Enhancing involvement of people with multiple sclerosis in clinical trial design

BACKGROUND

Although often overlooked, patient and public involvement (PPI) is vital when considering the design and delivery of complex and adaptive clinical trial designs for chronic health conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS).

METHODS

We conducted a rapid review to assess current status of PPI in the design and conduct of clinical trials in MS over the last 5 years. We provide a case study describing PPI in the development of a platform clinical trial in progressive MS.

RESULTS

We identified only eight unique clinical trials that described PPI as part of articles or protocols; nearly, all were linked with funders who encourage or mandate PPI in health research. The OCTOPUS trial was co-designed with people affected by MS. They were central to every aspect from forming part of a governance group shaping the direction and strategy, to the working groups for treatment selection, trial design and delivery. They led the PPI strategy which enabled a more accessible, acceptable and inclusive design.

CONCLUSION

Active, meaningful PPI in clinical trial design increases the quality and relevance of studies and the likelihood of impact for the patient community. We offer recommendations for enhancing PPI in future MS clinical trials.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for patients with metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: final results from two randomised phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol

BACKGROUND

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (herein referred to as abiraterone) or enzalutamide added at the start of androgen deprivation therapy improves outcomes for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes and test whether combining enzalutamide with abiraterone and androgen deprivation therapy improves survival.

METHODS

We analysed two open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol, with no overlapping controls, conducted at 117 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restriction) had metastatic, histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; a WHO performance status of 0-2; and adequate haematological, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computerised algorithm and a minimisation technique to either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy; docetaxel 75 mg/m² intravenously for six cycles with prednisolone 10 mg orally once per day allowed from Dec 17, 2015) or standard of care plus abiraterone acetate 1000 mg and prednisolone 5 mg (in the abiraterone trial) orally or abiraterone acetate and prednisolone plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once a day (in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial). Patients were stratified by centre, age, WHO performance status, type of androgen deprivation therapy, use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pelvic nodal status, planned radiotherapy, and planned docetaxel use. The primary outcome was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started treatment. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of individual patient data was used to compare differences in survival between the two trials. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN78818544).

FINDINGS

Between Nov 15, 2011, and Jan 17, 2014, 1003 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=502) or standard of care plus abiraterone (n=501) in the abiraterone trial. Between July 29, 2014, and March 31, 2016, 916 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=454) or standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide (n=462) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. Median follow-up was 96 months (IQR 86-107) in the abiraterone trial and 72 months (61-74) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. In the abiraterone trial, median overall survival was 76·6 months (95% CI 67·8-86·9) in the abiraterone group versus 45·7 months (41·6-52·0) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·53-0·73]; p<0·0001). In the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, median overall survival was 73·1 months (61·9-81·3) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide group versus 51·8 months (45·3-59·0) in the standard of care group (HR 0·65 [0·55-0·77]; p<0·0001). We found no difference in the treatment effect between these two trials (interaction HR 1·05 [0·83-1·32]; p_interaction=0·71) or between-trial heterogeneity (I² p=0·70). In the first 5 years of treatment, grade 3-5 toxic effects were higher when abiraterone was added to standard of care (271 [54%] of 498 vs 192 [38%] of 502 with standard of care) and the highest toxic effects were seen when abiraterone and enzalutamide were added to standard of care (302 [68%] of 445 vs 204 [45%] of 454 with standard of care). Cardiac causes were the most common cause of death due to adverse events (five [1%] with standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide [two attributed to treatment] and one (<1%) with standard of care in the abiraterone trial).

INTERPRETATION

Enzalutamide and abiraterone should not be combined for patients with prostate cancer starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Clinically important improvements in survival from addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy are maintained for longer than 7 years.

FUNDING

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

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone for metastatic patients starting hormone therapy: 5-year follow-up results from the STAMPEDE randomised trial (NCT00268476)

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (AAP) previously demonstrated improved survival in STAMPEDE, a multiarm, multistage platform trial in men starting long-term hormone therapy for prostate cancer. This long-term analysis in metastatic patients was planned for 3 years after the first results. Standard-of-care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy. The comparison randomised patients 1:1 to SOC-alone with or without daily abiraterone acetate 1000 mg + prednisolone 5 mg (SOC + AAP), continued until disease progression. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Metastatic disease risk group was classified retrospectively using baseline CT and bone scans by central radiological review and pathology reports. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, accounting for baseline stratification factors. One thousand and three patients were contemporaneously randomised (November 2011 to January 2014): median age 67 years; 94% newly-diagnosed; metastatic disease risk group: 48% high, 44% low, 8% unassessable; median PSA 97 ng/mL. At 6.1 years median follow-up, 329 SOC-alone deaths (118 low-risk, 178 high-risk) and 244 SOC + AAP deaths (75 low-risk, 145 high-risk) were reported. Adjusted HR = 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50-0.71; P = 0.31 × 10^-9 ) favoured SOC + AAP, with 5-years survival improved from 41% SOC-alone to 60% SOC + AAP. This was similar in low-risk (HR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41-0.76) and high-risk (HR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.43-0.69) patients. Median and current maximum time on SOC + AAP was 2.4 and 8.1 years. Toxicity at 4 years postrandomisation was similar, with 16% patients in each group reporting grade 3 or higher toxicity. A sustained and substantial improvement in overall survival of all metastatic prostate cancer patients was achieved with SOC + abiraterone acetate + prednisolone, irrespective of metastatic disease risk group.

