Creating a pragmatic trials program for breast cancer patients: Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT)

A Randomized Trial Comparing Concurrent versus Sequential Radiation and Endocrine Therapy in Early-Stage, Hormone-Responsive Breast Cancer

Concerns exist regarding increased toxicities, including endocrine therapy toxicity, with concurrent radiation and endocrine therapy in early breast cancer (EBC). We present a pragmatic, randomized trial comparing concurrent versus sequential endocrine and radiotherapy in hormone-responsive EBC. In this multicenter trial, patients were randomized to receive adjuvant endocrine therapy concurrent with, or sequential to, radiotherapy. The primary outcome was change in endocrine therapy toxicity from baseline to 3 months post radiotherapy using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endocrine Symptom (FACT-ES) score. From September 2019 to January 2021, 133 patients were randomized to concurrent endocrine and radiotherapy, and 127 to sequential treatment. Most patients were post-menopausal (72.7%, 189/260) with stage 1 disease (65.8%, 171/260). Tamoxifen was the endocrine therapy of choice for 69.6% (181/260) of patients, and an aromatase inhibitor for the remainder. The median total radiation dose and fractions were 40.1 Gray (range 26-50) and 15 fractions (range 5-25), respectively. For the primary outcome of change in endocrine therapy toxicity per FACT-ES scores from baseline to 3 months post radiotherapy, no significant difference was found between the groups (median [range] = -4.9 (-82, 38.8) for concurrent and -5.1 (-42, 40) for sequential, p = 0.87). This is the first trial to investigate the impact of concurrent versus sequential adjuvant endocrine and radiotherapy on endocrine therapy-related toxicities. The findings provide further support to allow the optimal timing of radiation and endocrine therapy to be tailored for the individual patient.

Perspectives on shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer: a patient survey

PURPOSE

Despite previous studies proposing shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy for selected patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC), 12-months remains standard of care. A survey was performed to assess patient perspectives and willingness to participate in studies evaluating shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy.

METHODS

Patients with HER2-positive EBC completing or having previously completed anti-HER2 therapy, were recruited by healthcare professionals at The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre to participate in an anonymous online survey. The primary objective was to learn about patients' perspectives on shorter durations (less than 12-months) of anti-HER2 therapy. Secondary objectives were to explore patients' interest in clinical trials of shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy and the degree of increased breast cancer risk they would accept with a shorter treatment duration.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 94 eligible patients. Most patients received Trastuzumab alone (78%, 73/94), while 13% (12/94) received trastuzumab and pertuzumab. Side effects were experienced by 52% (46/89), the most common being; fatigue (61%, 28/46), myalgia (37%, 17/46), and diarrhea (24%, 11/46). Most patients (88%, 78/89) did not find treatment bothersome. Regarding perspectives on shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy, most (79%, 74/94) respondents stated they would agree to less treatment if it were possible to receive fewer treatments with the same cancer benefits. 56% of patients were interested in clinical trials, however, about half stated they would not be accepting of any increase in breast cancer recurrence risk.

CONCLUSION

Trials to investigate who can safely and effectively be treated with shorter durations of anti-HER2 therapy are needed. This study provides important insights to patients' perspectives on shorter durations of anti-HER2 treatment, and their concerns regarding potential increased cancer risk with less treatment.

What Is Ailing Oncology Clinical Trials? Can We Fix Them?

Evidence from phase three clinical trials helps shape clinical practice. However, a very small minority of patients with cancer participate in clinical trials and many trials are not completed on time due to slow accrual. Issues with restrictive eligibility criteria can severely limit the patients who can access trials, without any convincing evidence that these restrictions impact patient safety. Similarly, regulatory, organizational, and institutional hurdles can delay trial activation, ultimately making some studies irrelevant. Additional issues during trial conduct (e.g., mandatory in-person visits, central confirmation of standard biomarkers, and inflexible drug dosage modification) contribute to making trials non-patient-centric. These real-life observations from experienced clinical trialists can seem nonsensical to investigators and patients alike, who are trying to bring effective drugs to patients with cancer. In this review, we delve into these issues in detail, and discuss potential solutions to make clinical trials more accessible to patients.

