Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for patients with metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: final results from two randomised phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol.
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.
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).
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).
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.
Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.
Attard G
，Murphy L
，Clarke NW
，Sachdeva A
，Jones C
，Hoyle A
，Cross W
，Jones RJ
，Parker CC
，Gillessen S
，Cook A
，Brawley C
，Gilson C
，Rush H
，Abdel-Aty H
，Amos CL
，Murphy C
，Chowdhury S
，Malik Z
，Russell JM
，Parkar N
，Pugh C
，Diaz-Montana C
，Pezaro C
，Grant W
，Saxby H
，Pedley I
，O'Sullivan JM
，Birtle A
，Gale J
，Srihari N
，Thomas C
，Tanguay J
，Wagstaff J
，Das P
，Gray E
，Alzouebi M
，Parikh O
，Robinson A
，Montazeri AH
，Wylie J
，Zarkar A
，Cathomas R
，Brown MD
，Jain Y
，Dearnaley DP
，Mason MD
，Gilbert D
，Langley RE
，Millman R
，Matheson D
，Sydes MR
，Brown LC
，Parmar MKB
，James ND
，STAMPEDE investigators
... -
《-》
Efficacy and safety of prostate radiotherapy in de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (PEACE-1): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study with a 2 × 2 factorial design.
The 2 × 2 PEACE-1 study showed that combining androgen-deprivation therapy with docetaxel and abiraterone improved overall and radiographic progression-free survival in patients with de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of adding radiotherapy in this population.
We conducted an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design (PEACE-1) at 77 hospitals across Europe. Eligible participants were male patients (aged ≥18 years) with de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer confirmed by bone scan, CT, or MRI, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 (or 2 in the case of bone pain). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to standard of care (androgen-deprivation therapy alone or with six cycles of intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks), standard of care plus abiraterone (oral 1000 mg abiraterone once daily plus oral 5 mg prednisone twice daily), standard of care plus radiotherapy (74 Gy in 37 fractions to the prostate), or standard of care plus radiotherapy and abiraterone. Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary endpoints were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival, analysed by intention to treat in patients with low-volume metastatic disease and in the overall study population. This ongoing study is registered with EudraCT, 2012-000142-35.
Between Nov 27, 2013, and Dec 20, 2018, 1173 patients were enrolled and 1172 were randomly assigned to receive standard of care (n=296 [25·3%]), standard of care plus abiraterone (n=292 [24·9%]), standard of care plus radiotherapy (n=293 [25·0%]), and standard of care plus abiraterone and radiotherapy (n=291 [24·8%]). Median follow-up was 6·0 years (IQR 5·1-7·0) at the time of radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival analysis. A qualitative interaction between radiotherapy and abiraterone for radiographic progression-free survival in the population of patients with low-volume disease prevented the pooling of intervention groups for analysis (p=0·026). Adding radiotherapy to standard of care improved radiographic progression-free survival in patients with low-volume disease treated with abiraterone (median 4·4 years [99·9% CI 2·5-7·3] in the standard of care plus abiraterone group vs 7·5 years [4·0-not reached] in the standard of care plus abiraterone and radiotherapy group; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·65 [99·9% CI 0·36-1·19]; p=0·019), but not in patients not treated with abiraterone (median 3·0 years [99·9% CI 2·3-4·8] in the standard of care group vs 2·6 years [1·7-4·6] in the standard of care plus radiotherapy group; 1·08 [0·65-1·80]; p=0·61). For overall survival, the predefined threshold for a statistical interaction was not reached (p=0·12); therefore, the two intervention groups receiving radiotherapy were pooled together for analysis. In patients with low-volume disease, the overall survival was not influenced by radiotherapy (median 6·9 years [95·1% CI 5·9-7·5] for standard of care with or without abiraterone vs 7·5 years [6·0-not reached] for standard of care plus radiotherapy with or without abiraterone; HR 0·98 [95·1% CI 0·74-1·28]; p=0·86). In the overall safety population, 339 (56·1%) of 604 patients who did not receive radiotherapy and 329 (58·8%) of 560 patients who received radiotherapy developed at least one severe adverse event (grade ≥3), the most common being hypertension (110 [18·2%] patients in the standard of care with or without abiraterone group and 127 [22·7%] in the standard of care plus radiotherapy with or without abiraterone group) and neutropenia (40 [6·6%] and 29 [5·2%]).
