Quantification of the smoking-associated cancer risk with rate advancement periods: meta-analysis of individual participant data from cohorts of the CHANCES consortium

BACKGROUND: Smoking is the most important individual risk factor for many cancer sites but its association with breast and prostate cancer is not entirely clear. Rate advancement periods (RAPs) may enhance communication of smoking related risk to the general population. Thus, we estimated RAPs for the association of smoking exposure (smoking status, time since smoking cessation, smoking intensity, and duration) with total and site-specific (lung, breast, colorectal, prostate, gastric, head and neck, and pancreatic) cancer incidence and mortality.

METHODS: This is a meta-analysis of 19 population-based prospective cohort studies with individual participant data for 897,021 European and American adults. For each cohort we calculated hazard ratios (HRs) for the association of smoking exposure with cancer outcomes using Cox regression adjusted for a common set of the most important potential confounding variables. RAPs (in years) were calculated as the ratio of the logarithms of the HRs for a given smoking exposure variable and age. Meta-analyses were employed to summarize cohort-specific HRs and RAPs.

RESULTS: Overall, 140,205 subjects had a first incident cancer, and 53,164 died from cancer, during an average follow-up of 12 years. Current smoking advanced the overall risk of developing and dying from cancer by eight and ten years, respectively, compared with never smokers. The greatest advancements in cancer risk and mortality were seen for lung cancer and the least for breast cancer. Smoking cessation was statistically significantly associated with delays in the risk of cancer development and mortality compared with continued smoking.

CONCLUSIONS: This investigation shows that smoking, even among older adults, considerably advances, and cessation delays, the risk of developing and dying from cancer. These findings may be helpful in more effectively communicating the harmful effects of smoking and the beneficial effect of smoking cessation.

DNA vaccination for prostate cancer: key concepts and considerations

While locally confined prostate cancer is associated with a low five year mortality rate, advanced or metastatic disease remains a major challenge for healthcare professionals to treat and is usually terminal. As such, there is a need for the development of new, efficacious therapies for prostate cancer. Immunotherapy represents a promising approach where the host's immune system is harnessed to mount an anti-tumour effect, and the licensing of the first prostate cancer specific immunotherapy in 2010 has opened the door for other immunotherapies to gain regulatory approval. Among these strategies DNA vaccines are an attractive option in terms of their ability to elicit a highly specific, potent and wide-sweeping immune response. Several DNA vaccines have been tested for prostate cancer and while they have demonstrated a good safety profile they have faced problems with low efficacy and immunogenicity compared to other immunotherapeutic approaches. This review focuses on the positive aspects of DNA vaccines for prostate cancer that have been assessed in preclinical and clinical trials thus far and examines the key considerations that must be employed to improve the efficacy and immunogenicity of these vaccines.

TP53 mutational status and cetuximab benefit in rectal cancer: 5-year results of the EXPERT-C trial.

In this updated analysis of the EXPERT-C trial we show that, in magnetic resonance imaging-defined, high-risk, locally advanced rectal cancer, adding cetuximab to a treatment strategy with neoadjuvant CAPOX followed by chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant CAPOX is not associated with a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in both KRAS/BRAF wild-type and unselected patients. In a retrospective biomarker analysis, TP53 was not prognostic but emerged as an independent predictive biomarker for cetuximab benefit. After a median follow-up of 65.0 months, TP53 wild-type patients (n = 69) who received cetuximab had a statistically significant better PFS (89.3% vs 65.0% at 5 years; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.07 to 0.78; two-sided P = .02 by Cox regression) and OS (92.7% vs 67.5% at 5 years; HR = 0.16; 95% CI = 0.04 to 0.70; two-sided P = .02 by Cox regression) than TP53 wild-type patients who were treated in the control arm. An interaction between TP53 status and cetuximab effect was found (P <.05) and remained statistically significant after adjusting for statistically significant prognostic factors and KRAS.

Biomarker analysis in oesophagogastric cancer: Results from the REAL3 and TransMAGIC trials.

