Search

Background There is interest in using treatment breaks in oncology, to reduce toxicity without compromising efficacy. Trial design A Phase II/III multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial assessing treatment breaks in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Methods Participants Patients with locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma, starting tyrosine kinase inhibitor as first-line treatment at United Kingdom National Health Service hospitals. Interventions At trial entry, patients were randomised (1 : 1) to a drug-free interval strategy or a conventional continuation strategy. After 24 weeks of treatment with sunitinib/pazopanib, drug-free interval strategy patients took up a treatment break until disease progression with additional breaks dependent on disease response and patient choice. Conventional continuation strategy patients continued on treatment. Both trial strategies continued until treatment intolerance, disease progression on treatment, withdrawal or death. Objective To determine if a drug-free interval strategy is non-inferior to a conventional continuation strategy in terms of the co-primary outcomes of overall survival and quality-adjusted life-years. Co-primary outcomes For non-inferiority to be concluded, a margin of ≤ 7.5% in overall survival and ≤ 10% in quality-adjusted life-years was required in both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. This equated to the 95% confidence interval of the estimates being above 0.812 and −0.156, respectively. Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated using the utility index of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire. Results Nine hundred and twenty patients were randomised (461 conventional continuation strategy vs. 459 drug-free interval strategy) from 13 January 2012 to 12 September 2017. Trial treatment and follow-up stopped on 31 December 2020. Four hundred and eighty-eight (53.0%) patients [240 (52.1%) vs. 248 (54.0%)] continued on trial post week 24. The median treatment-break length was 87 days. Nine hundred and nineteen patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (461 vs. 458) and 871 patients in the per-protocol analysis (453 vs. 418). For overall survival, non-inferiority was concluded in the intention-to-treat analysis but not in the per-protocol analysis [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) intention to treat 0.97 (0.83 to 1.12); per-protocol 0.94 (0.80 to 1.09) non-inferiority margin: 95% confidence interval ≥ 0.812, intention to treat: 0.83 > 0.812 non-inferior, per-protocol: 0.80 < 0.812 not non-inferior]. Therefore, a drug-free interval strategy was not concluded to be non-inferior to a conventional continuation strategy in terms of overall survival. For quality-adjusted life-years, non-inferiority was concluded in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses [marginal effect (95% confidence interval) intention to treat −0.05 (−0.15 to 0.05); per-protocol 0.04 (−0.14 to 0.21) non-inferiority margin: 95% confidence interval ≥ −0.156]. Therefore, a drug-free interval strategy was concluded to be non-inferior to a conventional continuation strategy in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. Limitations The main limitation of the study is the fewer than expected overall survival events, resulting in lower power for the non-inferiority comparison. Future work Future studies should investigate treatment breaks with more contemporary treatments for renal cell carcinoma. Conclusions Non-inferiority was shown for the quality-adjusted life-year end point but not for overall survival as pre-defined. Nevertheless, despite not meeting the primary end point of non-inferiority as per protocol, the study suggested that a treatment-break strategy may not meaningfully reduce life expectancy, does not reduce quality of life and has economic benefits. Although the treating clinicians’ perspectives were not formally collected, the fact that clinicians recruited a large number of patients over a long period suggests support for the study and provides clear evidence that a treatment-break strategy for patients with renal cell carcinoma receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy is feasible. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN06473203. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR award ref: 09/91/21) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 45. