Getting our ducks in a row: The need for data utility comparisons of healthcare systems data for clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Better use of healthcare systems data, collected as part of interactions between patients and the healthcare system, could transform planning and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Multiple challenges to widespread use include whether healthcare systems data captures sufficiently well the data traditionally captured on case report forms. "Data Utility Comparison Studies" (DUCkS) assess the utility of healthcare systems data for RCTs by comparison to data collected by the trial. Despite their importance, there are few published UK examples of DUCkS.

METHODS-AND-RESULTS

Building from ongoing and selected recent examples of UK-led DUCkS in the literature, we set out experience-based considerations for the conduct of future DUCkS. Developed through informal iterative discussions in many forums, considerations are offered for planning, protocol development, data, analysis and reporting, with comparisons at "patient-level" or "trial-level", depending on the item of interest and trial status.

DISCUSSION

DUCkS could be a valuable tool in assessing where healthcare systems data can be used for trials and in which trial teams can play a leading role. There is a pressing need for trials to be more efficient in their delivery and research waste must be reduced. Trials have been making inconsistent use of healthcare systems data, not least because of an absence of evidence of utility. DUCkS can also help to identify challenges in using healthcare systems data, such as linkage (access and timing) and data quality. We encourage trial teams to incorporate and report DUCkS in trials and funders and data providers to support them.

Using healthcare systems data for outcomes in clinical trials: issues to consider at the design stage

BACKGROUND

Healthcare system data (HSD) are increasingly used in clinical trials, augmenting or replacing traditional methods of collecting outcome data. This study, PRIMORANT, set out to identify, in the UK context, issues to be considered before the decision to use HSD for outcome data in a clinical trial is finalised, a methodological question prioritised by the clinical trials community.

METHODS

The PRIMORANT study had three phases. First, an initial workshop was held to scope the issues faced by trialists when considering whether to use HSDs for trial outcomes. Second, a consultation exercise was undertaken with clinical trials unit (CTU) staff, trialists, methodologists, clinicians, funding panels and data providers. Third, a final discussion workshop was held, at which the results of the consultation were fed back, case studies presented, and issues considered in small breakout groups.

RESULTS

Key topics included in the consultation process were the validity of outcome data, timeliness of data capture, internal pilots, data-sharing, practical issues, and decision-making. A majority of consultation respondents (n = 78, 95%) considered the development of guidance for trialists to be feasible. Guidance was developed following the discussion workshop, for the five broad areas of terminology, feasibility, internal pilots, onward data sharing, and data archiving.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide guidance to inform decisions about whether or not to use HSDs for outcomes, and if so, to assist trialists in working with registries and other HSD providers to improve the design and delivery of trials.

e-Consent in UK academic-led clinical trials: current practice, challenges and the need for more evidence

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person healthcare visits were reduced. Consequently, trial teams needed to consider implementing remote methods for conducting clinical trials, including e-Consent. Although some clinical trials may have implemented e-Consent prior to the pandemic, anecdotes of uptake for this method increased within academic-led trials. When the increased use of this process emerged, representatives from several large academic clinical trial groups within the UK collaborated to discuss ways in which trialists can learn from one another when implementing e-Consent.

METHODS

A survey of UKCRC-registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) was undertaken in April-June 2021 to understand the implementation of and their views on the use of e-Consent and experiences from the perspectives of systems programmers and quality assurance staff on the use of e-Consent. CTUs not using e-Consent were asked to provide any reasons/barriers (including no suitable trials) and any plans for implementing it in the future. Two events for trialists and patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives were then held to disseminate findings, foster discussion, share experiences and aid in the identification of areas that the academic CTU community felt required more research.

RESULTS

Thirty-four (64%) of 53 CTUs responded to the survey, with good geographical representation across the UK. Twenty-one (62%) of the responding CTUs had implemented e-Consent in at least one of their trials, across different types of trials, including CTIMPs (Clinical Trial of Investigational Medicinal Product), ATIMPs (Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products) and non-CTIMPs. One hundred ninety-seven participants attended the two workshops for wide-ranging discussions.

CONCLUSION

e-Consent is increasingly used in academic-led trials, yet uncertainties remain amongst trialists, patients and members of the public. Uncertainties include a lack of formal, practical guidance and a lack of evidence to demonstrate optimal or appropriate methods to use. We strongly encourage trialists to continue to share their own experiences of the implementation of e-Consent.

Monitoring metrics over time: Why clinical trialists need to systematically collect site performance metrics

Background

Over the last decade, there has been an increasing interest in risk-based monitoring (RBM) in clinical trials, resulting in a number of guidelines from regulators and its inclusion in ICH GCP. However, there is a lack of detail on how to approach RBM from a practical perspective, and insufficient understanding of best practice.

Purpose

We present a method for clinical trials units to track their metrics within clinical trials using descriptive statistics and visualisations.

Research Design

We suggest descriptive statistics and visualisations within a SWAT methodology.

Study Sample

We illustrate this method using the metrics from TEMPER, a monitoring study carried out in three trials at the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL.

Data Collection

The data collection for TEMPER is described in DOI: 10.1177/1740774518793379.

Results

We show the results and discuss a protocol for a Study-Within-A-Trial (SWAT 167) for those wishing to use the method.

Conclusions

The potential benefits metric tracking brings to clinical trials include enhanced assessment of sites for potential corrective action, improved evaluation and contextualisation of the influence of metrics and their thresholds, and the establishment of best practice in RBM. The standardisation of the collection of such monitoring data would benefit both individual trials and the clinical trials community.

Lack of transparent reporting of trial monitoring approaches in randomised controlled trials: A systematic review of contemporary protocol papers

BACKGROUND

Monitoring is essential to ensure patient safety and data integrity in clinical trials as per Good Clinical Practice. The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials Statement and its checklist guides authors to include monitoring in their protocols. We investigated how well monitoring was reported in published 'protocol papers' for contemporary randomised controlled trials.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed to identify eligible protocol papers published in selected journals between 1 January 2020 and 31 May 2020. Protocol papers were classified by whether they reported monitoring and, if so, by the details of monitoring. Data were summarised descriptively.

RESULTS

Of 811 protocol papers for randomised controlled trials, 386 (48%; 95% CI: 44%-51%) explicitly reported some monitoring information. Of these, 20% (77/386) reported monitoring information consistent with an on-site monitoring approach, and 39% (152/386) with central monitoring, 26% (101/386) with a mixed approach, while 14% (54/386) did not provide sufficient information to specify an approach. Only 8% (30/386) of randomised controlled trials reported complete details about all of scope, frequency and organisation of monitoring; frequency of monitoring was the least reported. However, 6% (25/386) of papers used the term 'audit' to describe 'monitoring'.

DISCUSSION

Monitoring information was reported in only approximately half of the protocol papers. Suboptimal reporting of monitoring hinders the clinical community from having the full information on which to judge the validity of a trial and jeopardises the value of protocol papers and the credibility of the trial itself. Greater efforts are needed to promote the transparent reporting of monitoring to journal editors and authors.

What is the purpose of clinical trial monitoring?

BACKGROUND

The sources of information on clinical trial monitoring do not give information in an accessible language and do not give detailed guidance. In order to enable communication and to build clinical trial monitoring tools on a strong easily communicated foundation, we identified the need to define monitoring in accessible language.

METHODS

In a three-step process, the material from sources that describe clinical trial monitoring were synthesised into principles of monitoring. A poll regarding their applicability was run at a UK national academic clinical trials monitoring meeting.

RESULTS

The process derived 5 key principles of monitoring: keeping participants safe and respecting their rights, having data we can trust, making sure the trial is being run as it was meant to be, improving the way the trial is run and preventing problems before they happen.

CONCLUSION

From the many sources mentioning monitoring of clinical trials, the purpose of monitoring can be summarised simply as 5 principles. These principles, given in accessible language, should form a firm basis for discussion of monitoring of clinical trials.

Practical guidance for running late-phase platform protocols for clinical trials: lessons from experienced UK clinical trials units

BACKGROUND

Late-phase platform protocols (including basket, umbrella, multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS), and master protocols) are generally agreed to be more efficient than traditional two-arm clinical trial designs but are not extensively used. We have gathered the experience of running a number of successful platform protocols together to present some operational recommendations.

METHODS

Representatives of six UK clinical trials units with experience in running late-phase platform protocols attended a 1-day meeting structured to discuss various practical aspects of running these trials. We report and give guidance on operational aspects which are either harder to implement compared to a traditional late-phase trial or are specific to platform protocols.

