Weston Park Cancer Centre

The skeleton is the most common organ to be affected by metastatic cancer and the site of disease that produces the greatest morbidity. Skeletal morbidity includes pain that requires radiotherapy, hypercalcemia, pathologic fracture, and spinal cord or nerve root compression. From randomized trials in advanced cancer, it can be seen that one of these major skeletal events occurs on average every 3 to 6 months. Additionally, metastatic disease may remain confined to the skeleton with the decline in quality of life and eventual death almost entirely due to skeletal complications and their treatment. The prognosis of metastatic bone disease is dependent on the primary site, with breast and prostate cancers associated with a survival measured in years compared with lung cancer, where the average survival is only a matter of months. Additionally, the presence of extraosseous disease and the extent and tempo of the bone disease are powerful predictors of outcome. The latter is best estimated by measurement of bone-specific markers, and recent studies have shown a strong correlation between the rate of bone resorption and clinical outcome, both in terms of skeletal morbidity and progression of the underlying disease or death. Our improved understanding of prognostic and predictive factors may enable delivery of a more personalized treatment for the individual patient and a more cost-effective use of health care resources.

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.

Background The ESPAC-3 trial showed that adjuvant gemcitabine is the standard of care based on similar survival to and less toxicity than adjuvant 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Other clinical trials have shown better survival and tumour response with gemcitabine and capecitabine than with gemcitabine alone in advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and capecitabine compared with gemcitabine monotherapy for resected pancreatic cancer. Methods We did a phase 3, two-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised clinical trial at 92 hospitals in England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, France, and Sweden. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had undergone complete macroscopic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (R0 or R1 resection). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) within 12 weeks of surgery to receive six cycles of either 1000 mg/m 2 gemcitabine alone administered once a week for three of every 4 weeks (one cycle) or with 1660 mg/m 2 oral capecitabine administered for 21 days followed by 7 days' rest (one cycle). Randomisation was based on a minimisation routine, and country was used as a stratification factor. The primary endpoint was overall survival, measured as the time from randomisation until death from any cause, and assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Toxicity was analysed in all patients who received trial treatment. This trial was registered with the EudraCT, number 2007-004299-38, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN96397434. Findings Of 732 patients enrolled, 730 were included in the final analysis. Of these, 366 were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine and 364 to gemcitabine plus capecitabine. The Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee requested reporting of the results after there were 458 (95%) of a target of 480 deaths. The median overall survival for patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group was 28·0 months (95% CI 23·5–31·5) compared with 25·5 months (22·7–27·9) in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio 0·82 [95% CI 0·68–0·98], p=0·032). 608 grade 3–4 adverse events were reported by 226 of 359 patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group compared with 481 grade 3–4 adverse events in 196 of 366 patients in the gemcitabine group. Interpretation The adjuvant combination of gemcitabine and capecitabine should be the new standard of care following resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Funding Cancer Research UK.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone improves survival in men with relapsed prostate cancer. We assessed the effect of this combination in men starting long-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), using a multigroup, multistage trial design. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive ADT alone or ADT plus abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and prednisolone (5 mg daily) (combination therapy). Local radiotherapy was mandated for patients with node-negative, nonmetastatic disease and encouraged for those with positive nodes. For patients with nonmetastatic disease with no radiotherapy planned and for patients with metastatic disease, treatment continued until radiologic, clinical, or prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression; otherwise, treatment was to continue for 2 years or until any type of progression, whichever came first. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. The intermediate primary outcome was failure-free survival (treatment failure was defined as radiologic, clinical, or PSA progression or death from prostate cancer). RESULTS: A total of 1917 patients underwent randomization from November 2011 through January 2014. The median age was 67 years, and the median PSA level was 53 ng per milliliter. A total of 52% of the patients had metastatic disease, 20% had node-positive or node-indeterminate nonmetastatic disease, and 28% had node-negative, nonmetastatic disease; 95% had newly diagnosed disease. The median follow-up was 40 months. There were 184 deaths in the combination group as compared with 262 in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.76; P<0.001); the hazard ratio was 0.75 in patients with nonmetastatic disease and 0.61 in those with metastatic disease. There were 248 treatment-failure events in the combination group as compared with 535 in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.34; P<0.001); the hazard ratio was 0.21 in patients with nonmetastatic disease and 0.31 in those with metastatic disease. Grade 3 to 5 adverse events occurred in 47% of the patients in the combination group (with nine grade 5 events) and in 33% of the patients in the ADT-alone group (with three grade 5 events). CONCLUSIONS: Among men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer, ADT plus abiraterone and prednisolone was associated with significantly higher rates of overall and failure-free survival than ADT alone. (Funded by Cancer Research U.K. and others; STAMPEDE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00268476 , and Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN78818544 .).

