A Systematic Review of Population-Based Studies of Chronic Bowel Symptoms in Cancer Survivors following Pelvic Radiotherapy

Pelvic radiotherapy can damage surrounding tissue and organs, causing chronic conditions including bowel symptoms. We systematically identified quantitative, population-based studies of patient-reported bowel symptoms following pelvic radiotherapy to synthesize evidence of symptom type, prevalence, and severity. Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsychINFO were searched from inception to September 2022. Following independent screening of titles, abstracts, and full-texts, population and study characteristics and symptom findings were extracted, and narrative synthesis was conducted. In total, 45 papers (prostate, n = 39; gynecological, n = 6) reporting 19 datasets were included. Studies were methodologically heterogeneous. Most frequently assessed was bowel function ('score', 26 papers, 'bother', 19 papers). Also assessed was urgency, diarrhea, bleeding, incontinence, abdominal pain, painful hemorrhoids, rectal wetness, constipation, mucous discharge, frequency, and gas. Prevalence ranged from 1% (bleeding) to 59% (anal bleeding for >12 months at any time since start of treatment). In total, 10 papers compared radiotherapy with non-cancer comparators and 24 with non-radiotherapy cancer patient groups. Symptom prevalence/severity was greater/worse in radiotherapy groups and symptoms more common/worse post-radiotherapy than pre-diagnosis/treatment. Symptom prevalence varied between studies and symptoms. This review confirms that many people experience chronic bowel symptoms following pelvic radiotherapy. Greater methodological consistency, and investigation of less-well-studied survivor populations, could better inform the provision of services and support.

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

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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).

FINDINGS

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]; p_interaction=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).

INTERPRETATION

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.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.

Optimising bone health management in advanced prostate cancer: A comparative cohort study

133

Background: Survival in prostate cancer is increasing due to advances in hormonal therapy. The recommended duration of Androgen Deprivation Therapy (ADT) is 18 months or more for patients with Non-Metastatic (NM) high risk disease, and lifelong in Metastatic disease. ADT is, however, an independent risk factor for osteoporosis, a disease characterised by low Bone Mineral Density (BMD) and subsequent increased risk of fractures, which can lead to significant disability and early death. In patients with advanced prostate cancer, it is therefore recommended that BMD is assessed yet there remains no established national guidance on how bone health should be managed. Methods: In total, 515 case notes for patients with newly diagnosed advanced hormone sensitive prostate cancer were retrospectively reviewed for assessment of bone health management. Our data analysis included a comparison of outcomes between patient cohorts managed at a dedicated Cancer Bone Health Unit (CBHU) and the Northern centre for Cancer Care (Oncology Centre, OC). Results: 1) Baseline characteristics: The cohorts were well balanced in terms of age and cancer stage. Data was available for 410 patients in the CBHU and 105 in the OC. Median age was 75 (range 59-94) in the CBHU and 71 (range 46-86) in the OC. The majority of patients had metastatic disease and were therefore receiving lifelong ADT. 2) Fracture incidence: was consistently higher in the OC (p<0.001). The most common fractures were hip, spine and wrist. Median time to first fracture in the CBHU was 112 (range 2 to 240) vs 83 weeks (8 to 229) in the OC (p=0.252). 3) Survival: for all patients 2 years after ADT commenced was 96.7% in the CBHU vs 91.8% in the OC (HR 0.321, 95% CI 0.19-0.55, p<0.001). Median survival has not yet been reached. Conclusions: This comparative analysis suggests that a strategy of standardised bone health management within a CBHU is associated with reduced fracture incidence and may delay time to first fracture compared with clinician discretion in an OC. Additionally the data suggests that this strategy also improves survival at 2 years in patients with NM high risk disease. Bone health strategies for prostate cancer should be implemented within hospital trusts to provide standardised care across the region. This could reduce costs associated with fractures and improve quality of life for patients who avoid fractures through timely introduction of treatment. The Northern Cancer Alliance (NCA) has recently approved guidance on the management of bone health in prostate cancer, and implementation has since commenced.