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary Treatment breaks in cancer are of significant interest to patients and health professionals. Renal cell carcinoma is the most common type of kidney cancer. Sunitinib and pazopanib are both targeted treatments. They were commonly used to treat advanced kidney cancer but often cause side effects, sometimes requiring use of a reduced dose or even stopping treatment. The STAR trial was designed to see whether planned treatment breaks made patients with advanced kidney cancer being treated with sunitinib and pazopanib feel better, without substantially affecting how well the treatment worked. After 24 weeks of treatment, patients took sunitinib and pazopanib either as they normally would or in the alternative way with planned treatment breaks. Treating patients in this way was continued until drug-related side effects stopped treatment, patients’ disease worsened while taking treatment or the patient died. The trial compared how well the different treatment strategies worked in terms of how long patients lived and their quality of life over that time. This trial is the largest United Kingdom trial in advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients took part from 60 United Kingdom centres between 2012 and 2017. It was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme and run by the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit. In total, 920 patients took part. Four hundred and sixty-one patients were allocated to continue treatment and 459 were allocated to start at least one treatment break. Treatment breaks lasted on average 87 days. The length of time patients lived in both arms of the trial appeared similar, but this cannot be concluded due to insufficient information. Being allocated to have treatment breaks rather than continuing treatment did not negatively impact a patient’s quality of life. Additionally, allocating patients to have treatment breaks was shown to have significant cost savings compared to just continuing treatment. Importantly planned treatment breaks were shown to be feasible. Scientific summary Background There is increasing interest in using treatment breaks in oncology, to reduce toxicity without compromising efficacy. STAR was designed to determine if a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) drug-free interval strategy (DFIS) was non-inferior to a conventional continuation strategy (CCS) in the first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Objectives The overall primary objective was to determine whether a sunitinib or pazopanib DFIS is non-inferior in terms of overall survival (OS) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared to a sunitinib or pazopanib CCS in patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic clear cell RCC. Secondary objectives included comparing a DFIS to a CCS in terms of summative progression-free interval, time to strategy failure, time to treatment failure, toxicity (common terminology criteria for adverse events v.4.0), quality of life (QoL) [Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-15), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-G (FACT-G), EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5DTM) and EQ-Visual Analogue Scale (VASTM)], cost effectiveness, progression-free survival (PFS). Three ancillary studies were also included in the trial. The Patient Preference and Understanding Study was designed to understand the participants’ experiences of taking part in the trial. The dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) substudy was designed to investigate whether early DCE-MRI could predict progressive disease (PD) at 24 weeks. The computerised tomography (CT) substudy was designed to determine CT as a potential biomarker and predictor of PD at 24 weeks. Methods STAR was a UK Phase II/III multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled non-inferiority (NI) trial. The trial recruited adults, with histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic clear cell, uni-dimensionally measurable, RCC who required but had not received prior systemic therapy. Participants were required to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1, meet pre-specified blood parameters prior to randomisation, provide written informed consent, be able and willing to comply with the terms of the protocol and follow approved pregnancy prevention guidelines. Exclusion criteria included pulmonary or mediastinal disease, life expectancy < 6 months, previous treatment with or known contraindications or hypersensitivity to TKIs, untreated brain metastases, concurrent or previous invasive cancers which could confuse diagnosis or end points, use of contraindicated concomitant medication or substances and poorly controlled hypertension. At trial entry, participants were randomised (1 : 1) centrally by Leeds CTRU to a CCS or a DFIS. Randomisation was stratified by Motzer prognostic group (favourable, intermediate, poor), trial site, gender, age (< 60, ≥ 60 years), disease status (metastatic, locally advanced), previous nephrectomy (yes, no), TKI (sunitinib, pazopanib). Both strategies received an initial 4 cycles of trial treatment [sunitinib: 1 cycle of treatment refers to 50 mg (starting dose) on days 1–28, repeated every 42 days; pazopanib: 1 cycle of treatment refers to 800 mg (starting dose) on days 1–42, repeated every 42 days] following which participants in the DFIS arm took up their first treatment break. Following disease progression on a treatment break, DFIS participants restarted their treatment. Additional breaks were permitted following a further 4 cycles of treatment at the treating clinician’s discretion. The trial strategy continued until death, progression while receiving treatment, unacceptable toxicity (clinical withdrawal) or participant