RESULTS

We present a list of practical recommendations for trialists intending to design and conduct late-phase platform protocols. Our recommendations cover the entire life cycle of a platform trial: from protocol development, obtaining funding, and trial set-up, to a wide range of operational and regulatory aspects such as staffing, oversight, data handling, and data management, to the reporting of results, with a particular focus on communication with trial participants and stakeholders as well as public and patient involvement.

DISCUSSION

Platform protocols enable many questions to be answered efficiently to the benefit of patients. Our practical lessons from running platform trials will support trial teams in learning how to run these trials more effectively and efficiently.

eQTL Set-Based Association Analysis Identifies Novel Susceptibility Loci for Barrett Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Over 20 susceptibility single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) have been identified for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and its precursor, Barrett esophagus (BE), explaining a small portion of heritability.

METHODS

Using genetic data from 4,323 BE and 4,116 EAC patients aggregated by international consortia including the Barrett's and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium (BEACON), we conducted a comprehensive transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS) for BE/EAC, leveraging Genotype Tissue Expression (GTEx) gene-expression data from six tissue types of plausible relevance to EAC etiology: mucosa and muscularis from the esophagus, gastroesophageal (GE) junction, stomach, whole blood, and visceral adipose. Two analytical approaches were taken: standard TWAS using the predicted gene expression from local expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL), and set-based SKAT association using selected eQTLs that predict the gene expression.

RESULTS

Although the standard approach did not identify significant signals, the eQTL set-based approach identified eight novel associations, three of which were validated in independent external data (eQTL SNP sets for EXOC3, ZNF641, and HSP90AA1).

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified novel genetic susceptibility loci for EAC and BE using an eQTL set-based genetic association approach.

IMPACT

This study expanded the pool of genetic susceptibility loci for EAC and BE, suggesting the potential of the eQTL set-based genetic association approach as an alternative method for TWAS analysis.

Uptake of the multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) adaptive platform approach: a trial-registry review of late-phase randomised clinical trials

BACKGROUND

For medical conditions with numerous interventions worthy of investigation, there are many advantages of a multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) platform trial approach. However, there is currently limited knowledge on uptake of the MAMS design, especially in the late-phase setting. We sought to examine uptake and characteristics of late-phase MAMS platform trials, to enable better planning for teams considering future use of this approach.

DESIGN

We examined uptake of registered, late-phase MAMS platforms in the EU clinical trials register, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform and databases: PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Global Health Library and EMBASE. Searching was performed and review data frozen on 1 April 2021. MAMS platforms were defined as requiring two or more comparison arms, with two or more trial stages, with an interim analysis allowing for stopping of recruitment to arms and typically the ability to add new intervention arms.

RESULTS

62 late-phase clinical trials using an MAMS approach were included. Overall, the number of late-phase trials using the MAMS design has been increasing since 2001 and been accelerated by COVID-19. The majority of current MAMS platforms were either targeting infectious diseases (52%) or cancers (29%) and all identified trials were for treatment interventions. 89% (55/62) of MAMS platforms were evaluating medications, with 45% (28/62) of the MAMS platforms having at least one or more repurposed medication as a comparison arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Historically, late-phase trials have adhered to long-established standard (two-arm) designs. However, the number of late-phase MAMS platform trials is increasing, across a range of different disease areas. This study highlights the potential scope of MAMS platform trials and may assist research teams considering use of this approach in the late-phase randomised clinical trial setting.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019153910.

Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies

BACKGROUND

Trial monitoring is an important component of good clinical practice to ensure the safety and rights of study participants, confidentiality of personal information, and quality of data. However, the effectiveness of various existing monitoring approaches is unclear. Information to guide the choice of monitoring methods in clinical intervention studies may help trialists, support units, and monitors to effectively adjust their approaches to current knowledge and evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of different monitoring strategies (including risk-based strategies and others) for clinical intervention studies examined in prospective comparative studies of monitoring interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We systematically searched CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase via Ovid for relevant published literature up to March 2021. We searched the online 'Studies within A Trial' (SWAT) repository, grey literature, and trial registries for ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized or non-randomized prospective, empirical evaluation studies of different monitoring strategies in one or more clinical intervention studies. We applied no restrictions for language or date of publication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data on the evaluated monitoring methods, countries involved, study population, study setting, randomization method, and numbers and proportions in each intervention group. Our primary outcome was critical and major monitoring findings in prospective intervention studies. Monitoring findings were classified according to different error domains (e.g. major eligibility violations) and the primary outcome measure was a composite of these domains. Secondary outcomes were individual error domains, participant recruitment and follow-up, and resource use. If we identified more than one study for a comparison and outcome definitions were similar across identified studies, we quantitatively summarized effects in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Otherwise, we qualitatively summarized the results of eligible studies stratified by different comparisons of monitoring strategies. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for different groups of comparisons.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified eight eligible studies, which we grouped into five comparisons. 1. Risk-based versus extensive on-site monitoring: based on two large studies, we found moderate certainty of evidence for the combined primary outcome of major or critical findings that risk-based monitoring is not inferior to extensive on-site monitoring. Although the risk ratio was close to 'no difference' (1.03 with a 95% confidence interval [CI] of 0.81 to 1.33, below 1.0 in favor of the risk-based strategy), the high imprecision in one study and the small number of eligible studies resulted in a wide CI of the summary estimate. Low certainty of evidence suggested that monitoring strategies with extensive on-site monitoring were associated with considerably higher resource use and costs (up to a factor of 3.4). Data on recruitment or retention of trial participants were not available. 2. Central monitoring with triggered on-site visits versus regular on-site visits: combining the results of two eligible studies yielded low certainty of evidence with a risk ratio of 1.83 (95% CI 0.51 to 6.55) in favor of triggered monitoring intervention. Data on recruitment, retention, and resource use were not available. 3. Central statistical monitoring and local monitoring performed by site staff with annual on-site visits versus central statistical monitoring and local monitoring only: based on one study, there was moderate certainty of evidence that a small number of major and critical findings were missed with the central monitoring approach without on-site visits: 3.8% of participants in the group without on-site visits and 6.4% in the group with on-site visits had a major or critical monitoring finding (odds ratio 1.7, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.7; P = 0.03). The absolute number of monitoring findings was very low, probably because defined major and critical findings were very study specific and central monitoring was present in both intervention groups. Very low certainty of evidence did not suggest a relevant effect on participant retention, and very low certainty evidence indicated an extra cost for on-site visits of USD 2,035,392. There were no data on recruitment. 4. Traditional 100% source data verification (SDV) versus targeted or remote SDV: the two studies assessing targeted and remote SDV reported findings only related to source documents. Compared to the final database obtained using the full SDV monitoring process, only a small proportion of remaining errors on overall data were identified using the targeted SDV process in the MONITORING study (absolute difference 1.47%, 95% CI 1.41% to 1.53%). Targeted SDV was effective in the verification of source documents, but increased the workload on data management. The other included study was a pilot study, which compared traditional on-site SDV versus remote SDV and found little difference in monitoring findings and the ability to locate data values despite marked differences in remote access in two clinical trial networks. There were no data on recruitment or retention. 5. Systematic on-site initiation visit versus on-site initiation visit upon request: very low certainty of evidence suggested no difference in retention and recruitment between the two approaches. There were no data on critical and major findings or on resource use.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base is limited in terms of quantity and quality. Ideally, for each of the five identified comparisons, more prospective, comparative monitoring studies nested in clinical trials and measuring effects on all outcomes specified in this review are necessary to draw more reliable conclusions. However, the results suggesting risk-based, targeted, and mainly central monitoring as an efficient strategy are promising. The development of reliable triggers for on-site visits is ongoing; different triggers might be used in different settings. More evidence on risk indicators that identify sites with problems or the prognostic value of triggers is needed to further optimize central monitoring strategies. In particular, approaches with an initial assessment of trial-specific risks that need to be closely monitored centrally during trial conduct with triggered on-site visits should be evaluated in future research.

Use of routinely collected health data in randomised clinical trials: comparison of trial-specific death data in the BOSS trial with NHS Digital data

Background

A promising approach to reduce the increasing costs of clinical trials is the use of routinely collected health data as participant data. However, the quality of this data could limit its usability as trial participant data.

Methods

The BOSS trial is a randomised controlled trial comparing regular endoscopies versus endoscopies at need in patients with Barrett’s oesophagus with primary endpoint death. Data on death and cancer collected every 2 years after randomisation (trial-specific data) were compared to data received annually (all patients on one date) from the routinely collected health data source National Health Service (NHS) Digital. We investigated completeness, agreement and timeliness and looked at the implications for the primary trial outcome. Completeness and agreement were assessed by evaluating the number of reported and missing cases and any disparities between reported dates. Timeliness was considered by graphing the year a death was first reported in the trial-specific data against that for NHS Digital data. Implications on the primary trial outcome, overall survival, of using one of the data sources alone were investigated using Kaplan-Meier graphs. To assess the utility of cause of death and cancer diagnoses, oesophageal cancer cases were compared.

