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

Cervical cancer is the fourth most common malignancy in females worldwide, and a leading cause of death in the United Kingdom (UK). The human papillomavirus (HPV) is the strongest risk factor for developing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer. Across the UK, the national HPV immunisation programme, introduced in 2008, has been successful in protecting against HPV-related infections. Furthermore, the National Health Service (NHS) implemented the cytology-based cervical cancer screening service to all females aged 25 to 64, which has observed a decline in cervical cancer incidence. In the UK, there has been an overall decline in age-appropriate coverage since April 2010. In 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted NHS cancer screening and immunisation programmes, leading to a 6.8% decreased uptake of cervical cancer screening from the previous year. Engagement with screening has also been associated with social deprivation. In England, incidence rates of cervical cancer were reported to be 65% higher in the most deprived areas compared to the least, with lifestyle factors such as cigarette consumption contributing to 21% of cervical cancer cases. In this article, we provide an update on the epidemiology of cervical cancer, and HPV pathogenesis and transmission, along with the current prevention programmes within the NHS.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common malignancy worldwide. Surgery remains the most important treatment for non-metastatic CRC, and the administration of adjuvant chemotherapy depends mainly on the disease stage, which is still the strongest prognostic factor. A refined understanding of the genomics of CRC has recently been achieved thanks to the widespread use of next generation sequencing with potential future therapeutic implications. Microsatellite instability (MSI) has been suggested as a predictive marker for response to anti-programmed-cell-death protein 1 (PD-1) therapy in solid tumors, including CRC. It should be noted that not all cancers with MSI phenotype respond to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy, highlighting the urgent need for even better predictive biomarkers. Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase (MAPK) pathway genes KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF represent important molecular targets and could serve as independent prognostic biomarkers in CRC, and identify those who potentially benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) treatment. Emerging evidence has attributed a significant role to inflammatory markers including blood cell ratios in the prognosis and survival of CRC patients; these biomarkers can be easily assessed in routine blood exams and be used to identify high-risk patients or those more likely to benefit from chemotherapy, targeted therapies and potentially immunotherapy. Analysis of cell-free DNA (cfDNA), circulating tumor cells (CTC) and/or micro RNAs (miRNAs) could provide useful information for the early diagnosis of CRC, the identification of minimal residual disease and, the evaluation of the risk of recurrence in early CRC patients. Even the selection of patients suitable for the new targeted therapy is becoming possible with the use of predictive miRNA biomarkers. Finally, the development of treatment resistance with the emergence of chemo-resistance clones after treatment remains the most important challenge in the clinical practice. In this context it is crucial to identify potential biomarkers and therapeutic targets which could lead to development of new and more effective treatments.

Genetic complexity and DNA damage repair defects are common in different cancer types and can induce tumor-specific vulnerabilities. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors exploit defects in the DNA repair pathway through synthetic lethality and have emerged as promising anticancer therapies, especially in tumors harboring deleterious germline or somatic breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutations. However, the utility of PARP inhibitors could be expanded beyond germline BRCA1/2 mutated cancers by causing DNA damage with cytotoxic agents in the presence of a DNA repair inhibitor. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved PARP inhibitors include olaparib, rucaparib, and niraparib, while veliparib is in the late stage of clinical development. Talazoparib inhibits PARP catalytic activity, trapping PARP1/2 on damaged DNA, and it has been approved by the US FDA for the treatment of metastatic germline BRCA1/2 mutated breast cancers in October 2018. The talazoparib side effect profile more closely resembles traditional chemotherapeutics rather than other clinically approved PARP inhibitors. In this review, we discuss the scientific evidence that has emerged from both experimental and clinical studies in the development of talazoparib. Future directions will include optimizing combination therapy with chemotherapy, immunotherapies and targeted therapies, and in developing and validating biomarkers for patient selection and stratification, particularly in malignancies with ‘BRCAness’.