Quality of Life in Men With Prostate Cancer Randomly Allocated to Receive Docetaxel or Abiraterone in the STAMPEDE Trial

PURPOSE

Docetaxel and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone (AAP) both improve survival when commenced alongside standard of care (SOC) androgen deprivation therapy in locally advanced or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Thus, patient-reported quality of life (QOL) data may guide treatment choices.

METHODS

A group of patients within the STAMPEDE trial were contemporaneously enrolled with the possibility of being randomly allocated to receive either docetaxel + SOC or AAP + SOC. A mixed-model assessed QOL in those who had completed at least one QLQ-C30 + PR25 questionnaire. The primary outcome measure was difference in global-QOL (QLQ-C30 Q29&30) between patients allocated to docetaxel + SOC or AAP + SOC over the 2 years after random assignment, with a predefined criterion for clinically meaningful difference of > 4.0 points. Secondary outcome measures included longitudinal comparison of functional domains, pain, and fatigue, plus global-QOL at defined timepoints.

RESULTS

Five hundred fifteen patients (173 docetaxel + SOC and 342 AAP + SOC) were included. Baseline characteristics, proportion of missing data, and mean baseline global-QOL scores (docetaxel + SOC 77.8 and AAP + SOC 78.0) were similar. Over the 2 years following random assignment, the mean modeled global-QOL score was +3.9 points (95% CI, +0.5 to +7.2; P = .022) higher in patients allocated to AAP + SOC. Global-QOL was higher for patients allocated to AAP + SOC over the first year (+5.7 points, 95% CI, +3.0 to +8.5; P < .001), particularly at 12 (+7.0 points, 95% CI, +3.0 to +11.0; P = .001) and 24 weeks (+8.3 points, 95% CI, +4.0 to +12.6; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported QOL was superior for patients allocated to receive AAP + SOC, compared with docetaxel + SOC over a 2-year period, narrowly missing the predefined value for clinical significance. Patients receiving AAP + SOC reported clinically meaningful higher global-QOL scores throughout the first year following random assignment.

Abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of primary results from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

FINDINGS

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).

INTERPRETATION

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.

FUNDING

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

This is a platform alteration: a trial management perspective on the operational aspects of adaptive and platform and umbrella protocols

Background

There are limited research and literature on the trial management challenges encountered in running adaptive platform trials. This trial design allows both (1) the seamless addition of new research comparisons when compelling clinical and scientific research questions emerge, and (2) early stopping of accrual to individual comparisons that do not show sufficient activity without affecting other active comparisons. Adaptive platform design trials also offer many potential benefits over traditional trials, from faster time to accrual to contemporaneously recruiting multiple research comparisons, added flexibility to focus on more promising research comparisons via pre-planned interim analyses and potentially shorter time to primary results. We share here our experiences from a trial management perspective, highlighting the challenges and successes.

Methods

We evaluated the operational aspects of making changes to these adaptive platform trials and identified both common and trial-specific challenges. The operational steps and challenges linked to both the addition of new research comparisons and stopping recruitment following pre-planned interim analysis were considered in our evaluation.

Results

Specific operational challenges in these adaptive platform protocols, additional to those in traditional two-arm trials, were identified. Key lessons are presented describing some of the solutions and considerations over conducting these trials.

Careful consideration on the practicality of the protocol structure (modular versus single protocol), the longevity and continuity of trial oversight committees, and having clear clinical and scientific criteria for the addition of new research comparisons were identified as some of the most common challenges.

Conclusions

Understanding the operational complexities associated with running adaptive platform protocols is paramount for their conduct, adaptive platform trials offer an efficient model to run randomised controlled trials and we are continuing to work to reduce further the effort required from an operational perspective.

Trial registration

FOCUS4: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN90061546. Registered on 16 October 2013. STAMPEDE: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN78818544. Registered on 2 February 2004.

Dexamethasone and supportive care with or without whole brain radiotherapy in treating patients with non-small cell lung cancer with brain metastases unsuitable for resection or stereotactic radiotherapy (QUARTZ): results from a phase 3, non-inferiority, randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and dexamethasone are widely used to treat brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although there have been no randomised clinical trials showing that WBRT improves either quality of life or overall survival. Even after treatment with WBRT, the prognosis of this patient group is poor. We aimed to establish whether WBRT could be omitted without a significant effect on survival or quality of life.

