of septic shock and sudden death). Interpretation Among men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer, combination therapy is associated with significantly higher rates of metastasis-free survival compared with ADT alone. Abiraterone acetate with prednisolone should be considered a new standard treatment for this population. Funding Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.

Introduction In ‘IDEAL-6’ patients (N=78) treated for locally-advanced non-small-cell lung cancer using isotoxically dose-escalated radiotherapy, overall survival (OS) was associated more strongly with VLAwall-64-73-EQD2, the left atrial (LA) wall volume receiving 64-73 Gy equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2), than with whole-heart irradiation measures. Here we test this in an independent cohort ‘OX-RT’ (N=64) treated routinely. Methods Using Cox regression analysis we assessed how strongly OS was associated with VLAwall-64-73-EQD2, with whole-heart volumes receiving 64-73 Gy EQD2 or doses above 10-to-70 Gy thresholds, and with principal components of whole-heart dose-distributions. Additionally, we tested associations between OS and volumes of cardiac substructures receiving dose-ranges described by whole-heart principal components significantly associated with OS. Results In univariable analyses of OX-RT, OS was associated more strongly with VLAwall-64-73-EQD2 than with whole-heart irradiation measures, but more strongly still with VAortV-29-38-EQD2, the volume of the aortic valve region receiving 29-38 Gy EQD2. The best multivariable OS model included LA wall and aortic valve region mean doses, and the aortic valve volume receiving ≥38 Gy EQD2, VAortV-38-EQD2. In a subsidiary analysis of IDEAL-6, the best multivariable model included VLAwall-64-73-EQD2, VAortV-29-38-EQD2, VAortV-38-EQD2 and mean aortic valve dose. Conclusion We propose reducing heart mean doses to the lowest levels possible while meeting protocol dose-limits for lung, oesophagus, proximal bronchial tree, cord and brachial plexus. This in turn achieves large reductions in VAortV-29-38-EQD2 and VLAwall-64-73-EQD2, and we plan to closely monitor patients with values of these measures still >0% (their median value in OX-RT) following reduction.

Background We have carried out a study to determine the scope for reducing heart doses in photon beam radiotherapy of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC). Materials and methods Baseline VMAT plans were created for 20 LA-NSCLC patients following the IDEAL-CRT isotoxic protocol, and were re-optimized after adding an objective limiting heart mean dose (MD Heart ). Reductions in MD Heart achievable without breaching limits on target coverage or normal tissue irradiation were determined. The process was repeated for objectives limiting the heart volume receiving ≥ 50 Gy (V Heart-50-Gy ) and left atrial wall volume receiving ≥ 63 Gy (V LAwall-63-Gy ). Results Following re-optimization, mean MD Heart , V Heart-50-Gy and V LAwall-63-Gy values fell by 4.8 Gy and 2.2% and 2.4% absolute respectively. On the basis of associations observed between survival and cardiac irradiation in an independent dataset, the purposefully-achieved reduction in MD Heart is expected to lead to the largest improvement in overall survival. It also led to useful knock-on reductions in many measures of cardiac irradiation including V Heart-50-Gy and V LAwall-63-Gy , providing some insurance against survival being more strongly related to these measures than to MD Heart . The predicted hazard ratio (HR) for death corresponding to the purposefully-achieved mean reduction in MD Heart was 0.806, according to which a randomized trial would require 1140 patients to test improved survival with 0.05 significance and 80% power. In patients whose baseline MD Heart values exceeded the median value in a published series, the average MD Heart reduction was particularly large, 8.8 Gy. The corresponding predicted HR is potentially testable in trials recruiting 359 patients enriched for greater MD Heart values. Conclusions Cardiac irradiation in RT of LA-NSCLC can be reduced substantially. Of the measures studied, reduction of MD Heart led to the greatest predicted increase in survival, and to useful knock-on reductions in other cardiac irradiation measures reported to be associated with survival. Potential improvements in survival can be trialled more efficiently in a population enriched for patients with greater baseline MD Heart levels, for whom larger reductions in heart doses can be achieved.

