Summary Background We investigated whether 18 months of androgen suppression plus radiotherapy, with or without 18 months of zoledronic acid, is more effective than 6 months of neoadjuvant androgen ...suppression plus radiotherapy with or without zoledronic acid. Methods We did an open-label, randomised, 2 × 2 factorial trial in men with locally advanced prostate cancer (either T2a N0 M0 prostatic adenocarcinomas with prostate-specific antigen PSA ≥10 μg/L and a Gleason score of ≥7, or T2b–4 N0 M0 tumours regardless of PSA and Gleason score). We randomly allocated patients by computer-generated minimisation—stratified by centre, baseline PSA, tumour stage, Gleason score, and use of a brachytherapy boost—to one of four groups in a 1:1:1:1 ratio. Patients in the control group were treated with neoadjuvant androgen suppression with leuprorelin (22·5 mg every 3 months, intramuscularly) for 6 months (short-term) and radiotherapy alone (designated STAS); this procedure was either followed by another 12 months of androgen suppression with leuprorelin (intermediate-term; ITAS) or accompanied by 18 months of zoledronic acid (4 mg every 3 months for 18 months, intravenously; STAS plus zoledronic acid) or by both (ITAS plus zoledronic acid). The primary endpoint was prostate cancer-specific mortality. This analysis represents the first, preplanned assessment of oncological endpoints, 5 years after treatment. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00193856. Findings Between Oct 20, 2003, and Aug 15, 2007, 1071 men were randomly assigned to STAS (n=268), STAS plus zoledronic acid (n=268), ITAS (n=268), and ITAS plus zoledronic acid (n=267). Median follow-up was 7·4 years (IQR 6·5–8·4). Cumulative incidences of prostate cancer-specific mortality were 4·1% (95% CI 2·2–7·0) in the STAS group, 7·8% (4·9–11·5) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 7·4% (4·6–11·0) in the ITAS group, and 4·3% (2·3–7·3) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group. Cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality was 17·0% (13·0–22·1), 18·9% (14·6–24·2), 19·4% (15·0–24·7), and 13·9% (10·3–18·8), respectively. Neither prostate cancer-specific mortality nor all-cause mortality differed between control and experimental groups. Cumulative incidence of PSA progression was 34·2% (28·6–39·9) in the STAS group, 39·6% (33·6–45·5) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 29·2% (23·8–34·8) in the ITAS group, and 26·0% (20·8–31·4) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group. Compared with STAS, no difference was noted in PSA progression with ITAS or STAS plus zoledronic acid; however, ITAS plus zoledronic acid reduced PSA progression (sub-hazard ratio SHR 0·71, 95% CI 0·53–0·95; p=0·021). Cumulative incidence of local progression was 4·1% (2·2–7·0) in the STAS group, 6·1% (3·7–9·5) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 1·5% (0·5–3·7) in the ITAS group, and 3·4% (1·7–6·1) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group; no differences were noted between groups. Cumulative incidences of bone progression were 7·5% (4·8–11·1), 14·6% (10·6–19·2), 8·4% (5·5–12·2), and 7·6% (4·8–11·2), respectively. Compared with STAS, STAS plus zoledronic acid increased the risk of bone progression (SHR 1·90, 95% CI 1·14–3·17; p=0·012), but no differences were noted with the other two groups. Cumulative incidence of distant progression was 14·7% (10·7–19·2) in the STAS group, 17·3% (13·0–22·1) in the STAS plus zoledronic acid group, 14·2% (10·3–18·7) in the ITAS group, and 11·1% (7·6–15·2) in the ITAS plus zoledronic acid group; no differences were recorded between groups. Cumulative incidence of secondary therapeutic intervention was 25·6% (20·5–30·9), 28·9% (23·5–34·5), 20·7% (16·1–25·9), and 15·3% (11·3–20·0), respectively. Compared with STAS, ITAS plus zoledronic acid reduced the need for secondary therapeutic intervention (SHR 0·67, 95% CI 0·48–0·95; p=0·024); no differences were noted with the other two groups. An interaction between trial factors was recorded for Gleason score; therefore, we did pairwise comparisons between all groups. Post-hoc analyses suggested that the reductions in PSA progression and decreased need for secondary therapeutic intervention with ITAS plus zoledronic acid were restricted to tumours with a Gleason score of 8–10, and that ITAS was better than STAS in tumours with a Gleason score of 7 or lower. Long-term morbidity and quality-of-life scores were not affected adversely by 18 months of androgen suppression or zoledronic acid. Interpretation Compared with STAS, ITAS plus zoledronic acid was more effective for treatment of prostate cancers with a Gleason score of 8–10, and ITAS alone was effective for tumours with a Gleason score of 7 or lower. Nevertheless, these findings are based on secondary endpoint data and post-hoc analyses and must be regarded cautiously. Long- term follow-up is necessary, as is external validation of the interaction between zoledronic acid and Gleason score. STAS plus zoledronic acid can be ruled out as a potential therapeutic option. Funding National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia, Abbott Pharmaceuticals Australia, New Zealand Health Research Council, New Zealand Cancer Society, University of Newcastle (Australia), Calvary Health Care (Calvary Mater Newcastle Radiation Oncology Fund), Hunter Medical Research Institute, Maitland Cancer Appeal, Cancer Standards Institute New Zealand.