METHODS

The Quality of Life after Treatment for Brain Metastases (QUARTZ) study is a non-inferiority, phase 3 randomised trial done at 69 UK and three Australian centres. NSCLC patients with brain metastases unsuitable for surgical resection or stereotactic radiotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to optimal supportive care (OSC) including dexamethasone plus WBRT (20 Gy in five daily fractions) or OSC alone (including dexamethasone). The dose of dexamethasone was determined by the patients' symptoms and titrated downwards if symptoms improved. Allocation to treatment group was done by a phone call from the hospital to the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London using a minimisation programme with a random element and stratification by centre, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), gender, status of brain metastases, and the status of primary lung cancer. The primary outcome measure was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). QALYs were generated from overall survival and patients' weekly completion of the EQ-5D questionnaire. Treatment with OSC alone was considered non-inferior if it was no more than 7 QALY days worse than treatment with WBRT plus OSC, which required 534 patients (80% power, 5% [one-sided] significance level). Analysis was done by intention to treat for all randomly assigned patients. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN3826061.

FINDINGS

Between March 2, 2007, and Aug 29, 2014, 538 patients were recruited from 69 UK and three Australian centres, and were randomly assigned to receive either OSC plus WBRT (269) or OSC alone (269). Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups, and the median age of participants was 66 years (range 38-85). Significantly more episodes of drowsiness, hair loss, nausea, and dry or itchy scalp were reported while patients were receiving WBRT, although there was no evidence of a difference in the rate of serious adverse events between the two groups. There was no evidence of a difference in overall survival (hazard ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·90-1·26), overall quality of life, or dexamethasone use between the two groups. The difference between the mean QALYs was 4·7 days (46·4 QALY days for the OSC plus WBRT group vs 41·7 QALY days for the OSC group), with two-sided 90% CI of -12·7 to 3·3.

INTERPRETATION

Although the primary outcome measure result includes the prespecified non-inferiority margin, the combination of the small difference in QALYs and the absence of a difference in survival and quality of life between the two groups suggests that WBRT provides little additional clinically significant benefit for this patient group.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, and the National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia.

Pre-trial inter-laboratory analytical validation of the FOCUS4 personalised therapy trial

INTRODUCTION

Molecular characterisation of tumours is increasing personalisation of cancer therapy, tailored to an individual and their cancer. FOCUS4 is a molecularly stratified clinical trial for patients with advanced colorectal cancer. During an initial 16-week period of standard first-line chemotherapy, tumour tissue will undergo several molecular assays, with the results used for cohort allocation, then randomisation. Laboratories in Leeds and Cardiff will perform the molecular testing. The results of a rigorous pre-trial inter-laboratory analytical validation are presented and discussed.

METHODS

Wales Cancer Bank supplied FFPE tumour blocks from 97 mCRC patients with consent for use in further research. Both laboratories processed each sample according to an agreed definitive FOCUS4 laboratory protocol, reporting results directly to the MRC Trial Management Group for independent cross-referencing.

RESULTS

Pyrosequencing analysis of mutation status at KRAS codons12/13/61/146, NRAS codons12/13/61, BRAF codon600 and PIK3CA codons542/545/546/1047, generated highly concordant results. Two samples gave discrepant results; in one a PIK3CA mutation was detected only in Leeds, and in the other, a PIK3CA mutation was only detected in Cardiff. pTEN and mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) resulting in 6/97 discordant results for pTEN and 5/388 for MMR, resolved upon joint review. Tumour heterogeneity was likely responsible for pyrosequencing discrepancies. The presence of signet-ring cells, necrosis, mucin, edge-effects and over-counterstaining influenced IHC discrepancies.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-trial assay analytical validation is essential to ensure appropriate selection of patients for targeted therapies. This is feasible for both mutation testing and immunohistochemical assays and must be built into the workup of such trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN90061564.

Cannabis use and transition to psychosis in people at ultra-high risk

BACKGROUND

Cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of developing a psychotic disorder but the temporal relationship between cannabis use and onset of illness is unclear. The objective of this study was to assess prospectively the influence of cannabis use on transition to psychosis in people at ultra-high risk (UHR) for the disorder.

METHOD

Lifetime and continued cannabis use was assessed in a consecutively ascertained sample of 182 people (104 male, 78 female) at UHR for psychosis. Individuals were then followed clinically for 2 years to determine their clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Lifetime cannabis use was reported by 134 individuals (73.6%). However, most of these individuals had stopped using cannabis before clinical presentation (n=98, 73.1%), usually because of adverse effects. Among lifetime users, frequent use, early-onset use and continued use after presentation were all associated with an increase in transition to psychosis. Transition to psychosis was highest among those who started using cannabis before the age of 15 years and went on to use frequently (frequent early-onset use: 25%; infrequent or late-onset use: 5%; χ(2)1=10.971, p=0.001). However, within the whole sample, cannabis users were no more likely to develop psychosis than those who had never used cannabis (cannabis use: 12.7%; no use: 18.8%; χ(2)1=1.061, p=0.303).