Using the AR-V7 biomarker to determine treatment in metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer, a feasibility randomised control trial, conclusions from the VARIANT trial

Background

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in the UK. Castrate resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) can be difficult to manage with response to next generation hormonal treatment variable. AR-V7 is a protein biomarker that can be used to predict response to treatment and potentially better inform management in these patients. Our aim was to establish the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical utility of AR-V7 biomarker assay in personalising treatments for patients with metastatic CRPC within the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS). Due to a number of issues the trial was not completed successfully, we aim to discuss and share lessons learned herein.

Methods

We conducted a randomised, open, feasibility trial, which aimed to recruit 70 adult men with metastatic CRPC within three secondary care NHS trusts in the UK to be run over an 18-month period. Participants were randomised to personalised treatment based on AR-V7 status (intervention) or standard care (control). The primary outcome was feasibility, which included: recruitment rate, retention and compliance. Additionally, a baseline prevalence of AR-V7 expression was to be estimated.

Results

Fourteen participants were screened and 12 randomised with six into each arm over a nine-month period. Reliability issues with the AR-V7 assay meant prevalence was not estimated. Due to limited recruitment the study did not complete to target.

Conclusions

Whilst the trial did not complete to target, we have ascertained that men with advanced cancer are willing to take part in trials utilising biomarker guided treatment. A number of issues were identified that serve as important learning points in future clinical trials.

Observation versus screening spinal MRI and pre-emptive treatment for spinal cord compression in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and spinal metastases in the UK (PROMPTS): an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Early diagnosis of malignant spinal cord compression (SCC) is crucial because pretreatment neurological status is the major determinant of outcome. In metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, SCC is a clinically significant cause of disease-related morbidity and mortality. We investigated whether screening for SCC with spinal MRI, and pre-emptive treatment if radiological SCC (rSCC) was detected, reduced the incidence of clinical SCC (cSCC) in asymptomatic patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and spinal metastasis.

METHODS

We did a parallel-group, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, superiority trial. Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were recruited from 45 National Health Service hospitals in the UK. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, with an Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, asymptomatic spinal metastasis, no previous SCC, and no spinal MRI in the past 12 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a minimisation algorithm with a random element (balancing factors were treatment centre, alkaline phosphatase [normal vs raised, with the upper limit of normal being defined at each participating laboratory], number of previous systemic treatments [first-line vs second-line or later], previous spinal treatment, and imaging of thorax and abdomen), to no MRI (control group) or screening spinal MRI (intervention group). Serious adverse events were monitored in the 24 h after screening MRI in the intervention group. Participants with screen-detected rSCC were offered pre-emptive treatment (radiotherapy or surgical decompression was recommended per treating physician's recommendation) and 6-monthly spinal MRI. All patients were followed up every 3 months, and then at month 30 and 36. The primary endpoint was time to and incidence of confirmed cSCC in the intention-to-treat population (defined as all patients randomly assigned), with the primary timepoint of interest being 1 year after randomisation. The study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN74112318, and is now complete.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 26, 2013, and April 25, 2017, 420 patients were randomly assigned to the control (n=210) or screening MRI (n=210) groups. Median age was 74 years (IQR 68 to 79), 222 (53%) of 420 patients had normal alkaline phosphatase, and median prostate-specific antigen concentration was 48 ng/mL (IQR 17 to 162). Screening MRI detected rSCC in 61 (31%) of 200 patients with assessable scans in the intervention group. As of data cutoff (April 23, 2020), at a median follow-up of 22 months (IQR 13 to 31), time to cSCC was not significantly improved with screening (hazard ratio 0·64 [95% CI 0·37 to 1·11]; Gray's test p=0·12). 1-year cSCC rates were 6·7% (95% CI 3·8-10·6; 14 of 210 patients) for the control group and 4·3% (2·1-7·7; nine of 210 patients) for the intervention group (difference -2·4% [95% CI -4·2 to 0·1]). Median time to cSCC was not reached in either group. No serious adverse events were reported within 24 h of screening.

