Clinical end points for drug treatment trials in BCR-ABL1-negative classic myeloproliferative neoplasms: consensus statements from European LeukemiaNET (ELN) and Internation Working Group-Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment (IWG-MRT)

The discovery of somatic mutations, primarily JAK2V617F and CALR, in classic BCR-ABL1-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) has generated interest in the development of molecularly targeted therapies, whose accurate assessment requires a standardized framework. A working group, comprised of members from European LeukemiaNet (ELN) and International Working Group for MPN Research and Treatment (IWG-MRT), prepared consensus-based recommendations regarding trial design, patient selection and definition of relevant end points. Accordingly, a response able to capture the long-term effect of the drug should be selected as the end point of phase II trials aimed at developing new drugs for MPNs. A time-to-event, such as overall survival, or progression-free survival or both, as co-primary end points, should measure efficacy in phase III studies. New drugs should be tested for preventing disease progression in myelofibrosis patients with early disease in randomized studies, and a time to event, such as progression-free or event-free survival should be the primary end point. Phase III trials aimed at preventing vascular events in polycythemia vera and essential thrombocythemia should be based on a selection of the target population based on new prognostic factors, including JAK2 mutation. In conclusion, we recommended a format for clinical trials in MPNs that facilitates communication between academic investigators, regulatory agencies and drug companies.

Failure-Free Survival and Radiotherapy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: Data From Patients in the Control Arm of the STAMPEDE Trial

Importance: The natural history of patients with newly diagnosed high-risk nonmetastatic (M0) prostate cancer receiving hormone therapy (HT) either alone or with standard-of-care radiotherapy (RT) is not well documented. Furthermore, no clinical trial has assessed the role of RT in patients with node-positive (N+) M0 disease. The STAMPEDE Trial includes such individuals, allowing an exploratory multivariate analysis of the impact of radical RT.

Objective: To describe survival and the impact on failure-free survival of RT by nodal involvement in these patients.

Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study using data collected for patients allocated to the control arm (standard-of-care only) of the STAMPEDE Trial between October 5, 2005, and May 1, 2014. Outcomes are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models; survival estimates are reported at 2 and 5 years. Participants were high-risk, hormone-naive patients with newly diagnosed M0 prostate cancer starting long-term HT for the first time. Radiotherapy is encouraged in this group, but mandated for patients with node-negative (N0) M0 disease only since November 2011.

Exposures: Long-term HT either alone or with RT, as per local standard. Planned RT use was recorded at entry.

Main Outcomes and Measures: Failure-free survival (FFS) and overall survival.

Results: A total of 721 men with newly diagnosed M0 disease were included: median age at entry, 66 (interquartile range [IQR], 61-72) years, median (IQR) prostate-specific antigen level of 43 (18-88) ng/mL. There were 40 deaths (31 owing to prostate cancer) with 17 months' median follow-up. Two-year survival was 96% (95% CI, 93%-97%) and 2-year FFS, 77% (95% CI, 73%-81%). Median (IQR) FFS was 63 (26 to not reached) months. Time to FFS was worse in patients with N+ disease (HR, 2.02 [95% CI, 1.46-2.81]) than in those with N0 disease. Failure-free survival outcomes favored planned use of RT for patients with both N0M0 (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.18-0.61]) and N+M0 disease (HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.29-0.79]).

Conclusions and Relevance: Survival for men entering the cohort with high-risk M0 disease was higher than anticipated at study inception. These nonrandomized data were consistent with previous trials that support routine use of RT with HT in patients with N0M0 disease. Additionally, the data suggest that the benefits of RT extend to men with N+M0 disease.

Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00268476; ISRCTN78818544.

Patterns of Behaviour, Group Structure and Reproductive Status Predict Levels of Glucocorticoid Metabolites in Zoo-Housed Ring-Tailed Lemurs, Lemur catta

In ring-tailed lemurs, Lemur catta, the factors modulating hypothalamic-pituitaryadrenal (HPA) activity differ between wild and semi-free-ranging populations. Here we assess factors modulating HPA activity in ring-tailed lemurs housed in a third environment: the zoo. First we validate an enzyme immunoassay to quantify levels of glucocorticoid (GC) metabolites in the faeces of L. catta . We determine the nature of the femalefemale dominance hierarchies within each group by computing David's scores and examining these in relation to faecal GC (fGC). Relationships between female age and fGC are assessed to evaluate potential age-related confounds. The associations between fGC, numbers of males in a group and reproductive status are explored. Finally, we investigate the value of 7 behaviours in predicting levels of fGC. The study revealed stable linear dominance hierarchies in females within each group. The number of males in a social group together with reproductive status, but not age, influenced fGC. The 7 behavioural variables accounted for 68% of the variance in fGC. The amounts of time an animal spent locomoting and in the inside enclosure were both negative predictors of fGC. The study highlights the flexibility and adaptability of the HPA system in ring-tailed lemurs.