Results

NHS Digital datasets included more deaths and often reported them sooner than the trial-specific data. The number reported as being from oesophageal cancer was similar in both datasets. Due to time lag in reporting and missing cases, the event rate appeared higher using the NHS Digital data.

Conclusion

NHS Digital death data is useful for calculating overall survival where trial-specific follow-up is only every 2 years from randomisation and the follow-up requires patient response. The cancer data was not a large enough sample to assess usability. We suggest that this assessment of registry data is done for more phase III RCTs and for more registry data to get a more complete picture of when RCHD would be useful in phase III RCT.

Trial registration

ISRCTN54190466 (BOSS) 1 Oct 2009.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05613-x.

Accessing routinely collected health data to improve clinical trials: recent experience of access

BACKGROUND

Routinely collected electronic health records (EHRs) have the potential to enhance randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by facilitating recruitment and follow-up. Despite this, current EHR use is minimal in UK RCTs, in part due to ongoing concerns about the utility (reliability, completeness, accuracy) and accessibility of the data. The aim of this manuscript is to document the process, timelines and challenges of the application process to help improve the service both for the applicants and data holders.

METHODS

This is a qualitative paper providing a descriptive narrative from one UK clinical trials unit (MRC CTU at UCL) on the experience of two trial teams' application process to access data from three large English national datasets: National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) and NHS Digital to establish themes for discussion. The underpinning reason for applying for the data was to compare EHRs with data collected through case report forms in two RCTs, Add-Aspirin (ISRCTN 74358648) and PATCH (ISRCTN 70406718).

RESULTS

The Add-Aspirin trial, which had a pre-planned embedded sub-study to assess EHR, received data from NCRAS 13 months after the first application. In the PATCH trial, the decision to request data was made whilst the trial was recruiting. The study received data after 8 months from NICOR and 15 months for NHS Digital following final application submission. This concluded in May 2020. Prior to application submission, significant time and effort was needed particularly in relation to the PATCH trial where negotiations over consent and data linkage took many years.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience demonstrates that data access can be a prolonged and complex process. This is compounded if multiple data sources are required for the same project. This needs to be factored in when planning to use EHR within RCTs and is best considered prior to conception of the trial. Data holders and researchers are endeavouring to simplify and streamline the application process so that the potential of EHR can be realised for clinical trials.

Monitoring advances including consent: learning from COVID-19 trials and other trials running in UKCRC registered clinical trials units during the pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected how clinical trials are managed, both within existing portfolios and for the rapidly developed COVID-19 trials. Sponsors or delegated organisations responsible for monitoring trials have needed to consider and implement alternative ways of working due to the national infection risk necessitating restricted movement of staff and public, reduced clinical staff resource as research staff moved to clinical areas, and amended working arrangements for sponsor and sponsor delegates as staff moved to working from home.Organisations have often worked in isolation to fast track mitigations required for the conduct of clinical trials during the pandemic; this paper describes many of the learnings from a group of monitoring leads based in United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Unit (CTUs) within the UK.The UKCRC Monitoring Task and Finish Group, comprising monitoring leads from 9 CTUs, met repeatedly to identify how COVID-19 had affected clinical trial monitoring. Informed consent is included as a specific issue within this paper, as review of completed consent documentation is often required within trial monitoring plans (TMPs). Monitoring is defined as involving on-site monitoring, central monitoring or/and remote monitoring.Monitoring, required to protect the safety of the patients and the integrity of the trial and ensure the protocol is followed, is often best done by a combination of central, remote and on-site monitoring. However, if on-site monitoring is not possible, workable solutions can be found using only central or central and remote monitoring. eConsent, consent by a third person, or via remote means is plausible. Minimising datasets to the critical data reduces workload for sites and CTU staff. Home working caused by COVID-19 has made electronic trial master files (TMFs) more inviting. Allowing sites to book and attend protocol training at a time convenient to them has been successful and worth pursuing for trials with many sites in the future.The arrival of COVID-19 in the UK has forced consideration of and changes to how clinical trials are conducted in relation to monitoring. Some developed practices will be useful in other pandemics and others should be incorporated into regular use.

Germline variation in the insulin-like growth factor pathway and risk of Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and its precursor, Barrett's esophagus (BE), have uncovered significant genetic components of risk, but most heritability remains unexplained. Targeted assessment of genetic variation in biologically relevant pathways using novel analytical approaches may identify missed susceptibility signals. Central obesity, a key BE/EAC risk factor, is linked to systemic inflammation, altered hormonal signaling and insulin-like growth factor (IGF) axis dysfunction. Here, we assessed IGF-related genetic variation and risk of BE and EAC. Principal component analysis was employed to evaluate pathway-level and gene-level associations with BE/EAC, using genotypes for 270 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in or near 12 IGF-related genes, ascertained from 3295 BE cases, 2515 EAC cases and 3207 controls in the Barrett's and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium (BEACON) GWAS. Gene-level signals were assessed using Multi-marker Analysis of GenoMic Annotation (MAGMA) and SNP summary statistics from BEACON and an expanded GWAS meta-analysis (6167 BE cases, 4112 EAC cases, 17 159 controls). Global variation in the IGF pathway was associated with risk of BE (P = 0.0015). Gene-level associations with BE were observed for GHR (growth hormone receptor; P = 0.00046, false discovery rate q = 0.0056) and IGF1R (IGF1 receptor; P = 0.0090, q = 0.0542). These gene-level signals remained significant at q < 0.1 when assessed using data from the largest available BE/EAC GWAS meta-analysis. No significant associations were observed for EAC. This study represents the most comprehensive evaluation to date of inherited genetic variation in the IGF pathway and BE/EAC risk, providing novel evidence that variation in two genes encoding cell-surface receptors, GHR and IGF1R, may influence risk of BE.

Practicalities in running early-phase trials using the time-to-event continual reassessment method (TiTE-CRM) for interventions with long toxicity periods using two radiotherapy oncology trials as examples

BACKGROUND

Awareness of model-based designs for dose-finding studies such as the Continual Reassessment Method (CRM) is now becoming more commonplace amongst clinicians, statisticians and trial management staff. In some settings toxicities can occur a long time after treatment has finished, resulting in extremely long, interrupted, CRM design trials. The Time-to-Event CRM (TiTE-CRM), a modification to the original CRM, accounts for the timing of late-onset toxicities and results in shorter trial duration. In this article, we discuss how to design and deliver a trial using this method, from the grant application stage through to dissemination, using two radiotherapy trials as examples.

METHODS

The TiTE-CRM encapsulates the dose-toxicity relationship with a statistical model. The model incorporates observed toxicities and uses a weight to account for the proportion of completed follow-up of participants without toxicity. This model uses all available data to determine the next participant's dose and subsequently declare the maximum tolerated dose. We focus on two trials designed by the authors to illustrate practical issues when designing, setting up, and running such studies.

RESULTS

In setting up a TiTE-CRM trial, model parameters need to be defined and the time element involved might cause complications, therefore looking at operating characteristics through simulations is essential. At the grant application stage, we suggest resources to fund statisticians' time before funding is awarded and make recommendations for the level of detail to include in funding applications. While running the trial, close contact of all involved staff is required as a dose decision is made each time a participant is recruited. We suggest ways of capturing data in a timely manner and give example code in R for design and delivery of the trial. Finally, we touch upon dissemination issues while the trial is running and upon completion.

CONCLUSION

Model-based designs can be complex. We hope this paper will help clinical trial teams to demystify the conduct of TiTE-CRM trials and be a starting point for using this methodology in practice.

Access to routinely collected health data for clinical trials - review of successful data requests to UK registries

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials generally each collect their own data despite routinely collected health data (RCHD) increasing in quality and breadth. Our aim is to quantify UK-based randomised controlled trials (RCTs) accessing RCHD for participant data, characterise how these data are used and thereby recommend how more trials could use RCHD.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of RCTs accessing RCHD from at least one registry in the UK between 2013 and 2018 for the purposes of informing or supplementing participant data. A list of all registries holding RCHD in the UK was compiled. In cases where registries published release registers, these were searched for RCTs accessing RCHD. Where no release register was available, registries were contacted to request a list of RCTs. For each identified RCT, information was collected from all publicly available sources (release registers, websites, protocol etc.). The search and data extraction were undertaken between January and May 2019.

