Purpose: To update eligibility and outcome measures in trials that evaluate systemic treatment for patients with progressive prostate cancer and castrate levels of testosterone.Methods: A committee of investigators experienced in conducting trials for prostate cancer defined new consensus criteria by reviewing previous criteria, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and emerging trial data.Results: The Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group (PCWG2) recommends a two-objective paradigm: (1) controlling, relieving, or eliminating disease manifestations that are present when treatment is initiated and (2) preventing or delaying disease manifestations expected to occur. Prostate cancers progressing despite castrate levels of testosterone are considered castration resistant and not hormone refractory. Eligibility is defined using standard disease assessments to authenticate disease progression, prior treatment, distinct clinical subtypes, and predictive models. Outcomes are reported independently for prostate-specific antigen (PSA), imaging, and clinical measures, avoiding grouped categorizations such as complete or partial response. In most trials, early changes in PSA and/or pain are not acted on without other evidence of disease progression, and treatment should be continued for at least 12 weeks to ensure adequate drug exposure. Bone scans are reported as “new lesions” or “no new lesions,” changes in soft-tissue disease assessed by RECIST, and pain using validated scales. Defining eligibility for prevent/delay end points requires attention to estimated event frequency and/or random assignment to a control group.Conclusion: PCWG2 recommends increasing emphasis on time-to-event end points (ie, failure to progress) as decision aids in proceeding from phase II to phase III trials. Recommendations will evolve as data are generated on the utility of intermediate end points to predict clinical benefit.

Purpose: Evolving treatments, disease phenotypes, and biology, together with a changing drug development environment, have created the need to revise castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) clinical trial recommendations to succeed those from prior Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Groups. Methods: An international expert committee of prostate cancer clinical investigators (the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 [PCWG3]) was reconvened and expanded and met in 2012-2015 to formulate updated criteria on the basis of emerging trial data and validation studies of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 2 recommendations. Results: PCWG3 recommends that baseline patient assessment include tumor histology, detailed records of prior systemic treatments and responses, and a detailed reporting of disease subtypes based on an anatomic pattern of metastatic spread. New recommendations for trial outcome measures include the time to event end point of symptomatic skeletal events, as well as time to first metastasis and time to progression for trials in the nonmetastatic CRPC state. PCWG3 introduces the concept of no longer clinically benefiting to underscore the distinction between first evidence of progression and the clinical need to terminate or change treatment, and the importance of documenting progression in existing lesions as distinct from the development of new lesions. Serial biologic profiling using tumor samples from biopsies, blood-based diagnostics, and/or imaging is also recommended to gain insight into mechanisms of resistance and to identify predictive biomarkers of sensitivity for use in prospective trials. Conclusion: PCWG3 moves drug development closer to unmet needs in clinical practice by focusing on disease manifestations most likely to affect prognosis adversely for therapeutics tested in both nonmetastatic and metastatic CRPC populations. Consultation with regulatory authorities is recommended if a trial is intended to seek support for drug approval.

