Failure to Achieve PSA Level ≤I ng/ml Following Neo-Adjuvant LHRHa Therapy Predicts for a Lower Biochemical Control Rate and Overall Survival in Localized Prostate Cancer Treated with Radiotherapy

PURPOSE: To investigate whether failure to suppress the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level to /=2 months of neoadjuvant luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist therapy in patients scheduled to undergo external beam radiotherapy for localized prostate carcinoma is associated with reduced biochemical failure-free survival. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective case note review of consecutive patients with intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer treated between January 2001 and December 2002 with neoadjuvant hormonal deprivation therapy, followed by concurrent hormonal therapy and radiotherapy was performed. Patient data were divided for analysis according to whether the PSA level in Week 1 of radiotherapy was 1 ng/mL in 52. At a median follow-up of 49 months, the 4-year actuarial biochemical failure-free survival rate was 84% vs. 60% (p = 0.0016) in favor of the patients with a PSA level after neoadjuvant hormonal deprivation therapy of 1 ng/mL at the beginning of external beam radiotherapy after >/=2 months of neoadjuvant luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist therapy have a significantly greater rate of biochemical failure and lower survival rate compared with those with a PSA level of

Gene-based therapy in prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is one of the commonest causes of illness and death from cancer. Radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, and hormonal therapy are the main conventional treatments. However, gene therapy is emerging as a promising adjuvant to conventional strategies, and several clinical trials are in progress. Here, we outline several approaches to gene therapy for prostate cancer that have been investigated. Methods of gene delivery are described, particularly those that have commonly been used in research on prostate cancer. We discuss efforts to achieve tissue-specific gene delivery, focusing on the use of tissue-specific gene promoters. Finally, the present use of gene therapy for prostate cancer is evaluated. The ability to deliver gene-therapy vectors directly to prostate tissue, and to regulate gene expression in a tissue-specific manner, offers promise for the use of gene therapy in prostate cancer.

Abstract 1905: Defining a therapeutic classification of breast cancer by actionable targets

Breast cancer remains a frequent cause of female cancer death despite the great strides in elucidation of biological subtypes and their reported clinical and prognostic significance. We have defined a general cohort of breast cancers in terms of putative actionable targets, involving growth and proliferative factors, the cell cycle, and apoptotic pathways, both as single biomarkers across a general cohort and within intrinsic molecular subtypes.

We identified 293 patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Additional hormonal therapy and trastuzumab was administered depending on hormonal and HER2 status respectively. We performed immunohistochemistry for ER, PR, HER2, MM1, CK5/6, p53, TOP2A, EGFR, IGF1R, PTEN, p-mTOR and e-cadherin. The cohort was classified into luminal (62%) and non-luminal (38%) tumors as well as luminal A (27%), luminal B HER2 negative (22%) and positive (12%), HER2 enriched (14%) and triple negative (25%). Patients with luminal tumors and co-overexpression of TOP2A or IGF1R loss displayed worse overall survival (p=0.0251 and p=0.0008 respectively). Non-luminal tumors had much greater heterogeneous expression profiles with no individual markers of prognostic significance. Non-luminal tumors were characterised by EGFR and TOP2A overexpression, IGF1R, PTEN and p-mTOR negativity and extreme p53 expression.

Our results indicate that only a minority of intrinsic subtype tumors purely express single novel actionable targets. This lack of pure biomarker expression is particular prevalent in the triple negative subgroup and may allude to the mechanism of targeted therapy inaction and myriad disappointing trial results. Utilising a combinatorial biomarker approach may enhance studies of targeted therapies providing additional information during design and patient selection while also helping decipher negative trial results.

Non-pharmacological interventions for cognitive impairment due to systemic cancer treatment (Review)

Background

It is estimated that up to 75% of cancer survivors may experience cognitive impairment as a result of cancer treatment and given the increasing size of the cancer survivor population, the number of affected people is set to rise considerably in coming years. There is a need, therefore, to identify effective, non-pharmacological interventions for maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment among people with a previous cancer diagnosis.
Objectives

To evaluate the cognitive effects, non-cognitive effects, duration and safety of non-pharmacological interventions among cancer patients targeted at maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment as a result of cancer or receipt of systemic cancer treatment (i.e. chemotherapy or hormonal therapies in isolation or combination with other treatments).
Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Centre Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PUBMED, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO databases. We also searched registries of ongoing trials and grey literature including theses, dissertations and conference proceedings. Searches were conducted for articles published from 1980 to 29 September 2015.
Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-pharmacological interventions to improve cognitive impairment or to maintain cognitive functioning among survivors of adult-onset cancers who have completed systemic cancer therapy (in isolation or combination with other treatments) were eligible. Studies among individuals continuing to receive hormonal therapy were included. We excluded interventions targeted at cancer survivors with central nervous system (CNS) tumours or metastases, non-melanoma skin cancer or those who had received cranial radiation or, were from nursing or care home settings. Language restrictions were not applied.
Data collection and analysis

