Mark T. Fleming

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide (formerly called MDV3100) targets multiple steps in the androgen-receptor-signaling pathway, the major driver of prostate-cancer growth. We aimed to evaluate whether enzalutamide prolongs survival in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy. METHODS: In our phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we stratified 1199 men with castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy according to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance-status score and pain intensity. We randomly assigned them, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive oral enzalutamide at a dose of 160 mg per day (800 patients) or placebo (399 patients). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: The study was stopped after a planned interim analysis at the time of 520 deaths. The median overall survival was 18.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.3 to not yet reached) in the enzalutamide group versus 13.6 months (95% CI, 11.3 to 15.8) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death in the enzalutamide group, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.75; P<0.001). The superiority of enzalutamide over placebo was shown with respect to all secondary end points: the proportion of patients with a reduction in the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level by 50% or more (54% vs. 2%, P<0.001), the soft-tissue response rate (29% vs. 4%, P<0.001), the quality-of-life response rate (43% vs. 18%, P<0.001), the time to PSA progression (8.3 vs. 3.0 months; hazard ratio, 0.25; P<0.001), radiographic progression-free survival (8.3 vs. 2.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.40; P<0.001), and the time to the first skeletal-related event (16.7 vs. 13.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.69; P<0.001). Rates of fatigue, diarrhea, and hot flashes were higher in the enzalutamide group. Seizures were reported in five patients (0.6%) receiving enzalutamide. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide significantly prolonged the survival of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy. (Funded by Medivation and Astellas Pharma Global Development; AFFIRM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00974311.).

BACKGROUND: alterations. METHODS: alterations. All the patients had a history of disease progression during or after at least one course of chemotherapy or within 12 months after neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. Prior immunotherapy was allowed. We initially randomly assigned the patients to receive erdafitinib in either an intermittent or a continuous regimen in the dose-selection phase of the study. On the basis of an interim analysis, the starting dose was set at 8 mg per day in a continuous regimen (selected-regimen group), with provision for a pharmacodynamically guided dose escalation to 9 mg. The primary end point was the objective response rate. Key secondary end points included progression-free survival, duration of response, and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients in the selected-regimen group received a median of five cycles of erdafitinib. Of these patients, 43% had received at least two previous courses of treatment, 79% had visceral metastases, and 53% had a creatinine clearance of less than 60 ml per minute. The rate of confirmed response to erdafitinib therapy was 40% (3% with a complete response and 37% with a partial response). Among the 22 patients who had undergone previous immunotherapy, the confirmed response rate was 59%. The median duration of progression-free survival was 5.5 months, and the median duration of overall survival was 13.8 months. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher, which were managed mainly by dose adjustments, were reported in 46% of the patients; 13% of the patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: alterations. Treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in nearly half the patients. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; BLC2001 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02365597.).

Abstract The human and organizational factors affecting safety were examined on 10 offshore installations using the Offshore Safety Questionnaire. The questionnaire contained scales measuring work pressure and work clarity, job communication, safety behaviour, risk perception, satisfaction with safety measures and safety attitudes. A total of 722 UK offshore workers (33% response rate) from a range of occupations completed and returned the questionnaire. The 'safety climates' on the various installations were characterized by most respondents feeling 'safe' with respect to a range of offshore hazards and expressing 'satisfaction' with safety measures. Respondents reported little risk-taking behaviour and felt positive about levels of work clarity and job communication. There was a wider diversity of opinions on the safety attitudes scale, indicating a lack of a positive, concerted 'safety culture' and more evidence for a range offragmented 'safety subcultures', which varied mainly as a function of seniority, occupation, age, shift worked and prior accident involvement. It is suggested that the interaction between these differing subcultures partly determines the prevailing 'safety climate' on any given installation. The UK oil and gas industry is now trying to improve its safety culture through the 'Stepchange' initiative, which hias set itself three main targets for the year 2000 : a 50 YO improvement in the industry's safety performance; safety performance contracts demonstrating leadership's personal concern for safety as an equal to business performance and encouraging industry members to work together to improve sharing of safety information and good practice. It is suggested that the existence of a strong, cohesive culture with respect to safety is not necessarily beneficial, possibly leading to 'dry rot' and complacency. A healthy culture may be represented by a range of assumptions, values, norms and expectations as reflected in employees' differing experiences of safety climate.