INTERPRETATION

Despite the substantial incidence of rSCC detected in the intervention group, the rate of cSCC in both groups was low at a median of 22 months of follow-up. Routine use of screening MRI and pre-emptive treatment to prevent cSCC is not warranted in patients with asymptomatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with spinal metastasis.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK.

Abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of primary results from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol

BACKGROUND

Men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer are treated with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for 3 years, often combined with radiotherapy. We analysed new data from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials done in a multiarm, multistage platform protocol to assess the efficacy of adding abiraterone and prednisolone alone or with enzalutamide to ADT in this patient population.

METHODS

These open-label, phase 3 trials were done at 113 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restrictions) had high-risk (defined as node positive or, if node negative, having at least two of the following: tumour stage T3 or T4, Gleason sum score of 8-10, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] concentration ≥40 ng/mL) or relapsing with high-risk features (≤12 months of total ADT with an interval of ≥12 months without treatment and PSA concentration ≥4 ng/mL with a doubling time of <6 months, or a PSA concentration ≥20 ng/mL, or nodal relapse) non-metastatic prostate cancer, and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Local radiotherapy (as per local guidelines, 74 Gy in 37 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles or the equivalent using hypofractionated schedules) was mandated for node negative and encouraged for node positive disease. In both trials, patients were randomly assigned (1:1), by use of a computerised algorithm, to ADT alone (control group), which could include surgery and luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists, or with oral abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and oral prednisolone (5 mg daily; combination-therapy group). In the second trial with no overlapping controls, the combination-therapy group also received enzalutamide (160 mg daily orally). ADT was given for 3 years and combination therapy for 2 years, except if local radiotherapy was omitted when treatment could be delivered until progression. In this primary analysis, we used meta-analysis methods to pool events from both trials. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was metastasis-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, biochemical failure-free survival, progression-free survival, and toxicity and adverse events. For 90% power and a one-sided type 1 error rate set to 1·25% to detect a target hazard ratio for improvement in metastasis-free survival of 0·75, approximately 315 metastasis-free survival events in the control groups was required. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety according to the treatment started within randomised allocation. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00268476, and with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN78818544.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 15, 2011, and March 31, 2016, 1974 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The first trial allocated 455 to the control group and 459 to combination therapy, and the second trial, which included enzalutamide, allocated 533 to the control group and 527 to combination therapy. Median age across all groups was 68 years (IQR 63-73) and median PSA 34 ng/ml (14·7-47); 774 (39%) of 1974 patients were node positive, and 1684 (85%) were planned to receive radiotherapy. With median follow-up of 72 months (60-84), there were 180 metastasis-free survival events in the combination-therapy groups and 306 in the control groups. Metastasis-free survival was significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups (median not reached, IQR not evaluable [NE]-NE) than in the control groups (not reached, 97-NE; hazard ratio [HR] 0·53, 95% CI 0·44-0·64, p<0·0001). 6-year metastasis-free survival was 82% (95% CI 79-85) in the combination-therapy group and 69% (66-72) in the control group. There was no evidence of a difference in metatasis-free survival when enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate were administered concurrently compared with abiraterone acetate alone (interaction HR 1·02, 0·70-1·50, p=0·91) and no evidence of between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·90). Overall survival (median not reached [IQR NE-NE] in the combination-therapy groups vs not reached [103-NE] in the control groups; HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·48-0·73, p<0·0001), prostate cancer-specific survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [NE-NE]; 0·49, 0·37-0·65, p<0·0001), biochemical failure-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs 86 months [83-NE]; 0·39, 0·33-0·47, p<0·0001), and progression-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [103-NE]; 0·44, 0·36-0·54, p<0·0001) were also significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups than in the control groups. Adverse events grade 3 or higher during the first 24 months were, respectively, reported in 169 (37%) of 451 patients and 130 (29%) of 455 patients in the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone trial, respectively, and 298 (58%) of 513 patients and 172 (32%) of 533 patients of the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, respectively. The two most common events more frequent in the combination-therapy groups were hypertension (abiraterone trial: 23 (5%) in the combination-therapy group and six (1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 73 (14%) and eight (2%), respectively) and alanine transaminitis (abiraterone trial: 25 (6%) in the combination-therapy group and one (<1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 69 (13%) and four (1%), respectively). Seven grade 5 adverse events were reported: none in the control groups, three in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone group (one event each of rectal adenocarcinoma, pulmonary haemorrhage, and a respiratory disorder), and four in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with enzalutamide group (two events each of septic shock and sudden death).