BACKGROUND: Tamoxifen, taken for five years, is the standard adjuvant treatment for postmenopausal women with primary, estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. Despite this treatment, however, some patients have a relapse. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial to test whether, after two to three years of tamoxifen therapy, switching to exemestane was more effective than continuing tamoxifen therapy for the remainder of the five years of treatment. The primary end point was disease-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 4742 patients enrolled, 2362 were randomly assigned to switch to exemestane, and 2380 to continue to receive tamoxifen. After a median follow-up of 30.6 months, 449 first events (local or metastatic recurrence, contralateral breast cancer, or death) were reported--183 in the exemestane group and 266 in the tamoxifen group. The unadjusted hazard ratio in the exemestane group as compared with the tamoxifen group was 0.68 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.56 to 0.82; P<0.001 by the log-rank test), representing a 32 percent reduction in risk and corresponding to an absolute benefit in terms of disease-free survival of 4.7 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 2.6 to 6.8) at three years after randomization. Overall survival was not significantly different in the two groups, with 93 deaths occurring in the exemestane group and 106 in the tamoxifen group. Severe toxic effects of exemestane were rare. Contralateral breast cancer occurred in 20 patients in the tamoxifen group and 9 in the exemestane group (P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Exemestane therapy after two to three years of tamoxifen therapy significantly improved disease-free survival as compared with the standard five years of tamoxifen treatment.

Soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) gather over 80 histological entities, with even more molecular subsets, characterised by a low to very low incidence in all populations. The majority of sarcomas arise from the soft tissue (close to 75%), with ∼15% gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) and 10% bone sarcomas. These ESMO–EURACAN (European Society for Medical Oncology–European Reference Network for rare adult solid cancers) Clinical Practice Guidelines cover STSs, while GISTs are covered by dedicated ESMO–EURACAN Clinical Practice Guidelines [1].