Combining radiotherapy with standard of care plus abiraterone improves radiographic progression-free survival and castration resistance-free survival, but not overall survival in patients with low-volume de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer. Radiotherapy reduces the occurrence of serious genitourinary events, regardless of metastatic burden and without increasing the overall toxicity, and could become a component of standard of care in patients with both high-volume and low-volume de novo metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer.
Janssen-Cilag, Ipsen, Sanofi, and Institut National du Cancer.
Bossi A
，Foulon S
，Maldonado X
，Sargos P
，MacDermott R
，Kelly P
，Fléchon A
，Tombal B
，Supiot S
，Berthold D
，Ronchin P
，Kacso G
，Salem N
，Calabro F
，Berdah JF
，Hasbini A
，Silva M
，Boustani J
，Ribault H
，Fizazi K
，PEACE-1 investigators
... -
《-》
Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.
About 20-30% of older adults (≥ 65 years old) experience one or more falls each year, and falls are associated with substantial burden to the health care system, individuals, and families from resulting injuries, fractures, and reduced functioning and quality of life. Many interventions for preventing falls have been studied, and their effectiveness, factors relevant to their implementation, and patient preferences may determine which interventions to use in primary care. The aim of this set of reviews was to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) on fall prevention interventions. We undertook three systematic reviews to address questions about the following: (i) the benefits and harms of interventions, (ii) how patients weigh the potential outcomes (outcome valuation), and (iii) patient preferences for different types of interventions, and their attributes, shown to offer benefit (intervention preferences).
We searched four databases for benefits and harms (MEDLINE, Embase, AgeLine, CENTRAL, to August 25, 2023) and three for outcome valuation and intervention preferences (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, to June 9, 2023). For benefits and harms, we relied heavily on a previous review for studies published until 2016. We also searched trial registries, references of included studies, and recent reviews. Two reviewers independently screened studies. The population of interest was community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years old. We did not limit eligibility by participant fall history. The task force rated several outcomes, decided on their eligibility, and provided input on the effect thresholds to apply for each outcome (fallers, falls, injurious fallers, fractures, hip fractures, functional status, health-related quality of life, long-term care admissions, adverse effects, serious adverse effects). For benefits and harms, we included a broad range of non-pharmacological interventions relevant to primary care. Although usual care was the main comparator of interest, we included studies comparing interventions head-to-head and conducted a network meta-analysis (NMAs) for each outcome, enabling analysis of interventions lacking direct comparisons to usual care. For benefits and harms, we included randomized controlled trials with a minimum 3-month follow-up and reporting on one of our fall outcomes (fallers, falls, injurious fallers); for the other questions, we preferred quantitative data but considered qualitative findings to fill gaps in evidence. No date limits were applied for benefits and harms, whereas for outcome valuation and intervention preferences we included studies published in 2000 or later. All data were extracted by one trained reviewer and verified for accuracy and completeness. For benefits and harms, we relied on the previous review team's risk-of-bias assessments for benefit outcomes, but otherwise, two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias (within and across study). For the other questions, one reviewer verified another's assessments. Consensus was used, with adjudication by a lead author when necessary. A coding framework, modified from the ProFANE taxonomy, classified interventions and their attributes (e.g., supervision, delivery format, duration/intensity). For benefit outcomes, we employed random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach and a consistency model. Transitivity and coherence were assessed using meta-regressions and global and local coherence tests, as well as through graphical display and descriptive data on the composition of the nodes with respect to major pre-planned effect modifiers. We assessed heterogeneity using prediction intervals. For intervention-related adverse effects, we pooled proportions except for vitamin D for which we considered data in the control groups and undertook random-effects pairwise meta-analysis using a relative risk (any adverse effects) or risk difference (serious adverse effects). For outcome valuation, we pooled disutilities (representing the impact of a negative event, e.g. fall, on one's usual quality of life, with 0 = no impact and 1 = death and ~ 0.05 indicating important disutility) from the EQ-5D utility measurement using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model and explored heterogeneity. When studies only reported other data, we compared the findings with our main analysis. For intervention preferences, we used a coding schema identifying whether there were strong, clear, no, or variable preferences within, and then across, studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using CINeMA for benefit outcomes and GRADE for all other outcomes.