Generating and using real-world data: A worthwhile uphill battle

The precision oncology paradigm challenges the feasibility and data generalizability of traditional clinical trials. Consequently, an unmet need exists for practical approaches to test many subgroups, evaluate real-world drug value, and gather comprehensive, accessible datasets to validate novel biomarkers. Real-world data (RWD) are increasingly recognized to have the potential to fill this gap in research methodology. Established applications of RWD include informing disease epidemiology, pharmacovigilance, and healthcare quality assessment. Currently, concerns regarding RWD quality and comprehensiveness, privacy, and biases hamper their broader application. Nonetheless, RWD may play a pivotal role in supplementing clinical trials, enabling conditional reimbursement and accelerated drug access, and innovating trial conduct. Moreover, purpose-built RWD repositories may support the extension or refinement of drug indications and facilitate the discovery and validation of new biomarkers. This perspective explores the potential of leveraging RWD to advance oncology, highlights its benefits and challenges, and suggests a path forward in this evolving field.

The REthinking Clinical Trials Program Retreat 2023: Creating Partnerships to Optimize Quality Cancer Care

Patients, families, healthcare providers and funders face multiple comparable treatment options without knowing which provides the best quality of care. As a step towards improving this, the REthinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) pragmatic trials program started in 2014 to break down many of the traditional barriers to performing clinical trials. However, until other innovative methodologies become widely used, the impact of this program will remain limited. These innovations include the incorporation of near equivalence analyses and the incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical trial design. Near equivalence analyses allow for the comparison of different treatments (drug and non-drug) using quality of life, toxicity, cost-effectiveness, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data. AI offers unique opportunities to maximize the information gleaned from clinical trials, reduces sample size estimates, and can potentially "rescue" poorly accruing trials. On 2 May 2023, the first REaCT international symposium took place to connect clinicians and scientists, set goals and identify future avenues for investigator-led clinical trials. Here, we summarize the topics presented at this meeting to promote sharing and support other similarly motivated groups to learn and share their experiences.

TBCRC 057: Survey about willingness to participate in cancer clinical trials during the pandemic

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer patients experienced heightened anxiety during the pandemic. Also, modifications to clinical trial activities allowing for virtual platforms, local assessments, and greater flexibility were introduced to facilitate participation. We sought to evaluate the association between pandemic-related anxiety and willingness to participate in trials and how pandemic-era modifications to trial activities affect the decision to participate.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey from August to September, 2021 of patients with breast cancer assessing pandemic-related anxiety; clinical trials knowledge and attitudes; willingness to participate during and before the pandemic; and how each modification affects the decision to participate. Fisher's exact tests evaluated differences in proportions and two-sample t-tests evaluated differences in means. The association of pandemic-related anxiety with a decline in willingness to participate during compared to prior to the pandemic was modeled using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 385 respondents who completed the survey, 81% reported moderate-severe pandemic-related anxiety. Mean willingness to participate in a trial was lower during the pandemic than prior [2.97 (SD 1.17) vs. 3.10 (SD 1.09), (p < 0.001)]. Severe anxiety was associated with higher odds of diminished willingness to participate during the pandemic compared to prior (OR 5.07). Each of the modifications, with the exception of opting out of research-only blood tests, were endorsed by >50% of respondents as strategies that would increase their likelihood of deciding to participate.

CONCLUSIONS

While pandemic-related anxiety was associated with diminished willingness to participate in trials, the leading reasons for reluctance to consider trial participation were unrelated to the pandemic but included worries about not getting the best treatment, side effects, and delaying care. Patients view trial modifications favorably, supporting continuation of these modifications, as endorsed by the National Cancer Institute and others.