The skeleton is the most common organ to be affected by metastatic cancer, and tumors arising from the breast, prostate, thyroid, lung, and kidney possess a special propensity to spread to bone. Breast carcinoma, the most prevalent malignancy, causes the greatest morbidity. Of great clinical importance is the observation that metastatic bone disease may remain confined to the skeleton. In these patients, the decline in quality of life and eventual death is due almost entirely to skeletal complications and their subsequent treatment. Bone pain is the most common complication of metastatic bone disease, resulting from structural damage, periosteal irritation, and nerve entrapment. Recent evidence suggests that pain caused by bone metastasis may also be related to the rate of bone resorption. Hypercalcemia occurs in 5-10% of all patients with advanced cancer but is most common in patients with breast carcinoma, multiple myeloma, and squamous carcinomas of the lung and other primary sites. Pathologic fractures are a relatively late complication of bone involvement. The clinical courses of breast and prostate carcinoma are relatively long, with a median survival of 2-3 years. For patients with breast carcinoma, good prognostic factors for survival after the development of bone metastases are good histologic grade, positive estrogen receptor status, bone disease at initial presentation, a long disease free interval, and increasing age. In addition, patients with disease that remains confined to the skeleton have a better prognosis than those with subsequent visceral involvement. For patients with prostate carcinoma, adverse prognostic features include poor performance status, involvement of the appendicular skeleton and visceral involvement, whereas for patients with multiple myeloma, the levels of serum beta2-microglobulin and lactate dehydrogenase and the immunologic phenotype are the most important factors. These prognostic factors may be useful in planning the rational use of bisphosphonates in the treatment of advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Based on previous findings, we hypothesised that radiotherapy to the prostate would improve overall survival in men with metastatic prostate cancer, and that the benefit would be greatest in patients with a low metastatic burden. We aimed to compare standard of care for metastatic prostate cancer, with and without radiotherapy. METHODS: We did a randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 117 hospitals in Switzerland and the UK. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. We randomly allocated patients open-label in a 1:1 ratio to standard of care (control group) or standard of care and radiotherapy (radiotherapy group). Randomisation was stratified by hospital, age at randomisation, nodal involvement, WHO performance status, planned androgen deprivation therapy, planned docetaxel use (from December, 2015), and regular aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. Standard of care was lifelong androgen deprivation therapy, with up-front docetaxel permitted from December, 2015. Men allocated radiotherapy received either a daily (55 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks) or weekly (36 Gy in six fractions over 6 weeks) schedule that was nominated before randomisation. The primary outcome was overall survival, measured as the number of deaths; this analysis had 90% power with a one-sided α of 2·5% for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·75. Secondary outcomes were failure-free survival, progression-free survival, metastatic progression-free survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, and symptomatic local event-free survival. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, adjusted for stratification factors. The primary outcome analysis was by intention to treat. Two prespecified subgroup analyses tested the effects of prostate radiotherapy by baseline metastatic burden and radiotherapy schedule. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00268476. FINDINGS: Between Jan 22, 2013, and Sept 2, 2016, 2061 men underwent randomisation, 1029 were allocated the control and 1032 radiotherapy. Allocated groups were balanced, with a median age of 68 years (IQR 63-73) and median amount of prostate-specific antigen of 97 ng/mL (33-315). 367 (18%) patients received early docetaxel. 1082 (52%) participants nominated the daily radiotherapy schedule before randomisation and 979 (48%) the weekly schedule. 819 (40%) men had a low metastatic burden, 1120 (54%) had a high metastatic burden, and the metastatic burden was unknown for 122 (6%). Radiotherapy improved failure-free survival (HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·68-0·84; p<0·0001) but not overall survival (0·92, 0·80-1·06; p=0·266). Radiotherapy was well tolerated, with 48 (5%) adverse events (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 3-4) reported during radiotherapy and 37 (4%) after radiotherapy. The proportion reporting at least one severe adverse event (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or worse) was similar by treatment group in the safety population (398 [38%] with control and 380 [39%] with radiotherapy). INTERPRETATION: Radiotherapy to the prostate did not improve overall survival for unselected patients with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Astellas, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a randomized trial of prophylactic cranial irradiation in patients with extensive small-cell lung cancer who had had a response to chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients between the ages of 18 and 75 years with extensive small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned to undergo prophylactic cranial irradiation (irradiation group) or receive no further therapy (control group). The primary end point was the time to symptomatic brain metastases. Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the brain was performed when any predefined key symptom suggestive of brain metastases was present. RESULTS: The two groups (each with 143 patients) were well balanced regarding baseline characteristics. Patients in the irradiation group had a lower risk of symptomatic brain metastases (hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.44; P<0.001). The cumulative risk of brain metastases within 1 year was 14.6% in the irradiation group (95% CI, 8.3 to 20.9) and 40.4% in the control group (95% CI, 32.1 to 48.6). Irradiation was associated with an increase in median disease-free survival from 12.0 weeks to 14.7 weeks and in median overall survival from 5.4 months to 6.7 months after randomization. The 1-year survival rate was 27.1% (95% CI, 19.4 to 35.5) in the irradiation group and 13.3% (95% CI, 8.1 to 19.9) in the control group. Irradiation had side effects but did not have a clinically significant effect on global health status. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic cranial irradiation reduces the incidence of symptomatic brain metastases and prolongs disease-free and overall survival. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00016211 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Background The incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal cancer, a disease affecting younger patients, is rapidly increasing. Cetuximab, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, has been proposed for treatment de-escalation in this setting to reduce the toxicity of standard cisplatin treatment, but no randomised evidence exists for the efficacy of this strategy. Methods We did an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 32 head and neck treatment centres in Ireland, the Netherlands, and the UK, in patients aged 18 years or older with HPV-positive low-risk oropharyngeal cancer (non-smokers or lifetime smokers with a smoking history of <10 pack-years). Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive, in addition to radiotherapy (70 Gy in 35 fractions), either intravenous cisplatin (100 mg/m 2 on days 1, 22, and 43 of radiotherapy) or intravenous cetuximab (400 mg/m 2 loading dose followed by seven weekly infusions of 250 mg/m 2 ). The primary outcome was overall severe (grade 3–5) toxicity events at 24 months from the end of treatment. The primary outcome was assessed by intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN33522080. Findings Between Nov 12, 2012, and Oct 1, 2016, 334 patients were recruited (166 in the cisplatin group and 168 in the cetuximab group). Overall (acute and late) severe (grade 3–5) toxicity did not differ significantly between treatment groups at 24 months (mean number of events per patient 4·8 [95% CI 4·2–5·4] with cisplatin vs 4·8 [4·2–5·4] with cetuximab; p=0·98). At 24 months, overall all-grade toxicity did not differ significantly either (mean number of events per patient 29·2 [95% CI 27·3–31·0] with cisplatin vs 30·1 [28·3–31·9] with cetuximab; p=0·49). However, there was a significant difference between cisplatin and cetuximab in 2-year overall survival (97·5% vs 89·4%, hazard ratio 5·0 [95% CI 1·7–14·7]; p=0·001) and 2-year recurrence (6·0% vs 16·1%, 3·4 [1·6–7·2]; p=0·0007). Interpretation Compared with the standard cisplatin regimen, cetuximab showed no benefit in terms of reduced toxicity, but instead showed significant detriment in terms of tumour control. Cisplatin and radiotherapy should be used as the standard of care for HPV-positive low-risk patients who are able to tolerate cisplatin. Funding Cancer Research UK.