Author pairs independently screened, selected, extracted data and rated the risk of bias of studies. We were unable to conduct planned meta-analyses due to heterogeneity in the type of interventions and outcomes, with the exception of compensatory strategy training interventions for which we pooled data for mental and physical well-being outcomes. We report a narrative synthesis of intervention effectiveness for other outcomes.
Main results

Five RCTs describing six interventions (comprising a total of 235 participants) met the eligibility criteria for the review. Two trials of computer-assisted cognitive training interventions (n = 100), two of compensatory strategy training interventions (n = 95), one of meditation (n = 47) and one of physical activity intervention (n = 19) were identified. Each study focused on breast cancer survivors. All five studies were rated as having a high risk of bias. Data for our primary outcome of interest, cognitive function were not amenable to being pooled statistically. Cognitive training demonstrated beneficial effects on objectively assessed cognitive function (including processing speed, executive functions, cognitive flexibility, language, delayed- and immediate- memory), subjectively reported cognitive function and mental well-being. Compensatory strategy training demonstrated improvements on objectively assessed delayed-, immediate- and verbal-memory, self-reported cognitive function and spiritual quality of life (QoL). The meta-analyses of two RCTs (95 participants) did not show a beneficial effect from compensatory strategy training on physical well-being immediately (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59 to 0.83; I2= 67%) or two months post-intervention (SMD - 0.21, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.47; I2 = 63%) or on mental well-being two months post-intervention (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.34; I2 = 67%). Lower mental well-being immediately post-intervention appeared to be observed in patients who received compensatory strategy training compared to wait-list controls (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.16; I2 = 0%). We assessed the assembled studies using GRADE for physical and mental health outcomes and this evidence was rated to be low quality and, therefore findings should be interpreted with caution. Evidence for physical activity and meditation interventions on cognitive outcomes is unclear.
Authors' conclusions

Overall, the, albeit low-quality evidence may be interpreted to suggest that non-pharmacological interventions may have the potential to reduce the risk of, or ameliorate, cognitive impairment following systemic cancer treatment. Larger, multi-site studies including an appropriate, active attentional control group, as well as consideration of functional outcomes (e.g. activities of daily living) are required in order to come to firmer conclusions about the benefits or otherwise of this intervention approach. There is also a need to conduct research into cognitive impairment among cancer patient groups other than women with breast cancer.

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.

Evaluation of a Water-soluble Bioadhesive Patch for Photodynamic Therapy of Vulval Lesions

An innovative bioadhesive patch intended primarily as a vulval drug delivery system and, specifically, as a means to deliver photosensitisers, or their prodrugs, for photodynamic purposes is described. The patch was formulated with a copolymer of methyl vinyl ether and maleic anhydride (PMVE/MA) as a bioadhesive matrix and poly(vinyl chloride) as a drug-impervious backing layer. Adhesive strength to neonate porcine skin, as a model substrate, was evaluated using peel and tensile testing measurements. Acceptabilities of non-drug loaded patches were appraised using human volunteers and visual-analogue scoring devices. An optimal formulation, with water uptake and peel strengths appropriate for vulval drug delivery, was cast from a 20% (w/w) PMVE/MA solution and adhered with a strength of approximately 1.7 N cm-2. Patient evaluation demonstrated comfort and firm attachment for up to 4 h in mobile patients. Aminolevulinic acid, a commonly used photosensitiser, was formulated into the candidate formulation and applied to vulval intraepithelial neoplastic lesions. Fluorescence under ultraviolet illumination revealed protoporphyrin synthesis. The patch achieves the extended application times obligatory in topical photodynamic therapy of vulval lesions, thereby contributing to potential methods for the eradication of neoplastic lesions in the lower female reproductive tract.

Rheumatologists' judgements about the efficacy of anti-TNF therapy in two neighbouring regions

Objectives: The requirement in Northern Ireland to prescribe biologic agents according to NICE/BSR guidelines and within a fixed budget has created a waiting list for treatment that has no parallel in the Republic of Ireland. The study investigated the bearing this situation may have on had on the consultants’ judgements in the respective areas.

Methods: 78 case vignettes created from the data on real patients with RA treated with biologics in the north and south of Ireland were appraised by 9 southern and 8 northern consultants who judged the clinical benefit and significance of the patients’ condition after a trial of therapy. Quantitative (Clinical Judgement Analysis) and Qualitative (Focus groups) techniques were used.

Results: Northern consultants perceived a slightly greater degree of clinical benefit after a trial of therapy than southern consultants. Judgment models of northern and southern consultants were broadly comparable. The latter tended to be more uniform in their judgments than the southern group. Focus group discussions with consultants largely validated the findings of the quantitative analysis but revealed how clinical judgment analysis might be misled by gaming strategies.

Conclusions: Despite the absence of overt rationing in the south of Ireland, as far as the judgment of therapeutic benefit from biologics was concerned, the clinical judgment policies of practitioners were very similar to those in the north. The adoption of NICE/BSR guidelines in the north may have improved the uniformity of clinical practice in Northern Ireland.