Shorter Durations of Anti-HER2 Therapy for Patients with Early-Stage, HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: The Physician Perspective

Despite evidence from clinical trials showing the efficacy of shorter durations of therapy, most HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC) patients receive a year of anti-HER2 therapy. A survey of Canadian oncologists was conducted online, with electronic data collection, and the analysis is reported descriptively. Measures collected included current practices with respect to the duration of adjuvant anti-HER2 therapy, perspectives on data regarding shorter durations of treatment, and interest in further trials on this subject. Responses were received from 42 providers across Canada. Half (50%, 21/42) reported having never recommended 6 months of anti-HER2 therapy. The primary reason physicians consider a shorter duration is in response to treatment-related toxicities (76%, 31/41). Most participants (79%, 33/42) expressed the need for more data to determine which patients can be safely and effectively treated with shorter durations. Patient factors such as young age, initial stage, hormone receptor status, and type of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were attributed to reluctance to offer shorter durations of treatment. Many respondents (83%, 35/42) expressed interest in participating in the proposed clinical trial of 6 months of anti-HER2 therapy. In contemporary Canadian practice, 12 months of anti-HER2 therapy remains the primary practice. Future trials are required to better define the role of shorter treatment durations.

A Multi-Centre Randomized Study Comparing Two Standard of Care Chemotherapy Regimens for Lower-Risk HER2-Positive Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Neither paclitaxel plus trastuzumab (P-H) nor docetaxel-cyclophosphamide plus trastuzumab (TC-H) have been prospectively compared in HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer (EBC). A randomized trial was performed to assess the feasibility of a larger study.

METHODS

Lower-risk HER2-positive EBC patients were randomized to either P-H or TC-H treatment arms. The co-primary feasibility outcomes were: ≥75% patient acceptability rate, active trial participation of ≥50% of medical oncologists, ≥75% and ≥90% treatment completion, and receipt rate of planned cycles of chemotherapy, respectively.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Febrile neutropenia (FN) rate, treatment-related hospitalizations, health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) questionnaires. Analyses were performed by per protocol and intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

Between May 2019 and March 2021, 49 of 52 patients agreed to study participation (94% acceptability rate). Fifteen (65%) of 23 medical oncologists approached patients. Rates of FN were higher (8.3% vs. 0%) in the TC-H vs. P-H arm. Median (IQR) changes in scores from baseline in FACT-Taxane Trial Outcome Index at 24 weeks were -4 (-10, -1) vs. -6.5 (-15, -2) for TC-H and P-H arms, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A randomized trial comparing P-H and TC-H was feasible. Expansion to a larger trial would be feasible to explore patient-reported outcomes of these adjuvant HER2 chemotherapy regimens.

Integrating Systematic Reviews into Supportive Care Trial Design: The Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) Program

PURPOSE

To review the successes and challenges of integrating systematic reviews (SRs) into the Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) Program.

METHODS

All REaCT program SRs were evaluated and descriptive summaries presented.

RESULTS

Twenty-two SRs have been performed evaluating standard of care interventions for the management of: breast cancer (n = 15), all tumour sites (n = 4), breast and prostate cancers (n = 2), and prostate cancer (n = 1). The majority of SRs were related to supportive care (n = 14) and survivorship (n = 5) interventions and most (19/22, 86%) confirmed the existence of uncertainty relating to the clinical question addressed in the SR. Most SRs (15/22, 68%) provided specific recommendations for future studies and results were incorporated into peer-reviewed grant applications (n = 6) and clinical trial design (n = 12). In 12/22 of the SRs, the first author was a trainee. All SRs followed PRISMA guidelines.

CONCLUSION

SRs are important for identifying and confirming clinical equipoise and designing trials. SRs provide an excellent opportunity for trainees to participate in research.

Oral magnesium supplements for cancer treatment-induced hypomagnesemia: Results from a pilot randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Optimal management of cancer treatment-induced hypomagnesemia (hMg) is not known. We assessed the feasibility of using a novel pragmatic clinical trials model to compare two commonly used oral Mg replacement strategies.

METHODS

Patients with grade 1 to 3 hMg while receiving either platinum-based chemotherapy or epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRI) were randomized to oral magnesium oxide (MgOx) or oral magnesium citrate (MgCit). The trial methodology utilized the integrated consent model. Feasibility would be successful if; accrual rate was ≥5 patients a month and if measures of patient and physician engagement, were > 50%. Secondary endpoints included; comparison of Mg levels, cardiac arrhythmias, and rates of treatment delay/hospitalizations.