BACKGROUND: We compared docetaxel plus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (TAC) with fluorouracil plus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (FAC) as adjuvant chemotherapy for operable node-positive breast cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1491 women with axillary node-positive breast cancer to six cycles of treatment with either TAC or FAC as adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery. The primary end point was disease-free survival. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 55 months, the estimated rates of disease-free survival at five years were 75 percent among the 745 patients randomly assigned to receive TAC and 68 percent among the 746 randomly assigned to receive FAC, representing a 28 percent reduction in the risk of relapse (P=0.001) in the TAC group. The estimated rates of overall survival at five years were 87 percent and 81 percent, respectively. Treatment with TAC resulted in a 30 percent reduction in the risk of death (P=0.008). The incidence of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was 65.5 percent in the TAC group and 49.3 percent in the FAC group (P<0.001); rates of febrile neutropenia were 24.7 percent and 2.5 percent, respectively (P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 infections occurred in 3.9 percent of the patients who received TAC and 2.2 percent of those who received FAC (P=0.05); no deaths occurred as a result of infection. Two patients in each group died during treatment. Congestive heart failure and acute myeloid leukemia occurred in less than 2 percent of the patients in each group. Quality-of-life scores decreased during chemotherapy but returned to baseline levels after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant chemotherapy with TAC, as compared with FAC, significantly improves the rates of disease-free and overall survival among women with operable node-positive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The goal of the current study was to compare the long-term (25-month) safety and efficacy of zoledronic acid with pamidronate in patients with bone lesions secondary to advanced breast carcinoma or multiple myeloma. METHODS: Patients (n = 1648) were randomized to receive 4 mg or 8 mg (reduced to 4 mg) zoledronic acid as a 15-minute infusion or to receive 90 mg pamidronate as a 2-hour infusion every 3-4 weeks for 24 months. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with at least 1 skeletal-related event (SRE), defined as pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, radiation therapy, or surgery to bone. Secondary analyses included time to first SRE, skeletal morbidity rate, and multiple-event analysis. Hypercalcemia of malignancy (HCM) was included as an SRE in some secondary analyses. RESULTS: After 25 months of follow-up, zoledronic acid reduced the overall proportion of patients with an SRE and reduced the skeletal morbidity rate similar to pamidronate. Compared with pamidronate, zoledronic acid (4 mg) reduced the overall risk of developing skeletal complications (including HCM) by an additional 16% (P = 0.030). In patients with breast carcinoma, zoledronic acid (4 mg) was significantly more effective than pamidronate, reducing the risk of SREs by an additional 20% (P = 0.025) compared with pamidronate and by an additional 30% in patients receiving hormonal therapy (P = 0.009). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) and pamidronate were tolerated equally well. The most common adverse events included bone pain, nausea, and fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up data confirm that zoledronic acid was more effective than pamidronate in reducing the risk of skeletal complications in patients with bone metastases from breast carcinoma and was of similar efficacy in patients with multiple myeloma.