CONCLUSIONS

In people at UHR for psychosis, lifetime cannabis use was common but not related to outcome. Among cannabis users, frequent use, early-onset use and continued use after clinical presentation were associated with transition to psychosis.

Intermittent chemotherapy plus either intermittent or continuous cetuximab for first-line treatment of patients with KRAS wild-type advanced colorectal cancer (COIN-B): a randomised phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Advanced colorectal cancer is treated with a combination of cytotoxic drugs and targeted treatments. However, how best to minimise the time spent taking cytotoxic drugs and whether molecular selection can refine this further is unknown. The primary aim of this study was to establish how cetuximab might be safely and effectively added to intermittent chemotherapy.

METHODS

COIN-B was an open-label, multicentre, randomised, exploratory phase 2 trial done at 30 hospitals in the UK and one in Cyprus. We enrolled patients with advanced colorectal cancer who had received no previous chemotherapy for metastases. Randomisation was done centrally (by telephone) by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit using minimisation with a random element. Treatment allocation was not masked. Patients were assigned (1:1) to intermittent chemotherapy plus intermittent cetuximab or to intermittent chemotherapy plus continuous cetuximab. Chemotherapy was FOLFOX (folinic acid and oxaliplatin followed by bolus and infused fluorouracil). Patients in both groups received FOLFOX and weekly cetuximab for 12 weeks, then either had a planned interruption (those taking intermittent cetuximab) or planned maintenance by continuing on weekly cetuximab (continuous cetuximab). On RECIST progression, FOLFOX plus cetuximab or FOLFOX was recommenced for 12 weeks followed by further interruption or maintenance cetuximab, respectively. The primary outcome was failure-free survival at 10 months. The primary analysis population consisted of patients who completed 12 weeks of treatment without progression, death, or leaving the trial. We tested BRAF and NRAS status retrospectively. The trial was registered, ISRCTN38375681.

FINDINGS

We registered 401 patients, 226 of whom were enrolled. Results for 169 with KRAS wild-type are reported here, 78 (46%) assigned to intermittent cetuximab and 91 (54%) to continuous cetuximab. 64 patients assigned to intermittent cetuximab and 66 of those assigned to continuous cetuximab were included in the primary analysis. 10-month failure-free survival was 50% (lower bound of 95% CI 39) in the intermittent group versus 52% (lower bound of 95% CI 41) in the continuous group; median failure-free survival was 12.2 months (95% CI 8.8-15.6) and 14.3 months (10.7-20.4), respectively. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were skin rash (21 [27%] of 77 patients vs 20 [22%] of 92 patients), neutropenia (22 [29%] vs 30 [33%]), diarrhoea (14 [18%] vs 23 [25%]), and lethargy (20 [26%] vs 19 [21%]).

INTERPRETATION

Cetuximab was safely incorporated in two first-line intermittent chemotherapy strategies. Maintenance of biological monotherapy, with less cytotoxic chemotherapy within the first 6 months, in molecularly selected patients is promising and should be validated in phase 3 trials.

Effects of 6 months glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist treatment on endothelial function in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) are used for treatment in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Little is known about their cardiovascular (CV) impact. We sought to determine the effects of chronic treatment on vascular function in T2DM. Brachial artery endothelial-dependent flow-mediated dilation (FMD) and endothelial-independent glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) function and carotid intima-medial thickness (cIMT) were assessed in 11 severely obese T2DMs (4 females, 7 males: 55 ± 8 years, diabetes duration 8.3 ± 4.7 years mean ± s.d.) before and after 6 months GLP-1 RA. Body weight (5.3 ± 1.2 kg; p < 0.05) and magnetic resonance imaging determined total and subcutaneous fat, but not visceral fat, decreased. Glycaemic control improved. There were no significant changes in FMD, GTN and cIMT (-1.1 ± 0.4%, 0.3 ± 3.0% and 0.00 ± 0.04 mm, respectively). Despite significant improvements in body composition and glycaemic control, 6 months GLP-1 RA treatment did not modulate vascular function. Alternative strategies may therefore be needed to reduce the burden of CV risk in severely obese patients with long-standing T2DM.