Purpose: The XTRIAL phase 1/2 multicenter trial of isotoxically dose-escalated concurrent chemoradiotherapy for stage II/III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) investigated two 30-fraction schedules of 5 and 6 weeks duration. We report toxicity, tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for both schedules, with long-term follow-up for the 6-week schedule. Patients and methods: Patients received isotoxically-individualized tumor radiation doses of 63-71 Gy in 5 weeks or 63-73 Gy in 6 weeks, delivered concurrently with two cycles of cisplatin and vinorelbine. Eligibility criteria were the same for both schedules. Results: 120 patients (6% stage IIB, 68% IIIA, 26% IIIB, 1% IV) were recruited from 9 UK centers, 118 starting treatment. Median prescribed doses were 64.5 and 67.6 Gy for the 36 and 82 patients treated using the 5- and 6-week schedules. Grade ≥3 pneumonitis and early esophagitis rates were 3.4% and 5.9% overall, and similar for each schedule individually. Late grade 2 esophageal toxicity occurred in 11.1% and 17.1% of 5- and 6-week patients. Grade ≥4 adverse events occurred in 17 (20.7%) 6-week patients but no 5-week patients. Four adverse events were grade 5, with two considered RT-related. After 51.8 and 26.4 months median follow-up for the 6- and 5-week schedules, median OS was 41.2 and 22.1 months respectively, and median PFS was 21.1 and 8.0 months. In exploratory analyses, OS was significantly associated with schedule (HR=0.56, 95%CI: 0.32-0.98, p=0.04) and fractional clinical/internal target volume receiving ≥95% of the prescribed dose (HR=0.88, 95%CI: 0.77-1.00, p=0.05). PFS was also significantly associated with schedule (HR=0.53, 95%CI: 0.33-0.86, p=0.01). Conclusions: Toxicity in XTRIAL was acceptable. Survival was promising for 6-week patients, and significantly longer than for 5-week patients. Survival might be further lengthened by following the 6-week schedule with an immune agent, motivating further study of such combined optimized treatments.

Purpose To analyse changes in 2-year overall survival (OS2yr) with radiotherapy (RT) dose, dose-per-fraction, treatment duration and chemotherapy use, in data compiled from prospective trials of RT and chemo-RT (CRT) for locally-advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC). Material and methods OS2yr data was analysed for 6957 patients treated on 68 trial arms (21 RT-only, 27 sequential CRT, 20 concurrent CRT) delivering doses-per-fraction ≤4.0 Gy. An initial model considering dose, dose-per-fraction and RT duration was fitted using maximum-likelihood techniques. Model extensions describing chemotherapy effects and survival-limiting toxicity at high doses were assessed using likelihood-ratio testing, the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and cross-validation. Results A model including chemotherapy effects and survival-limiting toxicity described the data significantly better than simpler models (p < 10⁻¹⁴), and had better AIC and cross-validation scores. The fitted α/β ratio for LA-NSCLC was 4.0 Gy (95%CI: 2.8–6.0 Gy), repopulation negated 0.38 (95%CI: 0.31–0.47) Gy EQD2/day beyond day 12 of RT, and concurrent CRT increased the effective tumour EQD2 by 23% (95%CI: 16–31%). For schedules delivered in 2 Gy fractions over 40 days, maximum modelled OS2yr for RT was 52% and 38% for stages IIIA and IIIB NSCLC respectively, rising to 59% and 42% for CRT. These survival rates required 80 and 87 Gy (RT or sequential CRT) and 67 and 73 Gy (concurrent CRT). Modelled OS2yr rates fell at higher doses. Conclusions Fitted dose–response curves indicate that gains of ~10% in OS2yr can be made by escalating RT and sequential CRT beyond 64 Gy, with smaller gains for concurrent CRT. Schedule acceleration achieved via hypofractionation potentially offers an additional 5–10% improvement in OS2yr. Further 10–20% OS2yr gains might be made, according to the model fit, if critical normal structures in which survival-limiting toxicities arise can be identified and selectively spared.