Background Advanced biliary tract cancer has a poor prognosis. Cisplatin and gemcitabine is the standard first-line chemotherapy regimen, but no robust evidence is available for second-line chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to determine the benefit derived from second-line FOLFOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer. Methods The ABC-06 clinical trial was a phase 3, open-label, randomised trial done in 20 sites with expertise in managing biliary tract cancer across the UK. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had histologically or cytologically verified locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer (including cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder or ampullary carcinoma) with documented radiological disease progression to first-line cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1 were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally to active symptom control (ASC) and FOLFOX or ASC alone. FOLFOX chemotherapy was administered intravenously every 2 weeks for a maximum of 12 cycles (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m 2 , L-folinic acid 175 mg [or folinic acid 350 mg], fluorouracil 400 mg/m 2 [bolus], and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m 2 as a 46-h continuous intravenous infusion). Randomisation was done following a minimisation algorithm using platinum sensitivity, serum albumin concentration, and stage as stratification factors. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was also assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The study is complete and the final results are reported. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01926236, and EudraCT, 2013-001812-30. Findings Between March 27, 2014, and Jan 4, 2018, 162 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to ASC plus FOLFOX (n=81) or ASC alone (n=81). Median follow-up was 21·7 months (IQR 17·2–30·8). Overall survival was significantly longer in the ASC plus FOLFOX group than in the ASC alone group, with a median overall survival of 6·2 months (95% CI 5·4–7·6) in the ASC plus FOLFOX group versus 5·3 months (4·1–5·8) in the ASC alone group (adjusted hazard ratio 0·69 [95% CI 0·50–0·97]; p=0·031). The overall survival rate in the ASC alone group was 35·5% (95% CI 25·2–46·0) at 6 months and 11·4% (5·6–19·5) at 12 months, compared with 50·6% (39·3–60·9) at 6 months and 25·9% (17·0–35·8) at 12 months in the ASC plus FOLFOX group. Grade 3–5 adverse events were reported in 42 (52%) of 81 patients in the ASC alone group and 56 (69%) of 81 patients in the ASC plus FOLFOX group, including three chemotherapy-related deaths (one each due to infection, acute kidney injury, and febrile neutropenia). The most frequently reported grade 3–5 FOLFOX-related adverse events were neutropenia (ten [12%] patients), fatigue or lethargy (nine [11%] patients), and infection (eight [10%] patients). Interpretation The addition of FOLFOX to ASC improved median overall survival in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer after progression on cisplatin and gemcitabine, with a clinically meaningful increase in 6-month and 12-month overall survival rates. To our knowledge, this trial is the first prospective, randomised study providing reliable, high-quality evidence to allow an informed discussion with patients of the potential benefits and risks from second-line FOLFOX chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer. Based on these findings, FOLFOX should become standard-of-care chemotherapy in second-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer and the reference regimen for further clinical trials. Funding Cancer Research UK, StandUpToCancer, AMMF (The UK Cholangiocarcinoma Charity), and The Christie Charity, with additional funding from The Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation and the Conquer Cancer Foundation Young Investigator Award for translational research.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) are rare tumours, with an estimated unadjusted incidence of around 1/100 000/year [1]. This only covers clinically relevant GISTs, since, if investigated, a much higher number of lesions ≤ 1 cm in diameter (microGISTs) can be found at histopathological examination of stomach tissue in middle-aged and elderly individuals.

