STAMPEDE has previously reported that the use of upfront docetaxel improved overall survival (OS) for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report on long-term outcomes stratified by metastatic burden for M1 patients. We randomly allocated patients in 2 : 1 ratio to standard-of-care (SOC; control group) or SOC + docetaxel. Metastatic disease burden was categorised using retrospectively-collected baseline staging scans where available. Analysis used Cox regression models, adjusted for stratification factors, with emphasis on restricted mean survival time where hazards were non-proportional. Between 05 October 2005 and 31 March 2013, 1086 M1 patients were randomised to receive SOC (n = 724) or SOC + docetaxel (n = 362). Metastatic burden was assessable for 830/1086 (76%) patients; 362 (44%) had low and 468 (56%) high metastatic burden. Median follow-up was 78.2 months. There were 494 deaths on SOC (41% more than the previous report). There was good evidence of benefit of docetaxel over SOC on OS (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.95, P = 0.009) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P = 0.827). Analysis of other outcomes found evidence of benefit for docetaxel over SOC in failure-free survival (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.57-0.76, P < 0.001) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.59-0.81, P < 0.001) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P > 0.5 in each case). There was no evidence that docetaxel resulted in late toxicity compared with SOC: after 1 year, G3-5 toxicity was reported for 28% SOC and 27% docetaxel (in patients still on follow-up at 1 year without prior progression). The clinically significant benefit in survival for upfront docetaxel persists at longer follow-up, with no evidence that benefit differed by metastatic burden. We advocate that upfront docetaxel is considered for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients regardless of metastatic burden.

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common disease among men worldwide. It is important to know survival outcomes and prognostic factors for this disease. Recruitment for the largest therapeutic randomised controlled trial in PCa--the Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy: A Multi-Stage Multi-Arm Randomised Controlled Trial (STAMPEDE)--includes men with newly diagnosed metastatic PCa who are commencing long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT); the control arm provides valuable data for a prospective cohort. Describe survival outcomes, along with current treatment standards and factors associated with prognosis, to inform future trial design in this patient group. STAMPEDE trial control arm comprising men newly diagnosed with M1 disease who were recruited between October 2005 and January 2014. Overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) were reported by primary disease characteristics using Kaplan-Meier methods. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived from multivariate Cox models. A cohort of 917 men with newly diagnosed M1 disease was recruited to the control arm in the specified interval. Median follow-up was 20 mo. Median age at randomisation was 66 yr (interquartile range [IQR]: 61-71), and median prostate-specific antigen level was 112 ng/ml (IQR: 34-373). Most men (n=574; 62%) had bone-only metastases, whereas 237 (26%) had both bone and soft tissue metastases; soft tissue metastasis was found mainly in distant lymph nodes. There were 238 deaths, 202 (85%) from PCa. Median FFS was 11 mo; 2-yr FFS was 29% (95% CI, 25-33). Median OS was 42 mo; 2-yr OS was 72% (95% CI, 68-76). Survival time was influenced by performance status, age, Gleason score, and metastases distribution. Median survival after FFS event was 22 mo. Trial eligibility criteria meant men were younger and fitter than general PCa population. Survival remains disappointing in men presenting with M1 disease who are started on only long-term ADT, despite active treatments being available at first failure of ADT. Importantly, men with M1 disease now spend the majority of their remaining life in a state of castration-resistant relapse. Results from this control arm cohort found survival is relatively short and highly influenced by patient age, fitness, and where prostate cancer has spread in the body.

Infrared spectra of single biological cells often exhibit the ‘dispersion artefact’ observed as a sharp decrease in intensity on the high wavenumber side of absorption bands, in particular the Amide I band at ∼1655 cm⁻¹, causing a downward shift of the true peak position. The presence of this effect makes any biochemical interpretation of the spectra unreliable. Recent theory has shed light on the origins of the ‘dispersion artefact’ which has been attributed to resonant Mie scattering (RMieS). In this paper a preliminary algorithm for correcting RMieS is presented and evaluated using simulated data. Results show that the ‘dispersion artefact’ appears to be removed; however, the correction is not perfect. An iterative approach was subsequently implemented whereby the reference spectrum is improved after each iteration, resulting in a more accurate correction. Consequently the corrected spectra become increasingly more representative of the pure absorbance spectra. Using this correction method reliable peak positions can be obtained.

In November 2011, the Third European Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of Germ-Cell Cancer (GCC) was held in Berlin, Germany. This third conference followed similar meetings in 2003 (Essen, Germany) and 2006 (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) [Schmoll H-J, Souchon R, Krege S et al. European consensus on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG). Ann Oncol 2004; 15: 1377–1399; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part I. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 478–496; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part II. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 497–513]. A panel of 56 of 60 invited GCC experts from all across Europe discussed all aspects on diagnosis and treatment of GCC, with a particular focus on acute and late toxic effects as well as on survivorship issues. The panel consisted of oncologists, urologic surgeons, radiooncologists, pathologists and basic scientists, who are all actively involved in care of GCC patients. Panelists were chosen based on the publication activity in recent years. Before the meeting, panelists were asked to review the literature published since 2006 in 20 major areas concerning all aspects of diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of GCC patients, and to prepare an updated version of the previous recommendations to be discussed at the conference. In addition, ∼50 E-vote questions were drafted and presented at the conference to address the most controversial areas for a poll of expert opinions. Here, we present the main recommendations and controversies of this meeting. The votes of the panelists are added as online supplements.

This communication reports that three prostate cancer cells of differing metastatic potential were discriminated based on their Young's moduli (LNCaP – 287 ± 52 N m⁻², PC-3 – 1401 ± 162 N m⁻² and BPH – 2797 ± 491 N m⁻²) which were determined using AFM and the Hertz model.