RESULTS

We identified 160 RCTs accessing RCHD between 2013 and 2018 from a total of 22 registries; this corresponds to only a very small proportion of all UK RCTs (about 3%). RCTs accessing RCHD were generally large (median sample size 1590), commonly evaluating treatments for cancer or cardiovascular disease. Most of the included RCTs accessed RCHD from NHS Digital (68%), and the most frequently accessed datasets were mortality (76%) and hospital visits (55%). RCHD was used to inform the primary trial (82%) and long-term follow-up (57%). There was substantial variation in how RCTs used RCHD to inform participant outcome measures. A limitation was the lack of information and transparency from registries and RCTs with respect to which datasets have been accessed and for what purposes.

CONCLUSIONS

In the last five years, only a small minority of UK-based RCTs have accessed RCHD to inform participant data. We ask for improved accessibility, confirmed data quality and joined-up thinking between the registries and the regulatory authorities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019123088.

Monitoring in practice - How are UK academic clinical trials monitored? A survey

Background

Despite the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) encouraging the use of risk-based monitoring for trials in 2013, there remains a lack of evidence-based guidelines on how to monitor. We surveyed the academic United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) registered clinical trials units (CTUs) to find out their policy on monitoring of phase III randomised clinical trials of an investigational medicinal product (CTIMPs).

Methods

An online survey of monitoring policy with sections on the CTU, central monitoring and on-site monitoring was sent to all 50 UKCRC registered CTUs in November 2018.

Descriptive data analysis and tabulations are reported using the total number answering each question.

Results

A total of 43/50 (86%) of CTUs responded with 38 conducting phase III randomised CTIMP trials. Of these 38 CTUs, 34 finished the survey. Most CTUs (36/37, 97%) use a central monitoring process to guide, target or supplement site visits. More than half (19/36, 53%) of CTUs do not use an automated monitoring report when centrally monitoring trials and all units use trial team knowledge to make a final decision on whether an on-site visit is required.

A total of 31/34 (91%) CTUs used triggers to decide whether or not to conduct an on-site monitoring visit. On-site, a mixture of source data verification and checking of processes was carried out.

The CTUs overwhelmingly (27/34, 79%) selected optimising central monitoring as their most pressing concern.

Conclusion

The survey showed a wide variation in phase III randomised CTIMP trial monitoring practices by academic clinical trials units within a single research-active country. We urgently need to develop evidence-based regulator-agreed guidance for CTUs on best practice for both central and on-site monitoring and to develop tools for all CTUs to use.

MRE11 as a Predictive Biomarker of Outcome After Radiation Therapy in Bladder Cancer

PURPOSE

Organ-confined muscle-invasive bladder cancer is treated with cystectomy or bladder preservation techniques, including radiation therapy. There are currently no biomarkers to inform management decisions and aid patient choice. Previously we showed high levels of MRE11 protein, assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC), predicted outcome after radiation therapy, but not cystectomy. Therefore, we sought to develop the MRE11 IHC assay for clinical use and define its relationship to clinical outcome in samples from 2 major clinical trials.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Samples from the BCON and BC2001 randomized controlled trials and a cystectomy cohort were stained using automated IHC methods and scored for MRE11 in 3 centers in the United Kingdom.

RESULTS

Despite step-wise creation of scoring cards and standard operating procedures for staining and interpretation, there was poor intercenter scoring agreement (kappa, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.47). No significant associations between MRE11 scores and cause-specific survival were identified in BCON (n = 132) and BC2001 (n = 221) samples. Reoptimized staining improved agreement between scores from BCON tissue microarrays (n = 116), but MRE11 expression was not prognostic for cause-specific survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Manual IHC scoring of MRE11 was not validated as a reproducible biomarker of radiation-based bladder preservation success. There is a need for automated quantitative methods or a reassessment of how DNA-damage response relates to clinical outcomes.

Evaluating the effects of the novel GLP-1 analogue liraglutide in Alzheimer's disease: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (ELAD study)

BACKGROUND

Liraglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue currently approved for type 2 diabetes and obesity. Preclinical evidence in transgenic models of Alzheimer's disease suggests that liraglutide exerts neuroprotective effects by reducing amyloid oligomers, normalising synaptic plasticity and cerebral glucose uptake, and increasing the proliferation of neuronal progenitor cells. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the change in cerebral glucose metabolic rate after 12 months of treatment with liraglutide in participants with Alzheimer's disease compared to those who are receiving placebo.

METHODS/DESIGN

ELAD is a 12-month, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIb trial of liraglutide in participants with mild Alzheimer's dementia. A total of 206 participants will be randomised to receive either liraglutide or placebo as a daily injection for a year. The primary outcome will be the change in cerebral glucose metabolic rate in the cortical regions (hippocampus, medial temporal lobe, and posterior cingulate) from baseline to follow-up in the treatment group compared with the placebo group. The key secondary outcomes are the change from baseline to 12 months in z scores for clinical and cognitive measures (Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale and Executive domain scores of the Neuropsychological Test Battery, Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes, and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living) and the incidence and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events or clinically important changes in safety assessments. Other secondary outcomes are 12-month change in magnetic resonance imaging volume, diffusion tensor imaging parameters, reduction in microglial activation in a subgroup of participants, reduction in tau formation and change in amyloid levels in a subgroup of participants measured by tau and amyloid imaging, and changes in composite scores using support machine vector analysis in the treatment group compared with the placebo group.

DISCUSSION

Alzheimer's disease is a leading cause of morbidity worldwide. As available treatments are only symptomatic, the search for disease-modifying therapies is a priority. If the ELAD trial is successful, liraglutide and GLP-1 analogues will represent an important class of compounds to be further evaluated in clinical trials for Alzheimer's treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01843075 . Registration 30 April 2013.

Paclitaxel with or without trametinib or pazopanib in advanced wild-type BRAF melanoma (PACMEL): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled phase II trial

BACKGROUND

Advanced melanoma treatments often rely on immunotherapy or targeting mutations, with few treatment options for wild-type BRAF (BRAF-wt) melanoma. However, the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway is activated in most melanoma, including BRAF-wt. We assessed whether inhibiting this pathway by adding kinase inhibitors trametinib or pazopanib to paclitaxel chemotherapy improved outcomes in patients with advanced BRAF-wt melanoma in a phase II, randomised and open-label trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomised (1 : 1 : 1) to paclitaxel alone or with trametinib or pazopanib. Paclitaxel was given for a maximum of six cycles, while 2 mg trametinib and 800 mg pazopanib were administered orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Participants and investigators were unblinded. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR).

RESULTS

Participants were randomised to paclitaxel alone (n = 38), paclitaxel and trametinib (n = 36), or paclitaxel and pazopanib (n = 37). Adding trametinib significantly improved 6-month PFS [time ratio (TR), 1.47; 90% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-2.01, P = 0.04] and ORR (42% versus 13%; P = 0.01) but had no effect on OS (P = 0.25). Adding pazopanib did not benefit 6-month PFS; (TR 1.36; 90% CI 0.96-1.93; P = 0.14), ORR, or OS. Toxicity increased in both combination arms.

CONCLUSION

In this phase II trial, adding trametinib to paclitaxel chemotherapy for BRAF-wt melanoma improved PFS and substantially increased ORR but did not impact OS.This study was registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2011-002545-35, and with the ISRCTN registry, number 43327231.

How to design a dose-finding study using the continual reassessment method

INTRODUCTION

The continual reassessment method (CRM) is a model-based design for phase I trials, which aims to find the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of a new therapy. The CRM has been shown to be more accurate in targeting the MTD than traditional rule-based approaches such as the 3 + 3 design, which is used in most phase I trials. Furthermore, the CRM has been shown to assign more trial participants at or close to the MTD than the 3 + 3 design. However, the CRM's uptake in clinical research has been incredibly slow, putting trial participants, drug development and patients at risk. Barriers to increasing the use of the CRM have been identified, most notably a lack of knowledge amongst clinicians and statisticians on how to apply new designs in practice. No recent tutorial, guidelines, or recommendations for clinicians on conducting dose-finding studies using the CRM are available. Furthermore, practical resources to support clinicians considering the CRM for their trials are scarce.

METHODS

To help overcome these barriers, we present a structured framework for designing a dose-finding study using the CRM. We give recommendations for key design parameters and advise on conducting pre-trial simulation work to tailor the design to a specific trial. We provide practical tools to support clinicians and statisticians, including software recommendations, and template text and tables that can be edited and inserted into a trial protocol. We also give guidance on how to conduct and report dose-finding studies using the CRM.

RESULTS

An initial set of design recommendations are provided to kick-start the design process. To complement these and the additional resources, we describe two published dose-finding trials that used the CRM. We discuss their designs, how they were conducted and analysed, and compare them to what would have happened under a 3 + 3 design.