FOCUS4: A prospective molecularly stratified, adaptive multicenter program of randomized controlled trials for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC)

TPS3645

Background: Targeted therapies based on somatic gene mutations or activated pathways have inhibited progression of some cancers. However, although various targets are identifiable in CRC, KRAS mutation is currently the only validated predictive biomarker for selection of a targeted therapy. FOCUS4 is a rolling phase II-III trial for testing in a staged way both the utility of molecular stratification and the efficacy of novel agents in subpopulations of mCRC patients. It is also a trial of a new strategy for testing stratified approaches to therapy in any biologically complex tumour type using a Multi-Arm, Multi-Stage design. Methods: The study population consists of subjects with newly diagnosed inoperable mCRC. Subjects receive first-line chemotherapy for 16 weeks. During this time the tumour is tested for BRAF/PIK3CA/KRAS/NRAS mutations and PTEN loss. Subjects with responding or stable disease on CT, who would normally be candidates for a treatment break, are then randomised to four coherent biomarker-based subgroups: FOCUS4-A: BRAF mutant, FOCUS4-B: PIK3CA mutant or complete loss of PTEN on IHC, FOCUS4-C: KRAS or NRAS mutant, FOCUS4-D: All wild type (no mutations of BRAF, PIK3CA, KRAS or NRAS). For each subgroup, a relevant novel agent or combination is to be tested in an adaptive double-blind placebo controlled randomised trial design with multiple interim analyses for early termination if there is no strong evidence of worthwhile activity. There will also be a 5thsubgroup FOCUS4-N testing maintenance capecitabine for unclassifiable tumours or for patients whose marker defined cohort is temporarily suspended. The primary endpoint is progression free survival. Promising results in any biomarker defined cohort will then be tested for response in cohorts without the biomarker. Within the overall trial, biomarker developments can be accommodated with changes in the distribution of the cohorts or testing of new targeted agents. Enrolment will commence in May 2013. Upto 3400 patients will be registered over a 4-5 year period depending on which cohorts pass their staged interim analyses and proceed to later stages, including an overall survival endpoint. Clinical trial information: 2012-005111-12.

Interim data from the Medical Research Council QUARTZ Trial: does whole brain radiotherapy affect the survival and quality of life of patients with brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer?

AIMS

Over 30% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) develop brain metastases. If inoperable, optimal supportive care (OSC), including steroids, and whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) are generally considered to be standard care, although there is no randomised evidence demonstrating that the addition of WBRT to OSC improves survival or quality of life.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

QUARTZ is a randomised, non-inferiority, phase III trial comparing OSC + WBRT versus OSC in patients with inoperable brain metastases from NSCLC. The primary outcome measure is quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). QUARTZ was threatened with both loss of funding and early closure due to poor accrual. A lack of preliminary randomised data supporting the trial's hypotheses was thought to underlie the poor accrual, so, with no knowledge of the data, the independent trial steering committee agreed to the unusual step of releasing interim data.

RESULTS

Between March 2007 and April 2010, 151 (of the planned 534) patients were randomised (75 OSC + WBRT, 76 OSC). Participants' baseline demographics included median age 67 years (interquartile range 62-73), 60% male, 50% with a Karnofsky performance status <70; steroid usage was similar in the two groups; 64/75 (85%) received WBRT (20 Gy in five fractions). Median survival was: OSC + WBRT 49 days (95% confidence interval 39-61), OSC 51 days (95% confidence interval 27-57) - hazard ratio 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.80-1.53) in favour of WBRT. Quality of life assessed using EQ-5D showed no evidence of a difference. The estimated mean QALYs was: OSC + WBRT 31 days and OSC 30 days, difference -1 day (95% confidence interval -12.0 to +13.2 days).

CONCLUSION

These interim data indicate no early evidence of detriment to quality of life, overall survival or QALYs for patients allocated to OSC alone. They provide key information for discussing the trial with patients and strengthen the argument for continuing QUARTZ to definitively answer this important clinical question.

Intermittent chemotherapy (CT) plus continuous or intermittent cetuximab (C) in the first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC): Results of the two-arm phase II randomized MRC COIN-B trial

536^

Background: COIN-B is a trial of intermittent chemotherapy (ICT) plus intermittent cetuximab (C) vs ICT plus continuous C in the first-line treatment of aCRC. It complements the COIN trial by investigating how C might safely and effectively be added to an ICT strategy.

Methods: Patients (pts) had measurable aCRC; no prior CT for metastases; WHO PS 0-2 and good organ function. Randomisation was: Arm D - continuous OxFU + weekly C for 12 wks then a planned break from all therapy; Arm E - OxFU + weekly C for 12 wks then weekly C. Upon RECIST progression on either arm, OxFU (or FU) plus C was restarted and continued until progression on maximal tolerated therapy. Prospective KRAS testing was introduced in May 2008. Primary outcome measure is Failure-Free Survival (FFS) at 10 months (mo) in KRAS-wt pts who had not progressed, died or failed the treatment strategy within 3 mo of randomisation. The trial was powered to differentiate between a desired 10-mo FFS rate of 50% and a minimum of 35%, in 136 pts (168 allowing for drop-outs). Secondary outcome measures included safety, overall survival (OS) and toxicity.