Background Experimental studies in animals and observational studies in humans suggest that regular aspirin use may decrease the risk of colorectal adenomas, the precursors to most colorectal cancers. Methods We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial to determine the effect of aspirin on the incidence of colorectal adenomas. We randomly assigned 635 patients with previous colorectal cancer to receive either 325 mg of aspirin per day or placebo. We determined the proportion of patients with adenomas, the number of recurrent adenomas, and the time to the development of adenoma between randomization and subsequent colonoscopic examinations. Relative risks were adjusted for age, sex, cancer stage, the number of colonoscopic examinations, and the time to a first colonoscopy. The study was terminated early by an independent data and safety monitoring board when statistically significant results were reported during a planned interim analysis. Results A total of 517 randomized patients had at least one colonoscopic examination a median of 12.8 months after randomization. One or more adenomas were found in 17 percent of patients in the aspirin group and 27 percent of patients in the placebo group (P=0.004). The mean (±SD) number of adenomas was lower in the aspirin group than the placebo group (0.30±0.87 vs. 0.49±0.99, P=0.003 by the Wilcoxon test). The adjusted relative risk of any recurrent adenoma in the aspirin group, as compared with the placebo group, was 0.65 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.91). The time to the detection of a first adenoma was longer in the aspirin group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio for the detection of a new polyp, 0.64; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.43 to 0.94; P=0.022). Conclusions Daily use of aspirin is associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of colorectal adenomas in patients with previous colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a glycoprotein that is found almost exclusively in normal and neoplastic prostate cells. For patients with metastatic disease, changes in PSA will often antedate changes in bone scan. Furthermore, many but not all investigators have observed an association between a decline in PSA levels of 50% or greater and survival. Since the majority of phase II clinical trials for patients with androgen-independent prostate cancer (AIPC) have used PSA as a marker, we believed it was important for investigators to agree on definitions and values for a minimum set of parameters for eligibility and PSA declines and to develop a common approach to outcome analysis and reporting. We held a consensus conference with 26 leading investigators in the field of AIPC to define these parameters. RESULT: We defined four patient groups: (1) progressive measurable disease, (2) progressive bone metastasis, (3) stable metastases and a rising PSA, and (4) rising PSA and no other evidence of metastatic disease. The purpose of determining the number of patients whose PSA level drops in a phase II trial of AIPC is to guide the selection of agents for further testing and phase III trials. We propose that investigators report at a minimum a PSA decline of at least 50% and this must be confirmed by a second PSA value 4 or more weeks later. Patients may not demonstrate clinical or radiographic evidence of disease progression during this time period. Some investigators may want to report additional measures of PSA changes (ie, 75% decline, 90% decline). Response duration and the time to PSA progression may also be important clinical end point. CONCLUSION: Through this consensus conference, we believe we have developed practical guidelines for using PSA as a measurement of outcome. Furthermore, the use of common standards is important as we determine which agents should progress to randomized trials which will use survival as an end point.

Purpose: Bevacizumab is an antibody that binds to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and has activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Interferon alfa (IFN) is a historic standard first-line treatment for RCC. A prospective, randomized phase III trial of bevacizumab plus IFN versus IFN monotherapy was conducted. Patients and Methods: Patients with previously untreated, metastatic clear-cell RCC were randomly assigned to receive either bevacizumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks) plus IFN (9 million U subcutaneously three times weekly) or the same dose and schedule of IFN monotherapy in a multicenter phase III trial. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Results: Between October 2003 and July 2005, 732 patients were enrolled. The prespecified stopping rule for OS has not yet been reached. The median PFS was 8.5 months in patients receiving bevacizumab plus IFN (95% CI, 7.5 to 9.7 months) versus 5.2 months (95% CI, 3.1 to 5.6 months) in patients receiving IFN monotherapy (log-rank P < .0001). The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.83; P < .0001). Bevacizumab plus IFN had a higher ORR as compared with IFN (25.5% [95% CI, 20.9% to 30.6%] v 13.1% [95% CI, 9.5% to 17.3%]; P < .0001). Overall toxicity was greater for bevacizumab plus IFN, including significantly more grade 3 hypertension (9% v 0%), anorexia (17% v 8%), fatigue (35% v 28%), and proteinuria (13% v 0%). Conclusion: Bevacizumab plus IFN produces a superior PFS and ORR in untreated patients with metastatic RCC as compared with IFN monotherapy. Toxicity is greater in the combination therapy arm.

PURPOSE: Approximately 40,000 men die each year of hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC). The results of treatment with chemotherapy have been disappointing to date, with no trials demonstrating a benefit with respect to survival duration. Corticosteroids and mitoxantrone each have been shown to be active agents in this disease. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate an advantage of mitoxantrone and hydrocortisone (M+H) over hydrocortisone alone with respect to survival duration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred forty-two patients with HRPC were randomized to receive either M+H or hydrocortisone alone. Patients were monitored for survival, time to disease progression, time to treatment failure, response, and quality-of-life (QOL) parameters. RESULTS: Treatment in both arms was well tolerated. Although there was a delay in time to treatment failure and disease progression in favor of M+H over hydrocortisone alone, there was no difference in overall survival (12.3 months for M+H v 12.6 months for hydrocortisone alone). There was an indication that QOL was better with M+H, in particular with respect to pain control. CONCLUSION: M+H generated more frequent responses and a delay in both time to treatment failure and disease progression compared with hydrocortisone alone. In addition, there was a possible benefit of M+H with respect to pain control over hydrocortisone alone. No improvement in survival was observed. Although M+H could be viewed as a palliative option for patients with HRPC, new drugs and novel strategies are needed to improve survival for this disease.