CONCLUSIONS

The framework and resources we provide are aimed at clinicians and statisticians new to the CRM design. Provision of key resources in this contemporary guidance paper will hopefully improve the uptake of the CRM in phase I dose-finding trials.

Esomeprazole and aspirin in Barrett's oesophagus (AspECT): a randomised factorial trial

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal adenocarcinoma is the sixth most common cause of cancer death worldwide and Barrett's oesophagus is the biggest risk factor. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of high-dose esomeprazole proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) and aspirin for improving outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus.

METHODS

The Aspirin and Esomeprazole Chemoprevention in Barrett's metaplasia Trial had a 2 × 2 factorial design and was done at 84 centres in the UK and one in Canada. Patients with Barrett's oesophagus of 1 cm or more were randomised 1:1:1:1 using a computer-generated schedule held in a central trials unit to receive high-dose (40 mg twice-daily) or low-dose (20 mg once-daily) PPI, with or without aspirin (300 mg per day in the UK, 325 mg per day in Canada) for at least 8 years, in an unblinded manner. Reporting pathologists were masked to treatment allocation. The primary composite endpoint was time to all-cause mortality, oesophageal adenocarcinoma, or high-grade dysplasia, which was analysed with accelerated failure time modelling adjusted for minimisation factors (age, Barrett's oesophagus length, intestinal metaplasia) in all patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2004-003836-77.

FINDINGS

Between March 10, 2005, and March 1, 2009, 2557 patients were recruited. 705 patients were assigned to low-dose PPI and no aspirin, 704 to high-dose PPI and no aspirin, 571 to low-dose PPI and aspirin, and 577 to high-dose PPI and aspirin. Median follow-up and treatment duration was 8·9 years (IQR 8·2-9·8), and we collected 20 095 follow-up years and 99·9% of planned data. 313 primary events occurred. High-dose PPI (139 events in 1270 patients) was superior to low-dose PPI (174 events in 1265 patients; time ratio [TR] 1·27, 95% CI 1·01-1·58, p=0·038). Aspirin (127 events in 1138 patients) was not significantly better than no aspirin (154 events in 1142 patients; TR 1·24, 0·98-1·57, p=0·068). If patients using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were censored at the time of first use, aspirin was significantly better than no aspirin (TR 1·29, 1·01-1·66, p=0·043; n=2236). Combining high-dose PPI with aspirin had the strongest effect compared with low-dose PPI without aspirin (TR 1·59, 1·14-2·23, p=0·0068). The numbers needed to treat were 34 for PPI and 43 for aspirin. Only 28 (1%) participants reported study-treatment-related serious adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

High-dose PPI and aspirin chemoprevention therapy, especially in combination, significantly and safely improved outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, AstraZeneca, Wellcome Trust, and Health Technology Assessment.

Analysis of phase II methodologies for single-arm clinical trials with multiple endpoints in rare cancers: An example in Ewing's sarcoma

Trials run in either rare diseases, such as rare cancers, or rare sub-populations of common diseases are challenging in terms of identifying, recruiting and treating sufficient patients in a sensible period. Treatments for rare diseases are often designed for other disease areas and then later proposed as possible treatments for the rare disease after initial phase I testing is complete. To ensure the trial is in the best interests of the patient participants, frequent interim analyses are needed to force the trial to stop promptly if the treatment is futile or toxic. These non-definitive phase II trials should also be stopped for efficacy to accelerate research progress if the treatment proves to be particularly promising. In this paper, we review frequentist and Bayesian methods that have been adapted to incorporate two binary endpoints and frequent interim analyses. The Eurosarc Trial of Linsitinib in advanced Ewing Sarcoma (LINES) is used as a motivating example and provides a suitable platform to compare these approaches. The Bayesian approach provides greater design flexibility, but does not provide additional value over the frequentist approaches in a single trial setting when the prior is non-informative. However, Bayesian designs are able to borrow from any previous experience, using prior information to improve efficiency.

Embracing model-based designs for dose-finding trials

BACKGROUND

Dose-finding trials are essential to drug development as they establish recommended doses for later-phase testing. We aim to motivate wider use of model-based designs for dose finding, such as the continual reassessment method (CRM).

METHODS

We carried out a literature review of dose-finding designs and conducted a survey to identify perceived barriers to their implementation.

RESULTS

We describe the benefits of model-based designs (flexibility, superior operating characteristics, extended scope), their current uptake, and existing resources. The most prominent barriers to implementation of a model-based design were lack of suitable training, chief investigators' preference for algorithm-based designs (e.g., 3+3), and limited resources for study design before funding. We use a real-world example to illustrate how these barriers can be overcome.

CONCLUSIONS

There is overwhelming evidence for the benefits of CRM. Many leading pharmaceutical companies routinely implement model-based designs. Our analysis identified barriers for academic statisticians and clinical academics in mirroring the progress industry has made in trial design. Unified support from funders, regulators, and journal editors could result in more accurate doses for later-phase testing, and increase the efficiency and success of clinical drug development. We give recommendations for increasing the uptake of model-based designs for dose-finding trials in academia.

Abstract CT123: A randomised phase 2 study of paclitaxel with or without trametinib or pazopanib in advanced wild type BRAF melanoma

Background: The aim of this open label study was to assess the efficacy of paclitaxel alone compared with paclitaxel in combination with either the MEK inhibitor trametinib or the anti-angiogenic agent pazopanib in metastatic melanoma.

Methods: Eligible patients aged &gt;=18yrs with unresectable stage 3 or 4 wild type BRAF melanoma were randomised (1:1:1) to paclitaxel alone or with either trametinib or pazopanib. Paclitaxel was given intravenously on day 1, 8 and 15 of each 28 day cycle for a maximum 6 cycles at 80 mg/m2 (single agent & trametinib arms) or 65 mg/m2 (pazopanib arm). Trametinib 2 mg and pazopanib 800 mg was administered orally once daily and both treatments were permitted until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were stratified by prior therapy, NRAS status and baseline lactate dehydrogenase level. Neither participants nor investigators were blinded. The primary end point was progression free survival (PFS) with secondary endpoints of PFS at 6 months, overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and safety and tolerability. A one sided p-value of 0.1 was considered significant for the primary analysis and for the secondary analyses a two-sided p-value of 0.05 was used.

Results: 111 patients from 26 centres (UK and Germany) were randomised to paclitaxel alone (n=38), paclitaxel plus trametinib (n=36) or paclitaxel plus pazopanib (n=37). All patients were considered in the Intention to treat analysis. Median age was 63 years and median follow-up was 26.3 months. 36 patients (40%) had prior systemic therapy. Median PFS was 3.4, 5.2 and 5.3 months with paclitaxel alone, paclitaxel+trametinib and paclitaxel+pazopanib respectively. Efficacy results show benefit for paclitaxel+trametinib as compared to paclitaxel alone in increasing PFS (Time ratio (TR), 1.47; 90% Confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 2.01, p=0.02) and with significant benefit in ORR (36% vs 12%, odds ratio (OR), 4.7; p=0.01) but no differences in OS (p=0.1). There was significant benefit of paclitaxel+pazopanib in increasing PFS (TR, 1.17; 90% CI 0.98 to 1.39, p=0.07) but no difference in the ORR (OR, 1.82; p=0.34) or OS (p=0.20). The frequency of ≥ Gr 3 AEs was significantly higher (p&lt;0.01) when paclitaxel was combined with trametinib or pazopanib (75% and 78% vs 24%) and this was supported by a significantly higher (p&lt;0.01) frequency of SAEs (47% and 68% vs 13%). 54% of patients discontinued pazopanib due to toxicity vs 18% who stopped trametinib.

Conclusions: Paclitaxel+trametinib and paclitaxel+pazopanib combination improved the efficacy of paclitaxel by increasing PFS and for the trametinib combination also significantly increasing ORR. However, the combination of paclitaxel with either trametinib or pazopanib resulted in higher incidence of AEs and SAEs with the pazopanib combination being particularly problematic.