RESULTS

From July 2016 to December 2017, an average of 1 patient a month was accrued. All 15 eligible and approached patients consented to participate in the study (100% engagement) and 7/15 were randomized to MgOx and 8/15 to MgCit. The percentage of physicians who approached patients for the study was 4 of 6 (66.6% engagement). The mean slope of change in Mg (mmol/L/day) was 0.0022 (95% CI: -0.0001 to 0.0044) for MgOx and 0.0006 (95% CI, -0.0012 to 0.0024) for MgCit (P = .2123). Three patients (20%) required IV magnesium while on the study (2 MgCit and 1 MgOx). Grade 1 diarrhea occurred in 3 patients in the MgCit arm.

CONCLUSION

Despite oral magnesium tolerability and meeting most of its feasibility endpoints, this study did not meet its target accrual rate. Alternative designs would be necessary for a definitive efficacy study.

The Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) Program. A Canadian-Led Pragmatic Trials Program: Strategies for Integrating Knowledge Users into Trial Design

We reviewed patient and health care provider (HCP) surveys performed through the REaCT program. The REaCT team has performed 15 patient surveys (2298 respondents) and 13 HCP surveys (1033 respondents) that have addressed a broad range of topics in breast cancer management. Over time, the proportion of surveys distributed by paper/regular mail has fallen, with electronic distribution now the norm. For the patient surveys, the median duration of the surveys was 3 months (IQR 2.5-7 months) and the median response rate was 84% (IQR 80-91.7%). For the HCP surveys, the median survey duration was 3 months (IQR 1.75-4 months), and the median response rate, where available, was 28% (IQR 21.2-49%). The survey data have so far led to: 10 systematic reviews, 6 peer-reviewed grant applications and 19 clinical trials. Knowledge users should be an essential component of clinical research. The REaCT program has integrated surveys as a standard step of their trials process. The COVID-19 pandemic and reduced face-to-face interactions with patients in the clinic as well as the continued importance of social media highlight the need for alternative means of distributing and responding to surveys.

Two-year results of a randomised trial comparing 4- versus 12-weekly bone-targeted agent use in patients with bone metastases from breast or castration-resistant prostate cancer

•

Optimal dosing interval of bone-targeting agents (BTAs) has not been fully defined.

•

Study of 4 vs 12-weekly BTAs in breast or prostate cancer pts with bone metastases.

•

Study arms showed no significant differences SSE rates, time to SSEs or toxicity.

•

There were however significant differences in cost-effectiveness results.

•

On study SSE (12-weekly arm) associated with slight increase in subsequent SSEs.

Background

We present the 2-year results of a randomised trial comparing 4- versus 12-weekly bone-targeting agents (BTAs) in patients with bone metastases from breast or castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC).

Patients and Methods

Patients with bone metastases from breast or CRPC, who were going to start or were already receiving BTAs, were randomised to 4- or 12-weekly BTA treatment for 2 years. The endpoints were: symptomatic skeletal events (SSE) rates, time to SSEs, toxicity and cost-effectiveness.

Results

Of 263 patients (160 breast cancer, 103 CRPC), 133 (50.6%) and 130 (49.4%) were randomised to the 4- and 12-weekly groups, respectively. BTAs included denosumab (56.3%), zoledronate (24.0%) and pamidronate (19.8%). After 2 years, the cumulative incidence rate (95% CI) of SSEs was 32.7% (24.6% to 41.1%) and 28.1% (20.3% to 36.4%) for the 4- and 12-weekly intervention groups respectively. The hazard ratio for time to first SSE was 0.96 (95% CI = 0.63 to 1.47). However, in a post hoc analysis, those patients who had an on-study SSE, there was a small non-statistical increased risk of subsequent SSEs among patients on the 12-weekly dosing arm (HR = 1.14; 95% CI – 0.90–1.44). BTA-related toxicity rates were similar between study arms. A cost-utility analysis showed that 12-weekly BTA is cost-effective from a public payer’s perspective.

Conclusion

These results in addition to those previously reported for de-escalating zoledronate, would support that de-escalation of commonly used BTAs is a reasonable and economically valid treatment option. While not statistically significant, the increase in subsequent SSEs in the 12-weekly arm requires further exploration.