BACKGROUND: Cultured meat forms part of the emerging field of cellular agriculture. Still an early stage field it seeks to deliver products traditionally made through livestock rearing in novel forms that require no, or significantly reduced, animal involvement. Key examples include cultured meat, milk, egg white and leather. Here, we focus upon cultured meat and its technical, socio-political and regulatory challenges and opportunities. SCOPE AND APPROACH: The paper reports the thinking of an interdisciplinary team, all of whom have been active in the field for a number of years. It draws heavily upon the published literature, as well as our own professional experience. This includes ongoing laboratory work to produce cultured meat and over seventy interviews with experts in the area conducted in the social science work. KEY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Cultured meat is a promising, but early stage, technology with key technical challenges including cell source, culture media, mimicking the in-vivo myogenesis environment, animal-derived and synthetic materials, and bioprocessing for commercial-scale production. Analysis of the social context has too readily been reduced to ethics and consumer acceptance, and whilst these are key issues, the importance of the political and institutional forms a cultured meat industry might take must also be recognised, and how ambiguities shape any emergent regulatory system.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether patients with early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma and negative findings on positron-emission tomography (PET) after three cycles of chemotherapy with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) require radiotherapy. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed stage IA or stage IIA Hodgkin's lymphoma received three cycles of ABVD and then underwent PET scanning. Patients with negative PET findings were randomly assigned to receive involved-field radiotherapy or no further treatment; patients with positive PET findings received a fourth cycle of ABVD and radiotherapy. This trial assessing the noninferiority of no further treatment was designed to exclude a difference in the 3-year progression-free survival rate of 7 or more percentage points from the assumed 95% progression-free survival rate in the radiotherapy group. RESULTS: A total of 602 patients (53.3% male; median age, 34 years) were recruited, and 571 patients underwent PET scanning. The PET findings were negative in 426 of these patients (74.6%), 420 of whom were randomly assigned to a study group (209 to the radiotherapy group and 211 to no further therapy). At a median of 60 months of follow-up, there had been 8 instances of disease progression in the radiotherapy group, and 8 patients had died (3 with disease progression, 1 of whom died from Hodgkin's lymphoma); there had been 20 instances of disease progression in the group with no further therapy, and 4 patients had died (2 with disease progression and none from Hodgkin's lymphoma). In the radiotherapy group, 5 of the deaths occurred in patients who received no radiotherapy. The 3-year progression-free survival rate was 94.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.5 to 97.7) in the radiotherapy group and 90.8% (95% CI, 86.9 to 94.8) in the group that received no further therapy, with an absolute risk difference of -3.8 percentage points (95% CI, -8.8 to 1.3). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study did not show the noninferiority of the strategy of no further treatment after chemotherapy with regard to progression-free survival. Nevertheless, patients in this study with early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma and negative PET findings after three cycles of ABVD had a very good prognosis either with or without consolidation radiotherapy. (Funded by Leukaemia and Lymphoma Research and others; RAPID ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00943423.).

BACKGROUND: Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and dexamethasone are widely used to treat brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although there have been no randomised clinical trials showing that WBRT improves either quality of life or overall survival. Even after treatment with WBRT, the prognosis of this patient group is poor. We aimed to establish whether WBRT could be omitted without a significant effect on survival or quality of life. METHODS: The Quality of Life after Treatment for Brain Metastases (QUARTZ) study is a non-inferiority, phase 3 randomised trial done at 69 UK and three Australian centres. NSCLC patients with brain metastases unsuitable for surgical resection or stereotactic radiotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to optimal supportive care (OSC) including dexamethasone plus WBRT (20 Gy in five daily fractions) or OSC alone (including dexamethasone). The dose of dexamethasone was determined by the patients' symptoms and titrated downwards if symptoms improved. Allocation to treatment group was done by a phone call from the hospital to the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London using a minimisation programme with a random element and stratification by centre, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), gender, status of brain metastases, and the status of primary lung cancer. The primary outcome measure was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). QALYs were generated from overall survival and patients' weekly completion of the EQ-5D questionnaire. Treatment with OSC alone was considered non-inferior if it was no more than 7 QALY days worse than treatment with WBRT plus OSC, which required 534 patients (80% power, 5% [one-sided] significance level). Analysis was done by intention to treat for all randomly assigned patients. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN3826061. FINDINGS: Between March 2, 2007, and Aug 29, 2014, 538 patients were recruited from 69 UK and three Australian centres, and were randomly assigned to receive either OSC plus WBRT (269) or OSC alone (269). Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups, and the median age of participants was 66 years (range 38-85). Significantly more episodes of drowsiness, hair loss, nausea, and dry or itchy scalp were reported while patients were receiving WBRT, although there was no evidence of a difference in the rate of serious adverse events between the two groups. There was no evidence of a difference in overall survival (hazard ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·90-1·26), overall quality of life, or dexamethasone use between the two groups. The difference between the mean QALYs was 4·7 days (46·4 QALY days for the OSC plus WBRT group vs 41·7 QALY days for the OSC group), with two-sided 90% CI of -12·7 to 3·3. INTERPRETATION: Although the primary outcome measure result includes the prespecified non-inferiority margin, the combination of the small difference in QALYs and the absence of a difference in survival and quality of life between the two groups suggests that WBRT provides little additional clinically significant benefit for this patient group. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, and the National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia.