Cabazitaxel for Hormone-Relapsed Metastatic Prostate Cancer Previously Treated With a Docetaxel-Containing Regimen: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures cabazitaxel (Jevtana(®), Sanofi, UK) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of cabazitaxel for treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-relapsed prostate cancer (mHRPC) previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based upon the company's submission to NICE. Clinical evidence for cabazitaxel was derived from a multinational randomised open-label phase III trial (TROPIC) of cabazitaxel plus prednisone or prednisolone compared with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisolone, which was assumed to represent best supportive care. The NICE final scope identified a further three comparators: abiraterone in combination with prednisone or prednisolone; enzalutamide; and radium-223 dichloride for the subgroup of people with bone metastasis only (no visceral metastasis). The company did not consider radium-223 dichloride to be a relevant comparator. Neither abiraterone nor enzalutamide has been directly compared in a trial with cabazitaxel. Instead, clinical evidence was synthesised within a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results from TROPIC showed that cabazitaxel was associated with a statistically significant improvement in both overall survival and progression-free survival compared with mitoxantrone. Results from a random-effects NMA, as conducted by the company and updated by the ERG, indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the three active treatments for both overall survival and progression-free survival. Utility data were not collected as part of the TROPIC trial, and were instead taken from the company's UK early access programme. Evidence on resource use came from the TROPIC trial, supplemented by both expert clinical opinion and a UK clinical audit. List prices were used for mitoxantrone, abiraterone and enzalutamide as directed by NICE, although commercial in-confidence patient-access schemes (PASs) are in place for abiraterone and enzalutamide. The confidential PAS was used for cabazitaxel. Sequential use of the advanced hormonal therapies (abiraterone and enzalutamide) does not usually occur in clinical practice in the UK. Hence, cabazitaxel could be used within two pathways of care: either when an advanced hormonal therapy was used pre-docetaxel, or when one was used post-docetaxel. The company believed that the former pathway was more likely to represent standard National Health Service (NHS) practice, and so their main comparison was between cabazitaxel and mitoxantrone, with effectiveness data from the TROPIC trial. Results of the company's updated cost-effectiveness analysis estimated a probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £45,982 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, which the committee considered to be the most plausible value for this comparison. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be both cheaper and more effective than abiraterone. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be cheaper but less effective than enzalutamide, resulting in an ICER of £212,038 per QALY gained for enzalutamide compared with cabazitaxel. The ERG noted that radium-223 is a valid comparator (for the indicated sub-group), and that it may be used in either of the two care pathways. Hence, its exclusion leads to uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results. In addition, the company assumed that there would be no drug wastage when cabazitaxel was used, with cost-effectiveness results being sensitive to this assumption: modelling drug wastage increased the ICER comparing cabazitaxel with mitoxantrone to over £55,000 per QALY gained. The ERG updated the company's NMA and used a random effects model to perform a fully incremental analysis between cabazitaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide and best supportive care using PASs for abiraterone and enzalutamide. Results showed that both cabazitaxel and abiraterone were extendedly dominated by the combination of best supportive care and enzalutamide. Preliminary guidance from the committee, which included wastage of cabazitaxel, did not recommend its use. In response, the company provided both a further discount to the confidential PAS for cabazitaxel and confirmation from NHS England that it is appropriate to supply and purchase cabazitaxel in pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags, which would remove the cost of drug wastage. As a result, the committee recommended use of cabazitaxel as a treatment option in people with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 whose disease had progressed during or after treatment with at least 225 mg/m(2) of docetaxel, as long as it was provided at the discount agreed in the PAS and purchased in either pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags or in vials at a reduced price to reflect the average per-patient drug wastage.