withdrawal. Following cessation of the trial strategy, participants were followed up after 6 months and then annually thereafter until death, patient withdrawal or the end of the trial. All trial data were collected on trial-specific case report forms (CRFs). All CRFs, apart from the questionnaires for the patient-reported outcome measures (FSKI-15, FACT-G, EQ-5D and EQ-VAS) were completed by research staff at the site. Overall survival was defined as time from randomisation to death from any cause. For NI to be concluded, a margin of ≤ 7.5% in OS was pre-specified. The survival at 2 years in the CCS arm was assumed to be 48.5%. A 7.5% NI margin led to the survival at 2 years in the DFIS arm assumed to be at least 41%, leading to a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.812. This along with a one-sided 2.5% significance level, 5% dropout rate and 80% power required 920 participants. Where 80% power would be attained when 720 events were observed. Quality-adjusted life-years were defined as the time spent in each health state over trial and follow-up, calculated as the utility index of the EQ-5D questionnaire, which was collected frequently (6-weekly for 24 weeks, 2-weekly for 24 weeks, 6-weekly while on study, 6 months post end of trial strategy and annually thereafter). For NI to be concluded a margin of ≤ 10% in mean QALYs was pre-specified. The power for the QALY comparison was derived using simulations. Under the assumptions of a 0.9 HR in favour of CCS, a sample size of 920, 5.83 years of recruitment and 3.25 years of follow-up a CCS QALY estimate of 1.56 was derived along with a power of 69.94%. The CCS QALY estimate of 1.56 in conjunction with the 10% margin equates to a NI boundary of −0.156 for the difference in mean QALYs. It was pre-specified that NI was required in both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses, in both end points, to be concluded overall. An in-depth qualitative inductive study of 11 patients on the DFIS arm was conducted to better understand their acceptability of extended treatment breaks. A thematic analysis using a comparative and contrastive approach was employed. An economic evaluation was also conducted which estimated the cost effectiveness of DFIS versus CCS at 2 years (within-trial analysis) and over the patients’ lifetime (decision modelling analysis). Results Participant flow Two thousand one hundred and ninety-seven patients were screened; of these, 920 were randomised (CCS: 461, DFIS: 459). In total, 878 (95.4%) participants ceased trial treatment prior to the end of follow-up. Radiological disease progression was the most frequent reason for treatment discontinuation at 43.7% (CCS: 48.4%, DFIS: 39.0%). Overall, 13,147 (78.6%, n = 16,726) (CCS: 5764/7401, 77.9%; DFIS: 7383/9327, 79.2%) of QoL questionnaire booklets were returned on the trial. The proportions of reasons for missing booklets were similar between the two arms, where the highest reason was ‘missed by site in error’ (overall: 27%, CCS: 28.4%, DFIS: 25.8%). However, the majority of reasons for missing were missing (overall: 52.1%, CCS: 50.6%, DFIS: 53.4%). Overall, 63 participants (6.8%, n = 920) withdrew from some aspect of the trial. This resulted in 21 (2.82%, n = 920) participants being formally lost to follow-up (CCS: 11, 2.4%; DFIS: 10, 2.2%). An additional DFIS participant was lost to follow-up due to the participant moving away. However, all participants were included in the analysis. Numbers analysed Nine hundred and nineteen participants (CCS: 461, DFIS: 458) were included in the ITT population as one DFIS participant did not have RCC. Similarly, 871 participants (CCS: 453, DFIS: 418) were included in the PP population, 916 participants (CCS: 485, DFIS: 431) were included in the safety population, 869 participants (CCS: 438, DFIS: 431) were included in the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version (EQ-5D-3L) population, 856 participants (CCS: 425, DFIS: 431) were included in the FACT-G population and 882 participants (CCS: 436, DFIS: 446) were included in the FKSI population. Baseline characteristics and treatment (on trial and in follow-up) Key demographic and disease-related characteristics were similar across both randomisation allocation and randomised under TKI for all analysis populations. STAR participants were predominantly white (ITT – 96.3%), male (ITT – 72.7%) and aged ≥ 60 at randomisation (ITT – 73.4%). On average, participants in both arms received a similar number of treatment cycles [ITT median (interquartile range, IQR): 5 (2, 10) vs. 4 (2, 9)]. Overall, 248 participants (56.3%, n = 459) in the DFIS arm continued on the trial after week 24. The majority of these (127, 51.2%) only started one treatment break. Thirty-eight (15.3%) of these had 2 treatment breaks and 68 (27.4%) took 3 or more treatment breaks. The maximum number of treatment breaks taken by 1 participant was 9, and 15 participants (6%) did not take up a treatment break despite continuing on study after week 24. Overall, 61.6% of participants received further systemic anticancer therapy treatment during follow-up, with a higher proportion in the CCS arm (68.5%, n = 461) compared to the DFIS arm (54.6%, n = 458). Co-primary end points Median (IQR) follow-up for OS in the PP population was 58 months (46, 72). In total 648 (74.4%, n = 871) of PP participants died prior to the end of follow-up (31 December 2020) [CCS: 330 (72.8%, n = 453), DFIS: 318 (76.1%, n = 418)]. Renal cancer was related to the cause of 607 (93.7%, n = 648) deaths [CCS: 314 (95.2%, n = 330), DFIS: 293 (92.1%, n = 318)]. Median OS [95% confidence interval (CI)] in the CCS arm was 28 months (24, 32) and 27 months (23, 31) in the DFIS arm. At 2 years post randomisation (95% CI), 54.2% (50.8%, 57.5%) of PP participants were alive. This was similar between the two arms [CCS: 55.2% (50.5%, 59.7%), DFIS: 53.1% (48.2%, 57.8%)]. On application of a Cox proportional hazards (PH) model adjusted for the stratification factors of the trial, the HR for randomisation allocation, CCS versus DFIS (95% CI) was 0.94 (0.80 to 1.09). Comparing the lower bound of the CI to the NI boundary of 0.812. At the 2.5% significance level, we do not reject the null hypothesis that DFIS is not non-inferior to CCS in terms of OS. There is insufficient evidence to conclude NI. However, the analyses conducted in the ITT population along with the sensitivity analysis conducted in the PP population using a piecewise hazards model and a Cox regression model where Motzer Score at randomisation was considered as two categories did conclude NI between the two arms. The mean QALY (95% CI) for PP participants in the CCS arm was 1.73 (1.60 to 1.86) and 1.80 (1.65 to 1.95) in the DFIS arm derived by combining the results across 52 imputed data sets. The marginal effect (95% CI) of randomisation allocation, DFIS versus CCS was 0.04 (−0.14 to 0.21). Comparing the lower bound of the CI to the NI boundary of 0.156. As the lower bound of the CI is above −0.156, we conclude that the DFIS arm is non-inferior to the CCS arm in terms of QALYs in the PP population. This conclusion remained consistent across all the sensitivity analyses; ITT population, derived from week 24, measured up to 12, 24 and 36 months post randomisation, complete case analysis, analysis conducted using a multivariate linear regression analysis and analysis conducted under missing not at random scenario 1 (worst-case scenario). Secondary end points All secondary time to event end-point analysis was conducted in the ITT population. With the exception of PFS, all analyses showed a significant difference in favour of the DFIS compared to the CCS when applied in a Cox PH model adjusted for the stratification factors of the trial. As PFS measures to the first progression and does therefore not account for successful rechallenge of TKI in the DFIS arm post progression this was expected. There was little difference in the summary statistics of the various QoL questionnaire scores and subscales (FKSI-15, FACT-G, EQ-5D-3L and EQ5D-VAS) when considered by randomisation allocation in each of their populations. A difference only appeared around week 294 when few participants remained on the CCS arm. The multilevel modelling conducted on the FKSI-15 and the FACT-G questionnaires concluded some significant differences between the DFIS and the CCS in favour of the DFIS. However, these differences were small and not consistently observed in the sensitivity analysis, which modelled the questionnaires up to regular intervals post randomisation. The within-trial economic evaluation at 2 years indicated that DFIS was highly likely to be cost-effective. DFIS was found to provide a small QALY benefit (0.049) and substantial cost savings (£3235) over CCS. The value-for-money metric was principally driven by savings in medicine costs. There were relatively minor differences in resource use between arms. The lifetime cost-effectiveness modelling led to the same conclusion yielding QALY gains of 0.08 and cost savings of £2420 (both probabilistic values) in favour of DFIS. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that DFIS had a 96% chance of being cost saving and a 68% chance of yielding QALY gains versus CCS. The conclusions of both the trial- and model-based analyses were relatively robust to a series of supplementary and sensitivity analyses. Safety All participants bar three in the safety population (CCS: 1, DFIS: 2) experienced an adverse event (AE) during the course of the trial. Overall, a higher proportion of participants in the DFIS arm experienced an AE grade 3 or above (CCS: 70.7%, n = 485, DFIS: 76.1%, n = 431). This difference between arms continues when considering serious adverse events (SAEs) by arm overall and pre and post week 24 (overall – CCS: 45.8%, n = 485, DFIS: 54.1%, n = 431, pre CCS: 32.8%, n = 485, DFIS: 35.5%, n = 431, post CCS: 32.8%, n = 265, DFIS: 48.4%, n = 223). However, this may be explained through the reporting requirements. Participants on DFIS will have reported AEs and SAEs for longer due to their increased time on trial strategy. On consideration of serious AEs deemed to be related to the participants TKI [serious adverse reactions (SARs)], which were collected for the duration of the trial, the difference, in favour of