INTERPRETATION

Among men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer, combination therapy is associated with significantly higher rates of metastasis-free survival compared with ADT alone. Abiraterone acetate with prednisolone should be considered a new standard treatment for this population.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.

Prostate cancer androgen receptor splice variant 7 biomarker study - a multicentre randomised feasibility trial of biomarker-guided personalised treatment in patients with advanced prostate cancer (the VARIANT trial) study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Prostate cancer is the most common male cancer with one in four developing non-curable metastatic disease. Initial treatment responses to hormonal therapies are transient and further management options lie between (1) further hormone therapy or (2) a non-hormonal approach involving additional chemotherapy or molecular radiotherapy (radium-223). There is no clear rationale for choosing between these mechanistically different treatment approaches. The biology of hormone resistance is driven through abnormal androgen receptor activity and we can assay this through a blood test measuring androgen receptor variant 7 (AR-V7) expression in circulating tumour cells. Despite increasing evidence supporting AR-V7's role as a prognostic marker, the clinical utility of such measures remains unknown in helping personalise treatment decisions.

METHODS AND DESIGN

The VARIANT feasibility trial is a pragmatic design, to be run over 18 months with participants randomised into the intervention arm receiving biomarker (AR-V7) guided clinical treatment and participants randomised into the control arm with conventional standard management (no biomarker guidance). AR-V7 positive participants (likely to be insensitive to further hormone treatment) will receive chemotherapy or in other cases radium-223 (where routinely available). Seventy male ≥18 years old participants with metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer clinically indicated to proceed to further hormone therapy or chemotherapy, will be recruited from three National Health Service Trusts based in England, Scotland and Wales. The feasibility primary outcome is willingness of patients to be randomised and clinicians to recruit to a biomarker-based treatment strategy, with trial data informing the basis of a definitive and appropriately powered randomised control trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Formal ethics review was undertaken with a favourable opinion, through Wales NRES Committee 2 18/WA/0419. Findings to be disseminated through patient and professional organisations that have expressed their support, media outlets and peer-reviewed journal publication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN10246848; pre-results.

ACORN: Observational Study of Bevacizumab in Combination With First-Line Chemotherapy for Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the UK

INTRODUCTION

Survival in metastatic colorectal cancer is worse than expected in the United Kingdom. Real-world data are needed to better understand UK-specific treatment practices that may explain this.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The Avastin ColORectal Non-interventional (ACORN) study is a multicenter, prospective, UK-based, observational, phase 4 study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01506167) that recruited patients with metastatic colorectal cancer scheduled to receive bevacizumab in combination with first-line chemotherapy as part of routine clinical practice. Primary end points included progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), serious adverse events (AEs), and grade 3 to 5 bevacizumab-related AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 714 patients were recruited between August 30, 2012, and February 4, 2014. Median follow-up was 16.4 months. Median first-line chemotherapy duration was 5.6 months, with capecitabine/oxaliplatin (265 [37.1%]) being the most common regimen. Median total chemotherapy duration was 8.1 months and did not vary by geographic location in the UK. Median progression-free survival (95% confidence interval) was 8.7 (8.2-9.1) months, and median OS was 17.8 (16.1-19.3) months. There was no significant difference in efficacy by chemotherapy regimen administered. Ninety-nine patients (13.9%) received bevacizumab after disease progression. The safety profile of bevacizumab was consistent with previous studies.

CONCLUSION

ACORN provided evidence that there were no clear differences observed in outcomes between bevacizumab with capecitabine-based chemotherapy and fluorouracil-based regimens, and confirmed the safety profile of bevacizumab in a real-world UK-based population. The lower-than-expected OS is likely due to the short total chemotherapy duration, less frequent use of bevacizumab after disease progression, and higher rates of in-situ primary tumors.