A multi-centre study comparing granulocyte-colony stimulating factors to antibiotics for primary prophylaxis of docetaxel-cyclophosphamide induced febrile neutropenia

BACKGROUND

Primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin or granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) is recommended with docetaxel-cyclophosphamide (TC) chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer (EBC). A pragmatic randomised trial compared the superiority of G-CSF to ciprofloxacin and a cost-utility analysis were conducted.

METHODS

EBC patients receiving TC chemotherapy were randomised to ciprofloxacin or G-CSF. The primary outcome was a composite of FN and non-FN treatment-related hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes included; rates of FN, non-FN treatment-related hospitalisation, chemotherapy dose reductions/delays/discontinuations. Primary analysis was performed with the intention to treat population. Cost-utility analyses were conducted from the Canadian public payer perspective.

RESULTS

458 eligible patients were randomised: 228 to ciprofloxacin and 230 to G-CSF. For the primary endpoint there was non-statistically significant difference (Risk difference = -6.7%, 95%CI = -13.5%-0.1%, p = 0.061) between ciprofloxacin patients (46,20.2%) and G-CSF (31,13.5%). Patients receiving ciprofloxacin were more likely to experience FN (36/228, 15.8% vs 13/230, 5.7%) than patients receiving G-CSF (p < 0.001). Non-FN treatment-related hospitalisation occurred in 40/228 (17.5%) of ciprofloxacin patients vs 28/230 (12.2%) of G-CSF patients (p = 0.12). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes. G-CSF was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of C$1,760,796 per one quality-adjusted life year gained.

CONCLUSION

The primary endpoint of superiority of G-CSF over ciprofloxacin was not demonstrated. While there were reduced FN rates with G-CSF, there were no differences in chemotherapy dose delays/reductions or discontinuations. With the commonly used willingness to pay value of C$50,000/QALY, G-CSF use was not cost-effective compared to ciprofloxacin and deserves scrutiny from the payer perspective.

A randomised trial of 4- versus 12-weekly administration of bone-targeted agents in patients with bone metastases from breast or castration-resistant prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Optimal dosing of bone-targeted agents (BTAs), in patients with bone metastases remains an important clinical question. This trial compared 4-weekly versus 12-weekly therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with bone metastases from breast or castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), who were going to start or already on BTAs, were randomised 1:1 to 4-weekly or 12-weekly BTA treatment for one year. Primary end point was change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL)-physical function European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)-QLQ-C30). Secondary end points included pain (EORTC-QLQ-BM22), global health status (EORTC-QLQ-C30), symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs) rates and time to SSEs. Primary analysis was per protocol and a non-inferiority margin of 5 points was used.

RESULTS

Of 263 patients (160 breast cancer, 103 CRPC), 133 (50.6%) and 130 (49.4%) were randomised to the 4- and 12-weekly groups, respectively. BTAs included denosumab (56.3%), zoledronate (24.0%) and pamidronate (19.8%). Using repeated-measures analysis, across all time points, patients in the 4-weekly arm had a mean HRQL-physical subdomain score which was 1.2 (95% confidence interval: -1.6 to 4.0) higher than the 12-weekly arm. The study met the definition of non-inferiority for our primary outcome. Secondary outcomes showed no significant difference in scores for pain, global health status, SSE rates and SSE-free survival between arms. Subgroup analyses for cancer type, prior BTA use or BTA type showed no significant difference between arms.

CONCLUSION

These results in addition to those previously reported for de-escalating zoledronate and systematic reviews in both breast and prostate cancers, would support that de-escalation of commonly used BTAs is a reasonable treatment option.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Alloderm-RTU with DermACELL in Immediate Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction

Background: The effectiveness of different acellular dermal matrices (ADM) used for implant-based reconstruction immediately following mastectomy is an important clinical question. A prospective randomized clinical trial was performed to evaluate the superiority of DermACELL over Alloderm-RTU in reducing drain duration. Methods: Patients undergoing mastectomy with subpectoral immediate and permanent implant-based breast reconstruction were randomized to Alloderm-RTU or DermACELL. The primary outcome was seroma formation, measured by the duration of postoperative drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: post drain removal seroma aspiration, infection, redbreast syndrome, wound dehiscence, loss of the implant, and unplanned return to the operating room. Results: 62 patients were randomized for 81 mastectomies (41 Alloderm-RTU, 40 DermACELL). Baseline characteristics were similar. There was no statistically significant difference in mean drain duration (p = 0.16), with a trend towards longer duration in the Alloderm-RTU group (1.6 days; 95%CI, 0.7 to 3.9). The overall rate of minor and major complications were statistically similar between the two groups; although patients with Alloderm-RTU had 3 times as many infections requiring antibiotics (7.9% vs. 2.5%) with a risk difference of 5.4 (95%CI −4.5 to 15.2), and twice as many unplanned returns to the operating room (15.8% vs. 7.5%) with a risk difference of 8.3 (95% CI −5.9 to 22.5) as DermACELL. Conclusion: This is the first prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the two most commonly used human-derived ADMs. There was no statistically significant difference in drain duration, minor, or major complications between DermACELL over Alloderm-RTU in immediate subpectoral permanent implant-based breast reconstruction post-mastectomy.

Feasibility outcomes of a randomised, multicentre, pilot trial comparing standard 6-monthly dosing of adjuvant zoledronate with a single one-time dose in patients with early stage breast cancer

•

Adjuvant bisphosphonates are an established standard in postmenopausal breast cancer.

•

Guidelines note the need to explore different agents, doses, and intervals of bisphosphonates.

•

Feasibility of randomizing to 6-monthly vs one dose of IV zoledronate was demonstrated.

Background

Adjuvant zoledronate is widely used in patients with early stage breast cancer (EBC), but its optimal duration and dosing interval is still unknown. While a single-dose of zoledronate can improve bone density for many years, a proper evaluation of its effects on breast cancer-related outcomes would require a large trial. In this pilot study we evaluated the feasibility of performing such a trial.

Methods

Eligible patients with EBC were randomised to receive either one dose of zoledronate or 7 doses (6-monthly dosing for 3 years). Feasibility was assessed by a combination of primary outcomes including: activation of at least 6 Ontario sites within a year, active participation (i.e. approaching eligible patients for study participation) of at least half of the medical oncologists, and enrolment of at least 100 patients across all sites within 9 months of the sixth site being activated.

Results

All 6 sites were activated within 1 year and of 47 medical oncologists, 27 (57%) approached patients. Between November 2018 and April 2020, 211 eligible patients were randomised, 106 (50.2%) to a single dose of zoledronate and 105 (49.8%) to 6-monthly dosing. Baseline characteristics of randomised patients included; median age 59 (range 36–88), ER and/or PR positive (85%), Her2 positive (23%), menopausal status (premenopausal [19%], perimenopausal [6.7%] and postmenopausal [74%]) and 74% received neo/adjuvant chemotherapy.

Conclusions

All study feasibility endpoints were met in this trial comparing alternative schedules for adjuvant zoledronate. We will now seek funding for performing a larger efficacy trial.

Trial registration: NCT03664687.

Prospective randomised controlled trial using the REthinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) platform and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) to compare no preparation versus preoperative oral antibiotics alone for surgical site infection rates in elective colon surgery: a protocol

INTRODUCTION

Despite 40 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating preoperative oral antibiotics (OA) and mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) to reduce surgical site infection (SSI) rate following colon surgery, there has never been an RCT published comparing OA alone versus no preparation. Of the four possible regimens (OA alone, MBP alone, OA plus MBP and no preparation), randomised evidence is conflicting for studied groups. Furthermore, guidelines vary, with recommendations for OA alone, OA plus MBP or no preparation. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) has automated data collection for surgical patients. Similarly, the 'REthinking Clinical Trials' (REaCT) platform increases RCT enrolment by simplifying pragmatic trial design. In this novel RCT protocol, we combine REaCT and NSQIP to compare OA alone versus no preparation for SSI rate reduction in elective colon surgery. To our knowledge, this is the first published RCT protocol that leverages NSQIP for data collection. In our feasibility study, 67 of 74 eligible patients (90%) were enrolled and 63 of 67 (94%) were adherent to protocol. The 'REaCT-NSQIP' trial design has great potential to efficiently generate level I evidence for other perioperative interventions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