CCS, is more evident prior to week 24 when both strategies are the same (overall – CCS: 18.8%, n = 485, DFIS: 23.4%, n = 431, pre CCS: 13.2%, n = 485, DFIS: 19.3%, n = 431, post CCS: 11.7%, n = 265, DFIS: 9.4%, n = 223). The majority of SAEs and SARs resulted in recovery or recovery with sequelae (SAEs: 80.1%, n = 744, SARs: 87.6%, n = 226). There were 13 suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions (CCS: 5, DFIS: 8) on the trial. Substudies The qualitative substudy concluded that if a DFIS approach was implemented in practice some thought should be given to how patients should be supported during the extended break to cope with and alleviate worries related to ongoing monitoring and tumour growth. The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) feasibility study demonstrated that DCE-MRI-derived biomarkers of tumour perfusion (perfused tumour volume, Ktrans and extracellular volume) as potential surrogate biomarkers to predict disease progression following TKI therapy in metastatic RCC and the technique of DCE-MRI assessment is reproducible. The CT substudy demonstrated that assessment of enhancement as well as size change alters the categorisation of response. Use of modified Choi (mChoi) criteria may allow for earlier detection of disease progression, and more representative separation of participants with partial response versus stable disease. While published literature has suggested an association of mChoi criteria with time to progression, in terms of prediction of early progression within 6 months of treatment initiation, no association was shown in this cohort. Conclusions Implications for health care The STAR trial is an exemplar trial, being one of the first to be powered on a QALY end point. It demonstrated no substantial detriment in terms of OS and QALY from a DFIS compared to a CCS. However, NI between the two arms cannot be concluded due to a lack of statistical power for the analysis of OS, as a result of fewer than expected OS events due to the changing landscape of effective treatments for relapsed advanced RCC during the trial. These results provide evidence-based reassurance for people who received National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)-approved treatment breaks in this setting during the COVID-19 pandemic. Through compliance with the protocol, treatment breaks within the trial were shown to be acceptable to patients and health professionals. Future research implications Further discussion is required with patient and public involvement (PPI) and NICE regarding the implications of these results after the NHS interim treatment options following the COVID-19 pandemic end. The STAR trial has provided significant learning regarding the development, design and delivery of intermittent therapy trials. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN06473203. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR award ref: 09/91/21) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 45. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Abstract Introduction Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive neoplasm, with surgical resection and adjuvant chemotherapy the only curative treatment. Treatment-related toxicities place a considerable burden on patients although exercise training has shown promise is helping to manage such adversities and facilitate rehabilitation. The feasibility and safety of exercise training as a supportive therapy during adjuvant chemotherapy remains unknown. Methods Patients with PDAC were screened post-surgical resection and enrolled in a 16-week, progressive, concurrent exercise programme alongside their chemotherapy regimen. Feasibility was the primary objective detailing recruitment, retention and adherence rates throughout as well as the safety and fidelity of the intervention. Secondarily, the impact on functional fitness and patient-reported outcomes was captured at baseline, post-intervention and 3-month follow up. Results Eight patients consented to participate in this trial, with five proceeding to enrol in exercise training. Concurrent exercise training is feasible and safe during adjuvant chemotherapy and prevented an expected decline in functional fitness and patient-reported outcomes during this time. Discussion This case series provides preliminary evidence that concurrent exercise training during adjuvant therapy is safe, feasible and well tolerated, preventing an expected decline in functional fitness, muscular strength and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Given the adverse effects of treatment, these findings are promising and provide further evidence for the inclusion of exercise training as a standard of care for surgical rehabilitation and managing treatment-related toxicities. Future research should explore the impact of exercise training during neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with prehabilitation now standard practice for borderline resectable disease. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04305067, prospectively registered 12/03/2020, https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04305067 .