Summary Background Adjuvant androgen suppression and bisphosphonates with escalating doses of radiotherapy might improve efficacy outcomes in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. In this study, ...we investigated whether these treatments had a detrimental effect on patient-reported-outcome (PRO) scores. Methods We undertook a phase 3 trial with a 2×2 factorial design in 23 centres in Australia and New Zealand in men with non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the prostate (stage T2b–4 or T2a, Gleason score ≥7, and baseline prostate-specific antigen concentration PSA ≥10 μg/L), and without previous lymph node or systemic metastases or comorbidities that could reduce life expectancy to less than 5 years. The men were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to 6 months of neoadjuvant (short-term) androgen suppression (STAS) with leuprorelin (22·5 mg every 3 months, intramuscularly) or an additional 12 months (intermediate-term androgen suppression ITAS) of leuprorelin with or without 18 months of zoledronic acid (4 mg every 3 months, intravenously). Study drug administration commenced at randomisation after which radiotherapy started within the fifth month in all groups. Treatment allocation was open-label, and computer-generated randomisation, stratified by centre, baseline concentrations of PSA, clinical stage of the tumour, Gleason score, and use of a brachytherapy boost, was done by use of the minimisation technique. PRO scores were calculated from European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life and prostate-specific quality-of-life module questionnaires and compared with multiple regression models at baseline, and end of radiotherapy, and 18 months and 36 months according to group and radiation dose. The trial is ongoing and the primary endpoint, prostate-cancer-specific mortality, will be reported in 2014. This study is the final report of PRO scores (a secondary endpoint). Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00193856. Findings 1071 men were randomly assigned to STAS (n=268), STAS plus zoledronic acid (n=268), ITAS (n=268), and ITAS plus zoledronic acid (n=267). At the end of radiotherapy, significant detrimental changes in PRO scores (p<0·01) occurred in all groups. There were no significant differences in global health status between groups at any timepoint. At 18 months, PROs that were significantly worse in the ITAS groups when compared with STAS were hormone-treatment-related symptoms (HTRS; STAS, 10·20 95% CI 8·66–11·75; ITAS, 17·36 13·63–21·08, p<0·01; and ITAS plus zoledronic acid, 19·14 15·43–22·85, p<0·01), sexual activity (STAS, 26·38 23·50–29·27; ITAS, 14·40 7·44–21·36, p<0·01; and ITAS plus zoledronic acid, 16·34 9·39–23·28, p<0·01), social function (STAS, 90·31 87·89–92·73; ITAS, 87·35 81·52–93·18, p=0·09; and ITAS plus zoledronic acid, 83·66 77·85–89·48, p<0·01), fatigue (STAS, 17·05 14·58–19·51; ITAS 24·52 18·58–30·46, p<0·01; and ITAS plus zoledronic acid, 24·26 18·33–30·18, p<0·01), and financial problems (STAS, 3·39 1·29–5·48; ITAS, 8·97 3·92–14·02, p<0·01; and ITAS plus zoledronic acid, 8·92 3·89–13·96, p<0·01). With the exception of HTRS, in which marginal differences remained, persisting significant differences disappeared by 36 months. Other factors associated with significant detrimental changes in PRO scores were a brachytherapy boost, incomplete testosterone and haemoglobin recoveries, age, and smoking. Interpretation Compared with 6 months of androgen suppression, 18 months of androgen suppression causes additional detrimental changes at the 18 month follow-up in some PRO scores but not in global quality-of-life scores. However, with the exception of HTRS, these differences resolved by 36 months. The use of zoledronic acid every 3 months over 18 months does not result in additional detrimental changes, but the use of a brachytherapy boost to achieve radiation dose escalation in the prostate can adversely affect emotional function and financial problems. Funding National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Australia, Abbott Pharmaceuticals Australia, New Zealand Health Research Council, New Zealand Cancer Society, University of Newcastle (Australia), Hunter Medical Research Institute, Calvary Mater Radiation Oncology Fund, and Maitland Cancer Appeal.
Abstract Background The optimal method of tube feeding for patients with head and neck cancer remains unclear. A validated protocol is available that identifies high-nutritional-risk patients who ...would benefit from prophylactic gastrostomy tube placement. Adherence to this protocol is ultimately determined by clinical team discretion or patient decision. Objective The study aim was to compare outcomes after adherence and nonadherence to this validated protocol, thus comparing a prophylactic and reactive approach to nutrition support in this patient population. Design We conducted a prospective comparative cohort study. Patients were observed during routine clinical practice over 2 years. Participants/setting Patients with head and neck cancer having curative-intent treatment between August 2012 and July 2014 at a tertiary hospital in Queensland, Australia, were included if assessed as high nutrition risk according to the validated protocol (n=130). Patients were grouped according to protocol adherence as to whether they received prophylactic gastrostomy (PEG) per protocol recommendation (prophylactic PEG group, n=69) or not (no PEG group, n=61). Main outcome measures Primary outcome was percentage weight change during treatment. Secondary outcomes were feeding tube use and hospital admissions. Statistical analysis performed Fisher’s exact, χ2 , and two sample t tests were performed to determine differences between the groups. Linear and logistic regression were used to examine weight loss and unplanned admissions, respectively. Results Patients were 88% male, median age was 59 years, with predominantly stage IV oropharyngeal cancer receiving definitive chemoradiotherapy. Statistically significantly less weight loss in the prophylactic PEG group (7.0% vs 9.0%; P =0.048) and more unplanned admissions in the no PEG group (82% vs 75%; P =0.029). In the no PEG group, 26 patients (43%) required a feeding tube or had ≥10% weight loss. Conclusions Prophylactic gastrostomy improved nutrition outcomes and reduced unplanned hospital admissions. Additional investigation of characteristics of patients with minimal weight loss or feeding tube use could help refine and improve the protocol.