Results: 169 KRAS-wt pts were randomised 07/07 to 06/10, 77 arm D / 92 arm E. Median age 64 years (IQR 55-70); 92% PS 0-1. In Arms D and E respectively, 65 (84%) and 67 (73%) pts were eligible for the primary analysis; 10-mo FFS rates were 48% vs 54% (one-sided 95% confidence limit 37% and 43% respectively). Median FFS was 12.0 vs 13.7 mo respectively (IQR 6.1-20.3 and 8.6-23.2). Median OS was 20.1 vs 18.4 mo. First CFI length was 3.7 mo vs 5.1 mo (IQR 2.5-6.2 and 2.5-8.9). In pre-planned exploratory analysis, median time to progression/death after chemo break was 3.1 mo (IQR 2.1-8.1) in Arm D and 6.0 mo (IQR 2.9-10.9) in Arm E. Toxicity was similar and only 1 arm D pt had G 3 hypersensitivity following C reintroduction. Analyses by BRAF & NRAS (tested retrospectively) will be presented.

Conclusions: C was safely incorporated in 2 ICT strategies. Continuous C as maintenance was associated with a longer CFI and longer time to progression/death. This encouraging strategy of incorporating biological maintenance therapy needs validation in phase III trials.

Induction chemotherapy and continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (chart) for patients with locally advanced inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer: the MRC INCH randomized trial

PURPOSE

Recent clinical trials and meta-analyses have shown that both CHART (continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiation therapy) and induction chemotherapy offer a survival advantage over conventional radical radiotherapy for patients with inoperable non-small cell-lung cancer (NSCLC). This multicenter randomized controlled trial (INCH) was set up to assess the value of giving induction chemotherapy before CHART.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with histologically confirmed, inoperable, Stage I-III NSCLC were randomized to induction chemotherapy (ICT) (three cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy followed by CHART) or CHART alone.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients were randomized (23 in each treatment arm) from 9 UK centers. As a result of poor accrual, the trial was closed in December 2007. Twenty-eight patients were male, 28 had squamous cell histology, 34 were Stage IIIA or IIIB, and all baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two treatment arms. Seventeen (74%) of the 23 ICT patients completed the three cycles of chemotherapy. All 42 (22 CHART + 20 ICT) patients who received CHART completed the prescribed treatment. Median survival was 17 months in the CHART arm and 25 months in the ICT arm (hazard ratio of 0.60 [95% CI 0.31-1.16], p = 0.127). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (mainly fatigue, dysphagia, breathlessness, and anorexia) were reported for 13 (57%) CHART and 13 (65%) ICT patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This small randomized trial indicates that ICT followed by CHART is feasible and well tolerated. Despite closing early because of poor accrual, and so failing to show clear evidence of a survival benefit for the additional chemotherapy, the results suggest that CHART, and ICT before CHART, remain important options for the treatment of inoperable NSCLC and deserve further study.

The use of a mixed reality breast simulator with an innovative touch map feedback system to teach breast history-taking and examination skills

Abstract #2105

Introduction: Physical examination remains an important method of breast cancer detection. Unfortunately, many health care professionals express concerns about missing breast lesions and current methods of teaching this essential skill are limited. Through an interdisciplinary collaboration, we created an immersive virtual patient to teach health professions students history-taking and breast examination skills.&#x2028; Methods: Fifteen physician's assistant (PA) and 13 medical students (MS) interacted with a mixed reality human (MRH, a computer avatar with a mannequin-based breast simulator) with a breast complaint (Figure 1).&#x2028; &#x2028; Students spoke to and touched the MRH to take a history and examine a simulated breast with two masses of differing size and consistency. Subjects were surveyed regarding the usefulness of the virtual teaching tool and composed a patient note documenting pertinent history and physical examination findings. Students received feedback regarding the content of their patient note (number of 17 essential content items documented) and on the completeness of their breast examination (percentage area covered) using a color-coded touch map.&#x2028; Results: Student feedback related to the utility of this virtual educational tool was positive. Students only documented a mean of 7.8±2.7 (range=4-15) essential content items in the breast history. The completeness of the breast exam was a mean of 82% (range=62% to 97%) of total breast area examined (Figure 2, green=area examined, red=area missed).&#x2028; &#x2028; More clinically experienced students (MS 3 and 4, N=9) performed better than those with no clinical experience (MS 1 and PA 1, N=19) in both history-taking (58% vs. 40%, p&lt;0.05) and completeness of exam (90% vs. 84%, p&lt;0.05). Fifty percent of students were able to locate at least one mass but only 14% were able to correctly document the location of both lesions.&#x2028; Conclusions: The simulated experience differentiated performance among students with varying levels of clinical experience and identified a need for improved teaching and greater practice among all students. MRH scenarios provide a less anxious learning environment for students to practice breast history-taking and examination.

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 2105.

Active symptom control with or without chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MS01): a multicentre randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Malignant pleural mesothelioma is almost always fatal, and few treatment options are available. Although active symptom control (ASC) has been recommended for the management of this disease, no consensus exists for the role of chemotherapy. We investigated whether the addition of chemotherapy to ASC improved survival and quality of life.