BACKGROUND: REAL3 (Randomised ECF for Advanced or Locally advanced oesophagogastric cancer 3) was a phase II/III trial designed to evaluate the addition of panitumumab (P) to epirubicin, oxaliplatin and capecitabine (EOC) in untreated advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma, or undifferentiated carcinoma. MAGIC (MRC Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy) was a phase III study which demonstrated that peri-operative epirubicin, cisplatin and infused 5-fluorouracil (ECF) improved survival in early oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Analysis of response rate (RR; the primary end-point of phase II) and biomarkers in the first 200 patients randomised to EOC or modified dose (m) EOC+P in REAL3 was pre-planned to determine if molecular selection for the on-going study was indicated. KRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA mutations and PTEN expression were assessed in pre-treatment biopsies and results correlated with response to mEOC+P. Association between these biomarkers and overall survival (OS) was assessed in MAGIC patients to determine any prognostic effect. RESULTS: RR was 52% to mEOC+P, 48% to EOC. Results from 175 assessable biopsies: mutations in KRAS (5.7%), BRAF (0%), PIK3CA (2.5%) and loss of PTEN expression (15.0%). None of the biomarkers evaluated predicted resistance to mEOC+P. In MAGIC, mutations in KRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA and loss of PTEN (phosphatase and tensin homolog) were found in 6.3%, 1.0%, 5.0% and 10.9%, respectively, and were not associated with survival. CONCLUSIONS: The RR of 52% in REAL3 with mEOC+P met pre-defined criteria to continue accrual to phase III. The frequency of the mutations was too low to exclude any prognostic or predictive effect.

Cell cycle-coupled expansion of AR activity promotes cancer progression

The androgen receptor (AR) is required for prostate cancer (PCa) survival and progression, and ablation of AR activity is the first line of therapeutic intervention for disseminated disease. While initially effective, recurrent tumors ultimately arise for which there is no durable cure. Despite the dependence of PCa on AR activity throughout the course of disease, delineation of the AR-dependent transcriptional network that governs disease progression remains elusive, and the function of AR in mitotically active cells is not well understood. Analyzing AR activity as a function of cell cycle revealed an unexpected and highly expanded repertoire of AR-regulated gene networks in actively cycling cells. New AR functions segregated into two major clusters: those that are specific to cycling cells and retained throughout the mitotic cell cycle ('Cell Cycle Common'), versus those that were specifically enriched in a subset of cell cycle phases ('Phase Restricted'). Further analyses identified previously unrecognized AR functions in major pathways associated with clinical PCa progression. Illustrating the impact of these unmasked AR-driven pathways, dihydroceramide desaturase 1 was identified as an AR-regulated gene in mitotically active cells that promoted pro-metastatic phenotypes, and in advanced PCa proved to be highly associated with development of metastases, recurrence after therapeutic intervention and reduced overall survival. Taken together, these findings delineate AR function in mitotically active tumor cells, thus providing critical insight into the molecular basis by which AR promotes development of lethal PCa and nominate new avenues for therapeutic intervention.

A phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the oral mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitor, WX-554, in patients with advanced solid tumours

Purpose: We performed a multi-centre phase I study to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of the orally available small molecule mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) 1/2 inhibitor, WX-554, and to determine the optimal biological dose for subsequent trials.
Experimental design: Patients with treatment-refractory, advanced solid tumours, with adequate performance status and organ function were recruited to a dose-escalation study in a standard 3 + 3 design. The starting dose was 25 mg orally once weekly with toxicity, PK and PD guided dose-escalation with potential to explore alternative schedules.
Results: Forty-one patients with advanced solid tumours refractory to standard therapies and with adequate organ function were recruited in eight cohorts up to doses of 150 mg once weekly and 75 mg twice weekly. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed during the study, and a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was not established. The highest dose cohorts demonstrated sustained inhibition of extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) phosphorylation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells following ex-vivo phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate stimulation. There was a decrease of 70 ± 26% in mean phosphorylated (p)ERK in C1 day 8 tumour biopsies when compared with pre-treatment tumour levels in the 75 mg twice a week cohort. Prolonged stable disease (>6 months) was seen in two patients, one with cervical cancer and one with ampullary carcinoma.
Conclusions: WX-554 was well tolerated, and an optimal biological dose was established for further investigation in either a once or twice weekly regimens. The recommended phase 2 dose is 75 mg twice weekly.

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.