BACKGROUND: In the Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial (SOFT) and the Tamoxifen and Exemestane Trial (TEXT), the 5-year rates of recurrence of breast cancer were significantly lower among premenopausal women who received the aromatase inhibitor exemestane plus ovarian suppression than among those who received tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression. The addition of ovarian suppression to tamoxifen did not result in significantly lower recurrence rates than those with tamoxifen alone. Here, we report the updated results from the two trials. METHODS: Premenopausal women were randomly assigned to receive 5 years of tamoxifen, tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, or exemestane plus ovarian suppression in SOFT and to receive tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression or exemestane plus ovarian suppression in TEXT. Randomization was stratified according to the receipt of chemotherapy. RESULTS: In SOFT, the 8-year disease-free survival rate was 78.9% with tamoxifen alone, 83.2% with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, and 85.9% with exemestane plus ovarian suppression (P=0.009 for tamoxifen alone vs. tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression). The 8-year rate of overall survival was 91.5% with tamoxifen alone, 93.3% with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, and 92.1% with exemestane plus ovarian suppression (P=0.01 for tamoxifen alone vs. tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression); among the women who remained premenopausal after chemotherapy, the rates were 85.1%, 89.4%, and 87.2%, respectively. Among the women with cancers that were negative for HER2 who received chemotherapy, the 8-year rate of distant recurrence with exemestane plus ovarian suppression was lower than the rate with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression (by 7.0 percentage points in SOFT and by 5.0 percentage points in TEXT). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 24.6% of the tamoxifen-alone group, 31.0% of the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group, and 32.3% of the exemestane-ovarian suppression group. CONCLUSIONS: Among premenopausal women with breast cancer, the addition of ovarian suppression to tamoxifen resulted in significantly higher 8-year rates of both disease-free and overall survival than tamoxifen alone. The use of exemestane plus ovarian suppression resulted in even higher rates of freedom from recurrence. The frequency of adverse events was higher in the two groups that received ovarian suppression than in the tamoxifen-alone group. (Funded by Pfizer and others; SOFT and TEXT ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00066690 and NCT00066703 , respectively.).

BACKGROUND: Data from randomized, controlled trials of zoledronic acid were retrospectively analyzed to assess the effect of pathologic fractures on survival in patients with malignant bone disease. METHODS: A Cox regression model was used to estimate the effect of fractures (time-dependent variable) on survival in patients with stage III multiple myeloma or bone metastases from solid tumors enrolled in 3 large trials. Patients were randomized to receive zoledronic acid, pamidronate, or placebo every 3-4 weeks for up to 24 months (prostate cancer, breast cancer, and multiple myeloma) or up to 21 months (lung and other solid tumors). RESULTS: A total of 3049 patients with multiple myeloma (n = 513), breast (n = 1130), prostate (n = 640), or lung cancer or other solid tumors (n = 766) were included in this analysis. Patients with multiple myeloma had the highest fracture incidence (43%), followed by breast (35%), prostate (19%), and lung cancer (17%). In all tumor types except lung, pathologic fracture was associated with a significant increase in risk of death, and breast cancer patients had the greatest increased risk. After adjustment for baseline characteristics, including performance status and prior skeletal complications, breast cancer patients who developed a pathologic fracture on study had a significant 32% increased risk of death relative to patients without a fracture (hazard ratio = 1.32; P < .01); patients with multiple myeloma or prostate cancer had a >20% increased risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that fractures are associated with increased risk of death in patients with malignant bone disease. Therefore, preventing fractures is an important goal of therapy.

Aberrant activation of intracellular signalling pathways confers malignant properties on cancer cells. Targeting intracellular signalling pathways has been a productive strategy for drug development, with several drugs acting on signalling pathways already in use and more continually being developed. The JAK/STAT signalling pathway provides an example of this paradigm in haematological malignancies, with the identification of JAK2 mutations in myeloproliferative neoplasms leading to the development of specific clinically effective JAK2 inhibitors, such as ruxolitinib. It is now clear that many solid tumours also show activation of JAK/STAT signalling. In this review, we focus on the role of JAK/STAT signalling in solid tumours, examining the molecular mechanisms that cause inappropriate pathway activation and their cellular consequences. We also discuss the degree to which activated JAK/STAT signalling contributes to oncogenesis. Studies showing the effect of activation of JAK/STAT signalling upon prognosis in several tumour types are summarised. Finally, we discuss the prospects for treating solid tumours using strategies targeting JAK/STAT signalling, including what can be learned from haematological malignancies and the extent to which results in solid tumours might be expected to differ.