Abstract Background Cancer patients are at risk of developing blood clots in their veins - venous thromboembolism (VTE) - which often takes the form of a pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis. The risk increases with advanced disease. Evidence based treatment is low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) by daily subcutaneous injection. The aim of this research is to explore the barriers for doctors in the UK when diagnosing and treating advanced cancer patients with VTE. Method Qualitative, in-depth interview study with 45 doctors (30 across Yorkshire, England and 15 across South Wales). Doctors were from three specialties: oncology, palliative medicine and general practice, with a mixture of senior and junior staff. Framework analysis was used. Results Doctors opinions as to whether LMWH treatment was ethically appropriate for patients who were symptomatic from VTE but at end of life existed on a shifting continuum, largely influenced by patient prognosis. A lack of immediate benefit coupled with the discomfort of a daily injection had influenced some doctors not to prescribe LMWH. The point at which LMWH injections should be stopped in patients at the end of life was ambiguous. Some perceived ‘overcaution’ in their own and other clinicians’ treatment of patients. Viewpoints were divergent on whether dying of a PE was considered a “good way to go”. The interventionalism and ethos of palliative medicine was discussed. Conclusions Decisions are difficult for doctors to make regarding LMWH treatment for advanced cancer patients with VTE. Treatment for this patient group is bounded to the doctors own moral and ethical frameworks.

Abstract Background The treatment of cancer associated thrombosis (CAT) is well established, with level 1A evidence to support the recommendation of a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) by daily injection for 3–6 months. However, registry data suggest compliance to clinical guidelines is poor. Clinicians face particular challenges in treating CAT in advanced cancer patients due to shorter life expectancy, increased bleeding risk and concerns that self injection may be too burdensome. For these reasons decision making around the diagnosis and management of CAT in people with advanced cancer, can be complex, and should focus on its likely net benefit for the patient. We explored factors that influence doctors’ decision making in this situation and sought to gain an understanding of the barriers and facilitators to the application of best practice. Methods Think aloud exercises using standardised case scenarios, and individual in depth interviews were conducted. All were transcribed. The think aloud exercises were analysed using Protocol Analysis and the interviews using Framework Analysis. Participants: 46 participants took part in the think aloud exercises and 45 participants were interviewed in depth. Each group included oncologists, palliative physicians and general practitioners and included both senior doctors and those in training. Setting: Two Strategic Health Authority regions, one in the north of England and one in Wales. Results The following key issues arose from the data synthesis: the importance of patient prognosis; the concept of “appropriateness”; “benefits and burdens” of diagnosis and treatment; LMWH or warfarin for treatment and sources of information which changed practice. Although interlinked, they do describe distinct aspects of the factors that influence doctors in their decisions in this area. Conclusions The above factors are issues doctors take into account when deciding whether to send a patient to hospital for investigation or to anticoagulate a patient with confirmed or suspected VTE. Many factors interweave and are themselves influenced by and dependent on each other. It is only after all are taken into account that the doctor arrives at the point of referring the patient for investigation. Some factors including logistic and organisational issues appeared to influence whether a patient would be investigated or treated with LMWH for a confirmed VTE. It is important that services are optimised to ensure that these do not hinder the appropriate investigation and management of individual patients.