Citation Format: Mark R. Middleton, Dirk Schadendorf, Sarah Danson, Ernie Marshall, Pippa Corrie, Sharon B. Love, Seid B. Mohammed, Claire Scudder, Matthew Goff. A randomised phase 2 study of paclitaxel with or without trametinib or pazopanib in advanced wild type BRAF melanoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT123. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-CT123

Protocol for Combined Analysis of FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX, and FOXFIRE-Global Randomized Phase III Trials of Chemotherapy +/- Selective Internal Radiation Therapy as First-Line Treatment for Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

In colorectal cancer (CRC), unresectable liver metastases are associated with a poor prognosis. The FOXFIRE (an open-label randomized phase III trial of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and folinic acid +/- interventional radioembolization as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable liver-only or liver-predominant metastatic colorectal cancer), SIRFLOX (randomized comparative study of FOLFOX6m plus SIR-Spheres microspheres versus FOLFOX6m alone as first-line treatment in patients with nonresectable liver metastases from primary colorectal carcinoma), and FOXFIRE-Global (assessment of overall survival of FOLFOX6m plus SIR-Spheres microspheres versus FOLFOX6m alone as first-line treatment in patients with nonresectable liver metastases from primary colorectal carcinoma in a randomized clinical study) clinical trials were designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combining first-line chemotherapy with selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) using yttrium-90 resin microspheres, also called transarterial radioembolization.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this analysis is to prospectively combine clinical data from 3 trials to allow adequate power to evaluate the impact of chemotherapy with SIRT on overall survival.

METHODS

Eligible patients are adults with histologically confirmed CRC and unequivocal evidence of liver metastases which are not treatable by surgical resection or local ablation with curative intent at the time of study entry. Patients may also have limited extrahepatic metastases. Final analysis will take place when all participants have been followed up for a minimum of 2 years.

RESULTS

Efficacy and safety estimates derived using individual participant data (IPD) from SIRFLOX, FOXFIRE, and FOXFIRE-Global will be pooled using 2-stage prospective meta-analysis. Secondary outcome measures include progression-free survival (PFS), liver-specific PFS, health-related quality of life, response rate, resection rate, and adverse event profile. The large study population will facilitate comparisons of low frequency adverse events and allow for more robust safety analyses. The potential treatment benefit in those patients who present with disease confined to the liver will be investigated using 1-stage IPD meta-analysis. Efficacy will be analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis will assess the impact of SIRT combined with chemotherapy on overall survival in the first-line treatment of metastatic CRC. If positive, the results will change the standard of care for this disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

FOXFIRE ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN83867919; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN83867919 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6oN7axrvA). SIRFLOX ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00724503; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ ct2/show/NCT00724503 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6oN7lEGbD). FOXFIRE-Global ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01721954; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01721954 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/ 6oN7vvQvG).

Genome-wide association studies in oesophageal adenocarcinoma and Barrett's oesophagus: a large-scale meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal adenocarcinoma represents one of the fastest rising cancers in high-income countries. Barrett's oesophagus is the premalignant precursor of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. However, only a few patients with Barrett's oesophagus develop adenocarcinoma, which complicates clinical management in the absence of valid predictors. Within an international consortium investigating the genetics of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma, we aimed to identify novel genetic risk variants for the development of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

We did a meta-analysis of all genome-wide association studies of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma available in PubMed up to Feb 29, 2016; all patients were of European ancestry and disease was confirmed histopathologically. All participants were from four separate studies within Europe, North America, and Australia and were genotyped on high-density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays. Meta-analysis was done with a fixed-effects inverse variance-weighting approach and with a standard genome-wide significance threshold (p<5 × 10-8). We also did an association analysis after reweighting of loci with an approach that investigates annotation enrichment among genome-wide significant loci. Furthermore, the entire dataset was analysed with bioinformatics approaches-including functional annotation databases and gene-based and pathway-based methods-to identify pathophysiologically relevant cellular mechanisms.

FINDINGS

Our sample comprised 6167 patients with Barrett's oesophagus and 4112 individuals with oesophageal adenocarcinoma, in addition to 17 159 representative controls from four genome-wide association studies in Europe, North America, and Australia. We identified eight new risk loci associated with either Barrett's oesophagus or oesophageal adenocarcinoma, within or near the genes CFTR (rs17451754; p=4·8 × 10-10), MSRA (rs17749155; p=5·2 × 10-10), LINC00208 and BLK (rs10108511; p=2·1 × 10-9), KHDRBS2 (rs62423175; p=3·0 × 10-9), TPPP and CEP72 (rs9918259; p=3·2 × 10-9), TMOD1 (rs7852462; p=1·5 × 10-8), SATB2 (rs139606545; p=2·0 × 10-8), and HTR3C and ABCC5 (rs9823696; p=1·6 × 10-8). The locus identified near HTR3C and ABCC5 (rs9823696) was associated specifically with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (p=1·6 × 10-8) and was independent of Barrett's oesophagus development (p=0·45). A ninth novel risk locus was identified within the gene LPA (rs12207195; posterior probability 0·925) after reweighting with significantly enriched annotations. The strongest disease pathways identified (p<10-6) belonged to muscle cell differentiation and to mesenchyme development and differentiation.

INTERPRETATION

Our meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies doubled the number of known risk loci for Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma and revealed new insights into causes of these diseases. Furthermore, the specific association between oesophageal adenocarcinoma and the locus near HTR3C and ABCC5 might constitute a novel genetic marker for prediction of the transition from Barrett's oesophagus to oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Fine-mapping and functional studies of new risk loci could lead to identification of key molecules in the development of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma, which might encourage development of advanced prevention and intervention strategies.

FUNDING

US National Cancer Institute, US National Institutes of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Swedish Cancer Society, Medical Research Council UK, Cambridge NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, Else Kröner Fresenius Stiftung, Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK, AstraZeneca UK, University Hospitals of Leicester, University of Oxford, Australian Research Council.

NCRI phase II study of CHOP in combination with ofatumumab in induction and maintenance in newly diagnosed Richter syndrome

Richter syndrome (RS) is associated with chemotherapy resistance and a poor historical median overall survival (OS) of 8-10 months. We conducted a phase II trial of standard CHOP-21 (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone every 21 d) with ofatumumab induction (Cycle 1: 300 mg day 1, 1000 mg day 8, 1000 mg day 15; Cycles 2-6: 1000 mg day 1) (CHOP-O) followed by 12 months ofatumumab maintenance (1000 mg given 8-weekly for up to six cycles). Forty-three patients were recruited of whom 37 were evaluable. Seventy-three per cent were aged >60 years. Over half of the patients received a fludarabine and cyclophosphamide-based regimen as prior CLL treatment. The overall response rate was 46% (complete response 27%, partial response 19%) at six cycles. The median progression-free survival was 6·2 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 4·9-14·0 months) and median OS was 11·4 months (95% CI 6·4-25·6 months). Treatment-naïve and TP53-intact patients had improved outcomes. Fifteen episodes of neutropenic fever and 46 non-neutropenic infections were observed. There were no treatment-related deaths. Seven patients received platinum-containing salvage at progression, with only one patient obtaining an adequate response to proceed to allogeneic transplantation. CHOP-O with ofatumumab maintenance provides minimal benefit beyond CHOP plus rutuximab. Standard immunochemotherapy for RS remains wholly inadequate for unselected RS. Multinational trials incorporating novel agents are urgently needed.

Integration of genetic and clinical risk factors improves prognostication in relapsed childhood B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Somatic genetic abnormalities are initiators and drivers of disease and have proven clinical utility at initial diagnosis. However, the genetic landscape and its clinical utility at relapse are less well understood and have not been studied comprehensively. We analyzed cytogenetic data from 427 children with relapsed B-cell precursor ALL treated on the international trial, ALLR3. Also we screened 238 patients with a marrow relapse for selected copy number alterations (CNAs) and mutations. Cytogenetic risk groups were predictive of outcome postrelapse and survival rates at 5 years for patients with good, intermediate-, and high-risk cytogenetics were 68%, 47%, and 26%, respectively (P < .001). TP53 alterations and NR3C1/BTG1 deletions were associated with a higher risk of progression: hazard ratio 2.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.51-3.70, P < .001) and 2.15 (1.32-3.48, P = .002). NRAS mutations were associated with an increased risk of progression among standard-risk patients with high hyperdiploidy: 3.17 (1.15-8.71, P = .026). Patients classified clinically as standard and high risk had distinct genetic profiles. The outcome of clinical standard-risk patients with high-risk cytogenetics was equivalent to clinical high-risk patients. Screening patients at relapse for key genetic abnormalities will enable the integration of genetic and clinical risk factors to improve patient stratification and outcome. This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.org as #ISCRTN45724312.

Clinical Trial of Oral Nelfinavir before and during Radiation Therapy for Advanced Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Nelfinavir, a PI3K pathway inhibitor, is a radiosensitizer that increases tumor blood flow in preclinical models. We conducted an early-phase study to demonstrate the safety of nelfinavir combined with hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) and to develop biomarkers of tumor perfusion and radiosensitization for this combinatorial approach.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Ten patients with T3-4 N0-2 M1 rectal cancer received 7 days of oral nelfinavir (1,250 mg b.i.d.) and a further 7 days of nelfinavir during pelvic RT (25 Gy/5 fractions/7 days). Perfusion CT (p-CT) and DCE-MRI scans were performed pretreatment, after 7 days of nelfinavir and prior to the last fraction of RT. Biopsies taken pretreatment and 7 days after the last fraction of RT were analyzed for tumor cell density (TCD).