METHODS

409 patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, from 76 centres in the UK and two in Australia, were randomly assigned to ASC alone (treatment could include steroids, analgesic drugs, bronchodilators, palliative radiotherapy [n=136]); to ASC plus MVP (four cycles of mitomycin 6 mg/m2, vinblastine 6 mg/m2, and cisplatin 50 mg/m2 every 3 weeks [n=137]); or to ASC plus vinorelbine (one injection of vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 every week for 12 weeks [n=136]). Randomisation was done by minimisation, with stratification for WHO performance status, histology, and centre. Follow-up was every 3 weeks to 21 weeks after randomisation, and every 8 weeks thereafter. Because of slow accrual, the two chemotherapy groups were combined and compared with ASC alone for the primary outcome of overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN54469112.

FINDINGS

At the time of analysis, 393 (96%) patients had died (ASC 132 [97%], ASC plus MVP 132 [96%], ASC plus vinorelbine 129 [95%]). Compared with ASC alone, we noted a small, non-significant survival benefit for ASC plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89 [95% CI 0.72-1.10]; p=0.29). Median survival was 7.6 months in the ASC alone group and 8.5 months in the ASC plus chemotherapy group. Exploratory analyses suggested a survival advantage for ASC plus vinorelbine compared with ASC alone (HR 0.80 [0.63-1.02]; p=0.08), with a median survival of 9.5 months. There was no evidence of a survival benefit with ASC plus MVP (HR 0.99 [0.78-1.27]; p=0.95). We observed no between-group differences in four predefined quality-of-life subscales (physical functioning, pain, dyspnoea, and global health status) at any of the assessments in the first 6 months.

INTERPRETATION

The addition of chemotherapy to ASC offers no significant benefits in terms of overall survival or quality of life. However, exploratory analyses suggested that vinorelbine merits further investigation.

A randomized phase III trial of active symptom control (ASC) with or without chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: First results of the Medical Research Council (MRC) / British Thoracic Society (BTS) MS01 trial

LBA7525

Background: Although chemotherapy is widely used in the treatment of mesothelioma it has never been compared in a randomized trial with ASC alone. Two chemotherapy regimens that had shown good symptom palliation in phase II studies were chosen for investigation. Methods: Patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma were randomized to ASC alone (regular follow-up in a specialist clinic, and treatment could include steroids, analgesics, bronchodilators, palliative radiotherapy, etc), ASC+MVP (4 × 3-weekly cycles of mitomycin 6g/m2, vinblastine 6mg/m2, and cisplatin 50mg/m2), or ASC+N (12 weekly injections of vinorelbine 30mg/m2). 420 patients were required to detect a 3-month improvement in median survival with ASC+CT (both chemotherapy arms combined). Quality of Life (QL) was assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30. Results: 409 patients were accrued (136 ASC, 137 ASC+MVP, 136 ASC+N). Median age: 65 years, male: 91%, Performance status 0: 23%, Epithelial histology: 73%, Stage III: 33%, Stage IV: 48%. In the ASC+MVP group 61% received all 4 cycles, and in the ASC+N group 49% received at least 10 weekly cycles. Good symptom palliation (defined as prevention, control or improvement) was achieved in all 3 groups, and no between-group differences were observed in 4 pre-defined QL subscales (physical functioning, dyspnoea, pain and global QL). A small (not conventionally significant) survival benefit was seen for ASC+CT (349 deaths, HR 0.89, 95%CI 0.72, 1.12, p=0.32). Median survival: ASC: 7.6 months, ASC+CT: 8.5 months. Exploratory analyses suggested a survival advantage for vinorelbine compared to ASC alone (HR 0.81, 95%CI 0.63, 1.05, p=0.11), with a median survival of 9.4 months, but no evidence of a benefit with MVP (HR 0.98, 95%CI 0.76, 1.28), p=0.91). Conclusions: This is the 2nd largest ever randomized trial in mesothelioma and the first to compare ASC with or without chemotherapy. Although the addition of chemotherapy to ASC did not result in a conventionally significant survival benefit, there was an indication that vinorelbine should be investigated further, and that MVP probably has no role in this disease.

[Table: see text]

Impact of pre-operative chemotherapy on the quality of life (QL) of patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Experience from the MRC LU22/NVALT/EORTC 08012 multicentre randomised trial