A total of 290 studies were included across the reviews, with two studies included in multiple questions. For benefits and harms, we included 219 trials reporting on 167,864 participants and created 59 interventions (nodes). Transitivity and coherence were assessed as adequate. Across eight NMAs, the number of contributing trials ranged between 19 and 173, and the number of interventions ranged from 19 to 57. Approximately, half of the interventions in each network had at least low certainty for benefit. The fallers outcome had the highest number of interventions with moderate certainty for benefit (18/57). For the non-fall outcomes (fractures, hip fracture, long-term care [LTC] admission, functional status, health-related quality of life), many interventions had very low certainty evidence, often from lack of data. We prioritized findings from 21 interventions where there was moderate certainty for at least some benefit. Fourteen of these had a focus on exercise, the majority being supervised (for > 2 sessions) and of long duration (> 3 months), and with balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions generally having the most outcomes with at least low certainty for benefit. None of the interventions having moderate certainty evidence focused on walking. Whole-body vibration or home-hazard assessment (HHA) plus exercise provided to everyone showed moderate certainty for some benefit. No multifactorial intervention alone showed moderate certainty for any benefit. Six interventions only had very-low certainty evidence for the benefit outcomes. Two interventions had moderate certainty of harmful effects for at least one benefit outcome, though the populations across studies were at high risk for falls. Vitamin D and most single-component exercise interventions are probably associated with minimal adverse effects. Some uncertainty exists about possible adverse effects from other interventions. For outcome valuation, we included 44 studies of which 34 reported EQ-5D disutilities. Admission to long-term care had the highest disutility (1.0), but the evidence was rated as low certainty. Both fall-related hip (moderate certainty) and non-hip (low certainty) fracture may result in substantial disutility (0.53 and 0.57) in the first 3 months after injury. Disutility for both hip and non-hip fractures is probably lower 12 months after injury (0.16 and 0.19, with high and moderate certainty, respectively) compared to within the first 3 months. No study measured the disutility of an injurious fall. Fractures are probably more important than either falls (0.09 over 12 months) or functional status (0.12). Functional status may be somewhat more important than falls. For intervention preferences, 29 studies (9 qualitative) reported on 17 comparisons among single-component interventions showing benefit. Exercise interventions focusing on balance and/or resistance training appear to be clearly preferred over Tai Chi and other forms of exercise (e.g., yoga, aerobic). For exercise programs in general, there is probably variability among people in whether they prefer group or individual delivery, though there was high certainty that individual was preferred over group delivery of balance/resistance programs. Balance/resistance exercise may be preferred over education, though the evidence was low certainty. There was low certainty for a slight preference for education over cognitive-behavioral therapy, and group education may be preferred over individual education.
To prevent falls among community-dwelling older adults, evidence is most certain for benefit, at least over 1-2 years, from supervised, long-duration balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions, whole-body vibration, high-intensity/dose education or cognitive-behavioral therapy, and interventions of comprehensive multifactorial assessment with targeted treatment plus HHA, HHA plus exercise, or education provided to everyone. Adding other interventions to exercise does not appear to substantially increase benefits. Overall, effects appear most applicable to those with elevated fall risk. Choice among effective interventions that are available may best depend on individual patient preferences, though when implementing new balance/resistance programs delivering individual over group sessions when feasible may be most acceptable. Data on more patient-important outcomes including fall-related fractures and adverse effects would be beneficial, as would studies focusing on equity-deserving populations and on programs delivered virtually.
Not registered.
Pillay J
，Gaudet LA
，Saba S
，Vandermeer B
，Ashiq AR
，Wingert A
，Hartling L
... -
《Systematic Reviews》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