RESULTS

There were 3 drug-related grade 3 adverse events: diarrhea, rash, and lymphopenia. On DCE-MRI, there was a mean 42% increase in medianKtrans, and a corresponding median 30% increase in mean blood flow on p-CT during RT in combination with nelfinavir. Median TCD decreased from 24.3% at baseline to 9.2% in biopsies taken 7 days after RT (P= 0.01). Overall, 5 of 9 evaluable patients exhibited good tumor regression on MRI assessed by tumor regression grade (mrTRG).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to evaluate nelfinavir in combination with RT without concurrent chemotherapy. It has shown that nelfinavir-RT is well tolerated and is associated with increased blood flow to rectal tumors. The efficacy of nelfinavir-RT versus RT alone merits clinical evaluation, including measurement of tumor blood flow.

Outcome of central nervous system relapses in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia--prospective open cohort analyses of the ALLR3 trial

The outcomes of Central Nervous System (CNS) relapses in children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) treated in the ALL R3 trial, between January 2003 and March 2011 were analysed. Patients were risk stratified, to receive a matched donor allogeneic transplant or fractionated cranial irradiation with continued treatment for two years. A randomisation of Idarubicin with Mitoxantrone closed in December 2007 in favour of Mitoxantrone. The estimated 3-year progression free survival for combined and isolated CNS disease were 40.6% (25·1, 55·6) and 38.0% (26.2, 49.7) respectively. Univariate analysis showed a significantly better survival for age <10 years, progenitor-B cell disease, good-risk cytogenetics and those receiving Mitoxantrone. Adjusting for these variables (age, time to relapse, cytogenetics, treatment drug and gender) a multivariate analysis, showed a poorer outcome for those with combined CNS relapse (HR 2·64, 95% CI 1·32, 5·31, p = 0·006 for OS). ALL R3 showed an improvement in outcome for CNS relapses treated with Mitoxantrone compared to Idarubicin; a potential benefit for matched donor transplant for those with very early and early isolated-CNS relapses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN45724312.

A pilot study: dose adaptation of capecitabine using mobile phone toxicity monitoring - supporting patients in their homes

PURPOSE

Real-time symptom monitoring using a mobile phone is potentially advantageous for patients receiving oral chemotherapy. We therefore conducted a pilot study of patient dose adaptation using mobile phone monitoring of specific symptoms to investigate relative dose intensity of capecitabine, level of toxicity and perceived supportive care.

METHODS

Patients with breast or colorectal cancer receiving capecitabine completed a symptom, temperature and dose diary twice a day using a mobile phone application. This information was encrypted and automatically transmitted in real time to a secure server, with moderate levels of toxicity automatically prompting self-care symptom management messages on the screen of the patient's mobile phone or in severe cases, a call from a specialist nurse to advise on care according to an agreed protocol.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 26) completed the mobile phone diary on 92.6 % of occasions. Twelve patients had a maximum toxicity grade of 3 (46.2 %). The average dose intensity for all patients as a percentage of standard dose was 90 %. In eight patients, the dose of capecitabine was reduced, and in eight patients, the dose of capecitabine was increased. Patients and healthcare professionals involved felt reassured by the novel monitoring system, in particular, during out of hours.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to optimise the individual dose of oral chemotherapy safely including dose increase and to manage chemotherapy side effects effectively using real-time mobile phone monitoring of toxicity parameters entered by the patient.

FOXFIRE protocol: an open-label, randomised, phase III trial of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and folinic acid (OxMdG) with or without interventional Selective Internal Radiation Therapy (SIRT) as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable liver-only or liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common malignancy in Europe and a leading cause of cancer-related death. Almost 50% of patients with CRC develop liver metastases, which heralds a poor prognosis unless metastases can be downsized to surgical resection or ablation. The FOXFIRE trial examines the hypothesis that combining radiosensitising chemotherapy (OxMdG: oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and folic acid) with Selective Internal Radiation Therapy (SIRT or radioembolisation) using yttrium-90 resin microspheres (SIR-Spheres®; Sirtex Medical Limited, North Sydney, Australia) as a first-line treatment for liver-dominant metastatic CRC will improve clinical outcomes when compared to OxMdG chemotherapy alone.

METHODS/DESIGN

FOXFIRE is an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of OxMdG with or without the addition of SIRT (1:1 randomisation). Eligible adult patients have histologically confirmed colorectal adenocarcinoma, liver metastases measurable on computed tomography scan and untreatable by either surgical resection or local ablation, and they may have limited extra-hepatic disease, defined as ≤5 nodules in the lung and/or one other metastatic site which is amenable to future definitive treatment. Eligible patients may have received adjuvant chemotherapy following resection of the primary tumour, but are not permitted to have previously received chemotherapy for metastatic disease, and must have a life expectancy of ≥3 months and a WHO performance status of 0-1. The primary outcome is overall survival. Secondary outcomes include progression free survival (PFS), liver-specific PFS, patient-reported outcomes, safety, response rate, resection rate and cost-effectiveness. FOXFIRE shares a combined statistical analysis plan with an international sister trial called SIRFLOX.

DISCUSSION

This trial is establishing a network of SIRT centres and 'feeder' chemotherapy-only centres to standardise the delivery of SIRT across the whole of the UK and to provide greater equity of access to this highly specialised liver-directed therapy. The FOXFIRE trial will establish the potential role of adding SIRT to first-line chemotherapy for unresectable liver metastatic colorectal cancer, and the impact on current treatment paradigms for metastatic CRC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN83867919.

How important is peritoneal involvement in rectal cancer? A prospective study of 331 cases

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The importance of circumferential resection margin involvement in predicting locoregional recurrence and death from rectal cancer is well known. However, it is well accepted that cases of rectal carcinoma recur when this surgical margin is not compromised. The aim of this study was to analyse the influence of peritoneal involvement, among other clinicopathological variables, on locoregional recurrence and overall prognosis in an unselected prospective series of rectal cancer resections.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This unselected prospective study assessed 331 rectal carcinoma cases from a colorectal cancer study that recruited more than 1000 cases. Meticulous pathological examination was performed by one pathologist, with particular attention paid to the peritoneal surface. All clinicopathological variables were entered into a database with comprehensive clinical follow-up. Peritoneal involvement was a significant factor in prognosis on univariate analysis but not on multivariate analysis. However, in analysing the causes of locoregional recurrence specifically, it may have been a factor in causing this in up to half the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

This study adds to the small amount of literature data on the potential importance of peritoneal involvement in predicting locoregional recurrence and overall prognosis, especially in upper rectal cancer.

Effectiveness of Aromatherapy Massage in the Management of Anxiety and Depression in Patients With Cancer: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

To test the effectiveness of supplementing usual supportive care with aromatherapy massage in the management of anxiety and depression in cancer patients through a pragmatic two-arm randomized controlled trial in four United Kingdom cancer centers and a hospice.

Patients and Methods

Two hundred eighty-eight cancer patients, referred to complementary therapy services with clinical anxiety and/or depression, were allocated randomly to a course of aromatherapy massage or usual supportive care alone.

Results

Patients who received aromatherapy massage had no significant improvement in clinical anxiety and/or depression compared with those receiving usual care at 10 weeks postrandomization (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.7; P = .1), but did at 6 weeks postrandomization (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.9; P = .01). Patients receiving aromatherapy massage also described greater improvement in self-reported anxiety at both 6 and 10 weeks postrandomization (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 0.2 to 6.7; P = .04 and OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 0.2 to 6.6; P = .04), respectively.

Conclusion

Aromatherapy massage does not appear to confer benefit on cancer patients’ anxiety and/or depression in the long-term, but is associated with clinically important benefit up to 2 weeks after the intervention.

Learning the hard way! Setting up an RCT of aromatherapy massage for patients with advanced cancer

Aromatherapy massage is used in cancer palliative care to improve quality of life but there is little evidence for its effectiveness. A large pragmatic multicentre randomized controlled trial was set up to examine the effectiveness of aromatherapy in improving psychological distress and quality of life in patients with cancer. This paper examines the challenges encountered in the design and execution of the study. The original design, i) focused on palliative care patients with advanced disease; ii) had both a no-intervention and a treatment control group (relaxation therapy); and iii) adopted 90% power for sample size calculations. A varied measurement strategy was employed. Recruitment proved difficult, referrers were 'gate-keeping', patients were often too ill to approach and others declined. The trial was modified to ensure viability. Eligibility was extended to all patients with cancer irrespective of stage, the relaxation group was removed and the power reduced to 80%. Although it is not generally good practice to change a study design once recruitment has started, the changes were consistent with the original basic study aims and design principles. The data collection phase was successfully completed in July 2002.