SSI rates following elective colorectal surgery after preoperative OA or no preparation will be compared. We predict 45% relative rate reduction of SSI, improvement in length of stay, reduced costs and increased quality of life, with similar antibiotic-related complications. Consent, using the 'integrated consent model', and randomisation on a mobile device are completed by the surgeon in a single clinical encounter. Data collection for the primary end point is automatic through NSQIP. Analysis of cost per weighted case, cost utility and quality-adjusted life years will be done.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is approved by The Ontario Cancer Research Ethics Board. Results will be disseminated in surgical conferences and peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03663504; Pre-results, recruitment phase.

A multicentre, randomised trial comparing schedules of G-CSF (filgrastim) administration for primary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in early stage breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The optimal duration of filgrastim as primary febrile neutropenia (FN) prophylaxis in early breast cancer patients is unknown, with 5, 7 or 10 days being commonly prescribed. This trial evaluates whether 5 days of filgrastim was non-inferior to 7/10 days.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this randomised, open-label trial, early breast cancer patients who were to receive filgrastim as primary FN prophylaxis were randomly allocated to 5 versus 7 versus 10 days of filgrastim for all chemotherapy cycles. A protocol amendment in November 2017 allowed subsequent patients (N = 324) to be randomised to either 5 or 7/10 days. The primary outcome was a composite of either FN or treatment-related hospitalisations. Secondary outcomes included chemotherapy dose reductions, delays and discontinuations. Analyses were carried out by per protocol (primary) and intention-to-treat, and the non-inferiority margin was set at 3% for the risk of having FN and/or hospitalisation per cycle of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Patients (N = 466) were randomised to receive 5 (184, 39.5%), or 7/10 (282, 60.5%) days of filgrastim. In our primary analysis, the difference in risk of either FN or treatment-related hospitalisation per cycle was -1.52% [95% confidence interval (CI): -3.22% to 0.19%] suggesting non-inferiority of a 5-day filgrastim schedule compared with 7/10-days. The difference in events per cycle for FN was 0.11% (95% CI: -1.05 to 1.27) while for treatment-related hospitalisations it was -1.68% (95% CI: -2.73% to -0.63%). The overall proportions of patients having at least one occurrence of either FN or treatment-related hospitalisation were 11.8% and 14.96% for the 5- and 7/10-day groups, respectively (risk difference: -3.17%, 95% CI: -9.51% to 3.18%).

CONCLUSION

Five days of filgrastim was non-inferior to 7/10 days. Given the cost and toxicity of this agent, 5 days should be considered standard of care. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV REGISTRATION

NCT02428114 and NCT02816164.

A randomized trial comparing vascular access strategies for patients receiving chemotherapy with trastuzumab for early-stage breast cancer

PURPOSE

Trastuzumab-based chemotherapy is usually administered through either a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) or a totally implanted vascular access device (PORT). As the most effective type of access is unknown, a feasibility trial, prior to conducting a large pragmatic trial, was undertaken.

METHODS

The trial methodology utilized the integrated consent model incorporating oral consent. Patients receiving trastuzumab-based neo/adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer were randomized to a PICC or PORT insertion. Feasibility was reflected through a combination of endpoints; however, the a priori definition of feasibility was > 25% of patients approached agreed to randomization and > 25% of physicians approached patients. Secondary outcomes included rates of line-associated complications such as thrombotic events requiring anticoagulation, line infections or phlebitis.

RESULTS

During the study period, 4/15 (26.7%) medical oncologists approached patients about study participation. Of 59 patients approached, 56 (94.9%) agreed to randomization, 29 (51.8%) were randomized to PICC and 27 (48.2%) to PORT access. Overall, 17.2% (5/29) and 14.8% (4/27) of patients had at least one line-associated complication in the PICC and PORT arms respectively. The study was terminated early due to slow accrual.

CONCLUSION

The study met its feasibility endpoints with respect to patient and physician engagement. However, the slow rate of accrual (56 patients in 2 years) means that conducting a large pragmatic trial would require additional strategies to make such a study possible.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02632435.