9020

Aim: To evaluate QL during the first 2 years follow-up in patients randomised to receive 3 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy (CT-S) prior to surgical resection of NSCLC compared to those receiving surgery alone (S). Methods: A total of 519 patients were entered into the LU22 trial from 70 centres in the UK, The Netherlands, Germany and Belgium. All patients were asked to complete the SF-36 QL questionnaire prior to randomisation and at 6 and 12 months then annually to 5 years. The scores from the SF-36 questionnaire were combined into 8 domains and also summarised as physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS). The 6,12 and 24 month PCS and MCS scores were analysed using multivariable regression to identify prognostic factors and investigate the difference between the regimens. Results: 82% patients completed QL at baseline, and compliance at 6, 12 and 24 months was 59%, 60% and 67% respectively. Median age was 63 (range 25 to 79 years) and 72% were male. At 6 months patients in the S group reported somewhat better functioning in all domains except general health and mental health, but no differences were seen at 12 or 24 months. The regression analyses indicated that better physical health outcomes (PCS) were predicted by baseline PCS and MCS at all follow-up points (all p<0.05), whereas longer time since surgery predicted better PCS at 6 months (p<0.05), and younger age predicted better PCS at 24 months (p=0.07). For mental health, better MCS was predicted at all time points by baseline MCS (p<0.05). In addition, female gender (p=0.07), and PCS (p<0.05), were predictors at 6 months, and younger age predicted better MCS at 24 months (p<0.01). Treatment regimen had no effect on QL at any time point. At 1 and 2 years more than 50% patients considered their health comparable to others, and 45% were generally optimistic about their future health. Conclusions: Over 2 years follow-up, QL was not adversely affected by pre-operative chemotherapy and there were no significant differences between the regimens. Many patients saw themselves as fit as their contemporaries.

[Table: see text]

Pre-operative chemotherapy in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): First results of the MRC LU22/NVALT/EORTC 08012 multi-centre randomised trial

7518

Aims: Although surgery offers the best chance of cure for patients with NSCLC, the overall 5-year survival rate is modest, and improvements are urgently required. This intergroup trial was designed to investigate whether, in patients with operable NSCLC of any stage, neo-adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy prior to surgery would improve outcomes. Methods: Patients were randomised to receive either surgery alone (S), or 3 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy prior to surgery (CT-S). Results: 519 patients were randomised (261 S, 258 CT-S) from 70 centres in the UK, the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium. The median age of the patients was 63 years, 72% were male, 59% were PS 0, and 50% had squamous cell histology. The majority were clinical stage I (17% Ia, 45% Ib, 3% IIa, 29% IIb, 7% IIIa), and 12% received mitomycin/vinblastine/cisplatin (MVP), 7% mitomycin/ifosfamide/cisplatin (MIC), 45% vinorelbine/cisplatin, 12% carboplatin/docetaxel, and 25% cisplatin/gemcitabine. The trial showed that neo-adjuvant chemotherapy was feasible (76% of patients received all 3 cycles of chemotherapy), resulted in a good response rate (4% CR, 45% PR, and only 2% PD), appeared to cause down-staging in about 20% of patients, and did not affect the type of surgery performed, the post-operative complication rate, or quality of life. However, there was no evidence of a benefit in terms of progression-free survival (282 events, HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77,1.23) or overall survival (232 deaths, HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.81, 1.35), and more patients were reported as having brain metastases in the CT-S group (30 CT-S vs 11 S patients). Exploratory analyses showed no evidence that any subgroup of patients benefited from the addition of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Conclusions: This intergroup trial, which is the largest trial of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resectable NSCLC, indicated that the addition of neo-adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy did not lead to a benefit in overall survival. However, a 19% survival benefit or a 35% detriment cannot be excluded and this result needs to be considered in the context of all other relevant randomised trials of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for NSCLC.

[Table: see text]

Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer: results of the MRC LU22/NVALT 2/EORTC 08012 multicentre randomised trial and update of systematic review

BACKGROUND

Although surgery offers the best chance of cure for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the overall 5-year survival rate is modest, and improvements are urgently needed. In the 1990s, much interest was generated from two small trials that reported striking results with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, and therefore our intergroup randomised trial was designed to investigate whether, in patients with operable non-small cell lung cancer of any stage, outcomes could be improved by giving platinum-based chemotherapy before surgery.

METHODS

Patients were randomised to receive either surgery alone (S), or three cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy followed by surgery (CT-S). Before randomisation, clinicians chose the chemotherapy that would be given from a list of six standard regimens. The primary outcome measure was overall survival, which was analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN25582437.

RESULTS

519 patients were randomised (S: 261, CT-S: 258) from 70 centres in the UK, Netherlands, Germany, and Belgium. Most (61%) were clinical stage I, with 31% stage II, and 7% stage III. Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy was feasible (75% of patients received all three cycles of chemotherapy), resulted in a good response rate (49% [95% CI 43%-55%]) and down-staging in 31% (25%-37%) of patients, and did not alter the type or completeness of the surgery (lobectomy: S: 56%, CT-S: 60%, complete resection: S: 80%, CT-S: 82%). Post-operative complications were not increased in the CT-S group, and no impairment of quality of life was observed. However, there was no evidence of a benefit in terms of overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, 95% CI 0.80-1.31, p=0.86). Updating the systematic review by addition of the present result suggests a 12% relative survival benefit with the addition of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (1507 patients, HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76-1.01, p=0.07), equivalent to an absolute improvement in survival of 5% at 5 years

INTERPRETATION

Although there was no evidence of a difference in overall survival with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, the result is statistically consistent with previous trials, and therefore adds considerable weight to the current evidence.