Delays in the diagnosis and treatment of muscle invasive bladder cancer: A pilot project mapping the pathway

Background:

The patient pathway for muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) is multidisciplinary. Trans-urethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) counts as the first definitive treatment and subsequent definitive therapy thereafter is often delayed, which may adversely affect outcome. We elected to scrutinise the management pathway in detail to understand these delays and improve the patient experience.

Method:

A retrospective mapping analysis was conducted on 17 patients with MIBC. The causes of any delays and measures to avoid these were identified. A prospective study of 17 patients with MIBC was then undertaken to see if the strategies used to re-engineer the patient care pathway had been effective.

Result:

The median time from GP referral to first appointment was 9 days (range: 1–37) and from TURBT to subsequent radical treatment was 75 days (range: 27–105) in keeping with published literature. The median time for a referral letter from urology to oncology following MDT was 15 days. We therefore modified the MDT proforma to use as a formal referral, and a project manager proactively managed the patient pathway. Capacity issues were addressed by protecting clinical slots for bladder patients and establishing monthly evening clinics. After implementing the strategies, the median days from first appointment to TURBT improved from 31 to 23 days and time from TURBT to subsequent treatment improved from 75 to 66 days. The time from MDT referral to being seen by an oncologist or urologist significantly reduced from 32 to 15 days.

Conclusion:

Retrospective analysis identified delays between initial TURBT to definitive therapy and strategies adopted to reduce these were effective. TURBT is a diagnostic process and if acknowledged as first treatment results in delays of what is the definitive treatment. We found the initial diagnostic pathway to work well but non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and MIBC are then managed very differently and warrant two separate pathways.

Randomized Phase II trial of nintedanib, afatinib and sequential combination in castration-resistant prostate cancer

AIMS

The aim of this article was to evaluate afatinib (BIBW 2992), an ErbB family blocker, and nintedanib (BIBF 1120), a triple angiokinase inhibitor, in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients.

PATIENTS & METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive nintedanib (250 mg twice daily), afatinib (40 mg once daily [q.d.]), or alternating sequential 7-day nintedanib (250 mg twice daily) and afatinib (70 mg q.d. [Combi70]), which was reduced to 40 mg q.d. (Combi40) due to adverse events. The primary end point was progression-free rate at 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Of the 85 patients treated 46, 20, 16 and three received nintedanib, afatinib, Combi40 and Combi70, respectively. At 12 weeks, the progression-free rate was 26% (seven out of 27 patients) for nintedanib, and 0% for afatinib and Combi40 groups. Two patients had a ≥50% decline in PSA (nintedanib and the Combi40 groups). The most common drug-related adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and lethargy.

CONCLUSION

Nintedanib and/or afatinib demonstrated limited anti-tumor activity in unselected advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer patients.

The development of a protocol for the use of 5-HT3 antagonists in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of three 5-HT3 antagonists in routine clinical practice. The ultimate aim was to develop an antiemetic protocol, selecting a single 5-HT3 antagonist. Each of the drugs was studied for a 4-month period and data was collected from patients on nausea, vomiting (both acute and delayed) and side-effects by means of a diary card. A total of 274 patients were enrolled into the study. Success rates for acute emesis seen over the study period were in excess of 90%. There were no statistically significant differences between any of the three drugs investigated with respect to both acute and delayed nausea and vomiting. Similarly, there was no difference between the three groups for the incidence of constipation, diarrhoea and headache. Granisetron demonstrated a lesser deviation from the protocol in respect of the number of intravenous doses given to patients. The study allowed an effective 5-HT3 antagonist protocol to be developed for use in the management of nausea and vomiting in cancer patients.

Survival from cancer: local control and radiotherapy

Adjuvant radiotherapy is considered to be highly effective in maintaining local control but is widely perceived to confer no survival advantage in the management of solid tumours. However, recent adjuvant radiotherapy studies are beginning to show survival improvements in parallel with improvements in loco-regional disease control.