Identification of objective pathological prognostic determinants and models of prognosis in Dukes' B colon cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is a need for objective easily determined pathological prognostic parameters in Dukes' B colon carcinoma to allow selection of such patients for further treatment as the role of adjuvant chemotherapy for these patients remains unclear. This study was initiated to assess the influence of pathological factors on prognosis in an unselected prospective series of Dukes' B colonic cancer.

METHODS

The Gloucester Colorectal Cancer study, established in 1988, recruited more than 1000 cases. Meticulous pathological assessment of the 268 Dukes' B colonic cancer resections in this series included evaluation of all pathological factors that could influence staging and prognosis. All patients entered a comprehensive follow up system.

RESULTS

Four pathologically determined factors--peritoneal involvement, venous spread (both submucosal and extramural), spread to involve a surgical margin, and perforation through the tumour-were independent prognostic factors in multivariate analysis. Combining these four factors into a simple cumulative scoring system generated clinically useful prognostic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The cumulative prognostic index allows apportionment of patients with Dukes' B colon cancer into defined prognostic groups, which in turn could allow more objective selection of patients for adjuvant therapy, especially as part of clinical trials.

A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the role of interferon as initial and maintenance therapy in patients with follicular lymphoma

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of interferon as initial and maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed follicular lymphoma. Between 1984 and 1994, 204 patients with newly diagnosed Stage III or Stage IV follicular lymphoma were randomized to receive either, Chlorambucil (CB): 10 mg daily for 6 weeks, followed by a 2-week interval, with 3 subsequent 2-week treatment periods at the same dose, separated by 2-week intervals, or, CB given concurrently with interferon (IFN). IFN was given at a dose of 3 x 10(6)units thrice weekly, subcutaneously, throughout the 18-week treatment period. Responding patients were subsequently randomized to receive maintenance IFN at the dose and schedule described above, or to expectant management. The overall response rate was 161/204 (78%), complete remission being achieved in 24% of patients. Neither the addition of IFN to the initial treatment, nor the use of maintenance IFN influenced response rate, remission duration or survival. This study was undertaken to determine whether IFN, given in combination with, and then subsequent to, CB would alter the clinical course of patients with follicular lymphoma. Disappointingly, this objective was not achieved, no advantage having been demonstrated for the addition of IFN.

Influence of delay on survival in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Most patients with breast cancer are detected after symptoms occur rather than through screening. The impact on survival of delays between the onset of symptoms and the start of treatment is controversial and cannot be studied in randomised controlled trials. We did a systematic review of observational studies (worldwide) of duration of symptoms and survival.

METHODS

We identified 87 studies (101,954 patients) with direct data linking delay (including delay by patients) and survival. We classified studies for analysis by type of data in the original reports: category I studies had actual 5-year survival data (38 studies, 53,912 patients); category II used actuarial or multivariate analyses (21 studies, 25,102 patients); and category III was all other types of data (28 studies, 22,940 patients). We tested the main hypothesis that longer delays would be associated with lower survival, and a secondary hypothesis that longer delays were associated with more advanced stage, which would account for lower survival.

FINDINGS

In category I studies, patients with delays of 3 months or more had 12% lower 5-year survival than those with shorter delays (odds ratio for death 1.47 [95% CI 1.42-1.53]) and those with delays of 3-6 months had 7% lower survival than those with shorter delays (1.24 [1.17-1.30]). In category II, 13 of 14 studies with unrestricted samples showed a significant adverse relation between longer delays and survival, whereas four of five studies of only patients with operable disease showed no significant relation. In category III, all three studies with unrestricted samples supported the primary hypothesis. The 13 informative studies showed that longer delays were associated with more advanced stage. In studies that controlled for stage, longer delay was not associated with shorter survival when the effect of stage on survival was taken into account.

INTERPRETATION

Delays of 3-6 months are associated with lower survival. These effects cannot be accounted for by lead-time bias. Efforts should be made to keep delays by patients and providers to a minimum.

Population based randomized study of uptake and yield of screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy compared with screening by faecal occult blood testing

OBJECTIVES

To compare the feasibility of mass screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy with screening by faecal occult blood testing (Haemoccult) and both tests combined.

DESIGN

Patients were randomised to screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy, faecal blood testing, or both tests. The flexible sigmoidoscopy examinations were performed by a general practitioner.

SETTING

General practice.

SUBJECTS

3744 patients aged 50-75 years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Uptake, positive results, detection of neoplasia, complications, and recall for diagnostic colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Uptake was significantly higher in the flexible sigmoidoscopy group (46.6%) than in the faecal blood test group (31.6%; P<0.001) or than in the group having both tests (30.1%; P<0.001). Telephone reminders increased uptake of sigmoidoscopy to 61.8%. In total, 1116 sigmoidoscopy examinations were performed without major complication. Polyps were found in 19. 3% (95% confidence interval 17.0% to 21.6%) but only 6.8% (5.3% to 8. 3%) had adenomas and 2.4% (1.5% to 3.3%) "high risk" adenomas. Cancer was detected in four subjects. The faecal blood test yielded positive results in 0.8% (0.2% to 1.4%) but missed at least one cancer and 30 cases of adenoma which were found by sigmoidoscopy in the combined group. Use of histological criteria-shown elsewhere to correlate with future risk of colorectal cancer-to select "positive" patients could reduce recall for diagnostic colonoscopy from about 20% to less than 5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Some of the predicted obstacles to screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy are surmountable. Clear evidence relating to efficacy will be obtained only from a randomised controlled trial.

Who and what influences delayed presentation in breast cancer?

This study aimed to examine the extent and determinants of patient and general practitioner delay in the presentation of breast cancer. One hundred and eighty-five cancer patients attending a breast unit were interviewed 2 months after diagnosis. The main outcome measures were patient delay in presentation to the general practitioner and non-referral by the general practitioner to hospital after the patient's first visit. Nineteen per cent of patients delayed > or = 12 weeks. Patient delay was related to clinical tumour size > or = 4 cm (P = 0.0002) and with a higher incidence of locally advanced and metastatic disease (P = 0.01). A number of factors predicted patient delay: initial breast symptom(s) that did not include a lump (OR 4.5, P = 0.003), not disclosing discovery of the breast symptom immediately to someone else (OR 6.0, P < 0.001), seeking help only after being prompted by others (OR 4.4, P = 0.007) and presenting to the general practitioner with a non-breast problem (OR 3.5, P = 0.03). Eighty-three per cent of patients were referred to hospital directly after their first general practitioner visit. Presenting to the GP with a breast symptom that did not include a lump independently predicted general practitioner delay (OR 3.6, P = 0.002). In view of the increasing evidence that delay adversely affects survival, a large multicentre study is now warranted to confirm these findings that may have implications for public and medical education.

Transforming growth factor-beta isoform expression in human ovarian tumours

The expression patterns of members of the transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta) family were analysed in 96 primary ovarian tumours by RNAse protection assay. mRNA for the three mammalian isoforms, TGF-beta 1, TGF-beta 2 and TGF-beta 3, was detected in 46, 66 and 66% of 74 malignant tumours, respectively, with the predominant patterns of expression being either dual or triple co-expression. TGF-beta II receptor expression, detected by reverse-transcription PCR, was present in 92% malignant tumours. Expression patterns were similar between malignant, borderline and benign tumours, although TGF-beta 1 incidence was reduced in benign tumours. In malignant tumours, the incidence of TGF-beta 1 expression was less than that of either TGF-beta 2 (P = 0.02) or TGF-beta 3 (P = 0.0014), while in both malignant and borderline tumours, TGF-beta 2 and TGF-beta 3 tended to be co-expressed. Aneuploid tumours were more likely than diploid tumours to express multiple rather than single forms of TGF-beta (P = 0.018). The incidence of TGF-beta 1 expression was reduced in PR-moderate/rich (PR > 20 fmol/mg protein) relative to PR-negative/poor tumours (P = 0.048), while TGF-beta 3 expression was increased in ER-moderate/rich (ER > 20 fmol/mg protein) tumours compared to ER-negative/poor tumours (P = 0.0012). Expression of TGF-beta 3, but not TGF-beta 1 or TGF-beta 2, was associated with advanced stage disease (P = 0.014) and, in the malignant group, reduced survival (P = 0.02) with a hazard ratio of 2.6. These data suggest a possible role for TGF-beta 3 in the progression of ovarian cancer.