Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Long-term hormone therapy has been the standard of care for advanced prostate cancer since the 1940s. STAMPEDE is a randomised controlled trial using a multiarm, multistage platform design. It recruits men with high-risk, locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent prostate cancer who are starting first-line long-term hormone therapy. We report primary survival results for three research comparisons testing the addition of zoledronic acid, docetaxel, or their combination to standard of care versus standard of care alone. METHODS Standard of care was hormone therapy for at least 2 years; radiotherapy was encouraged for men with N0M0 disease to November, 2011, then mandated; radiotherapy was optional for men with node-positive non-metastatic (N+M0) disease. Stratified randomisation (via minimisation) allocated men 2:1:1:1 to standard of care only (SOC-only; control), standard of care plus zoledronic acid (SOC + ZA), standard of care plus docetaxel (SOC + Doc), or standard of care with both zoledronic acid and docetaxel (SOC + ZA + Doc). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) was given for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly until 2 years, and docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) for six 3-weekly cycles with prednisolone 10 mg daily. There was no blinding to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Pairwise comparisons of research versus control had 90% power at 2·5% one-sided α for hazard ratio (HR) 0·75, requiring roughly 400 control arm deaths. Statistical analyses were undertaken with standard log-rank-type methods for time-to-event data, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ControlledTrials.com (ISRCTN78818544). FINDINGS 2962 men were randomly assigned to four groups between Oct 5, 2005, and March 31, 2013. Median age was 65 years (IQR 60-71). 1817 (61%) men had M+ disease, 448 (15%) had N+/X M0, and 697 (24%) had N0M0. 165 (6%) men were previously treated with local therapy, and median prostate-specific antigen was 65 ng/mL (IQR 23-184). Median follow-up was 43 months (IQR 30-60). There were 415 deaths in the control group (347 [84%] prostate cancer). Median overall survival was 71 months (IQR 32 to not reached) for SOC-only, not reached (32 to not reached) for SOC + ZA (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·79-1·11; p=0·450), 81 months (41 to not reached) for SOC + Doc (0·78, 0·66-0·93; p=0·006), and 76 months (39 to not reached) for SOC + ZA + Doc (0·82, 0·69-0·97; p=0·022). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect (for any of the treatments) across prespecified subsets. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported for 399 (32%) patients receiving SOC, 197 (32%) receiving SOC + ZA, 288 (52%) receiving SOC + Doc, and 269 (52%) receiving SOC + ZA + Doc. INTERPRETATION Zoledronic acid showed no evidence of survival improvement and should not be part of standard of care for this population. Docetaxel chemotherapy, given at the time of long-term hormone therapy initiation, showed evidence of improved survival accompanied by an increase in adverse events. Docetaxel treatment should become part of standard of care for adequately fit men commencing long-term hormone therapy. FUNDING Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen, Astellas, NIHR Clinical Research Network, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research.

Situational adaptiveness of control orientation mediates relation between fixed-world view and youth well-being in three cultures

When proposing primary control (changing the world to fit self)/secondary control (changing self to fit the world) theory, Weisz et al. (1984) argued for the importance of the “serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can” (p. 967), and the wisdom to choose the right control strategy that fits the context. Although the dual processes of control theory generated hundreds of empirical studies, most of them focused on the dichotomy of PC and SC, with none of these tapped into the critical concept: individuals’ ability to know when to use what. This project addressed this issue by using scenario questions to study the impact of situationally adaptive control strategies on youth well-being. To understand the antecedents of youths’ preference for PC or SC, we also connected PCSC theory with Dweck’s implicit theory about the changeability of the world. We hypothesized that youths’ belief about the world’s changeability impacts how difficult it was for them to choose situationally adaptive control orientation, which then impacts their well-being. This study included adolescents and emerging adults between the ages of 18 and 28 years (Mean = 20.87 years) from the US (n = 98), China (n = 100), and Switzerland (n = 103). Participants answered a questionnaire including a measure of implicit theories about the fixedness of the external world, a scenario-based measure of control orientation, and several measures of well-being. Preliminary analyses of the scenario-based control orientation measures showed striking cross-cultural similarity of preferred control responses: while for three of the six scenarios primary control was the predominately chosen control response in all cultures, for the other three scenarios secondary control was the predominately chosen response. This suggested that youths across cultures are aware that some situations call for primary control, while others demand secondary control. We considered the control strategy winning the majority of the votes to be the strategy that is situationally adaptive. The results of a multi-group structural equation mediation model with the extent of belief in a fixed world as independent variable, the difficulties of carrying out the respective adaptive versus non-adaptive control responses as two mediating variables and the latent well-being variable as dependent variable showed a cross-culturally similar pattern of effects: a belief in a fixed world was significantly related to higher difficulties in carrying out the normative as well as the non-normative control response, but only the difficulty of carrying out the normative control response (be it primary control in situations where primary control is normative or secondary control in situations where secondary control is normative) was significantly related to a lower reported well-being (while the difficulty of carrying out the non-normative response was unrelated to well-being). While previous research focused on cross-cultural differences on the choice of PC or SC, this study shed light on the universal necessity of applying the right kind of control to fit the situation.