Abstract Introduction We present the case of a patient with colon cancer who, while receiving bevacizumab, developed sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (veno-occlusive disease) (SOSVOD). Certain antitumour agents such as 6-mercaptopurine and 6-thioguanine have also been reported to initiate hepatic SOSVOD in isolated cases. There have been no reports so far correlating bevacizumab with SOSVOD. Case presentation A 77-year-old man was being treated with oxaliplatin and a modified de Gramont regimen of 5-fluorouracil for metastatic colon cancer. Bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg) was added from the seventh cycle onwards. Protracted neutropenia and thrombocytopenia led to discontinuation of oxaliplatin after the ninth cycle. A computed tomography scan showed complete response and bevacizumab was continued for another 3 months, after which time the patient developed right hypochondrial pain, transudative ascites, splenomegaly and abnormal liver function tests. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy showed oesophageal varices. Liver biopsy showed features considered to be consistent with SOSVOD. Bevacizumab was stopped and a policy of watchful waiting was adopted. He tolerated the acute damage to his liver and subsequently the ascites resolved and liver function tests normalised. Conclusion We need to be aware that bevacizumab can cause sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (veno-occlusive disease) and that the occurrence of ascites should not be attributed to progressive disease without appropriate evaluation.

Background Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) developed to predict adverse outcomes of suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) and facilitate outpatient management have limitations in discriminating outcomes for ambulatory cancer patients with unsuspected PE (UPE). The HULL Score CPR uses a 5‑point scoring system incorporating performance status and self-reported new or recently evolving symptoms at UPE diagnosis. It stratifies patients into low, intermediate and high risk for proximate mortality. This study aimed to validate the HULL Score CPR in ambulatory cancer patients with UPE. Patients and methods 282 consecutive patients managed under the UPE-acute oncology service in Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust were included from January 2015 to March 2020. The primary end-point was all-cause mortality, and outcome measures were proximate mortality for the three risk categories of the HULL Score CPR. Results 30-day, 90-day and 180-day mortality rates for the whole cohort were 3.4% (n=7), 21.1% (n=43) and 39.2% (n=80), respectively. The HULL Score CPR stratified patients into low-risk (n=100, 35.5%), intermediate-risk (n=95, 33.7%) and high-risk (n=81, 28.7%) categories. Correlation of the risk categories with 30-day mortality (area under the curve (AUC) 0.717, 95% CI 0.522–0.912), 90-day mortality (AUC 0.772, 95% CI 0.707–0.838), 180-day mortality (AUC 0.751, 95% CI 0.692–0.809) and overall survival (AUC 0.749, 95% CI 0.686–0.811) was consistent with the derivation cohort. Conclusion This study validates the capacity of the HULL Score CPR to stratify proximate mortality risk in ambulatory cancer patients with UPE. The score uses immediately available clinical parameters and is easy to integrate into an acute outpatient oncology setting.

Introduction: The restriction of prolyl-protein cis/trans isomerase 1 (Pin1) activity has been shown to prevent the release of tissue factor (TF) leading to the accumulation of the latter protein within the cell. This study tested the ability of novel small molecules to inhibit Pin1, suppress TF activity and release, and induce cellular apoptosis. Methods: Four compounds were designed and synthesised based on modification of 5-(p-methoxyphenyl)-2-methylfuran-3-carbonyl amide and the outcome on MDA-MB-231 and primary cells examined. These compounds contained 3-(2-naphthyl)-D-alanine (4a), D-tryptophan (4b), D-phenylalanine (4c), and D-tyrosine (4d) at the amino-termini. Results: Treatment of cells with compound 4b and 4d reduced the cell-surface TF activity after 60 min on MDA-MB-231 cells. Incubation with compound 4d also reduced TF antigen on the cell surface and its incorporation into microvesicles, while compounds 4a and 4b significantly increased TF release. None of the four compounds significantly altered the total amount of TF antigen or TF mRNA expression. Compound 4b and 4d also suppressed the binding of Pin1 to TF-cytoplasmic domain peptide. However, compound 4d reduced while compound 4b increased the Pin1 isomerase activity. Finally, treatment with compound 4b and 4d reduced the cell numbers, increased nuclear localisation of p53, Bax protein and bax mRNA expression and induced cellular apoptosis in MDA-MB-231 but not primary endothelial cells. Conclusions: In conclusion, we have identified small molecules to regulate the function of TF within cells. Two of these compounds may prove to be beneficial in moderating TF function specifically and restrain TF-mediated tumour growth without detrimental outcomes on normal vascular cells.

Abstract Background Several independent risk factors have been reported to influence viral shedding following COVID-19 infection, but the influence of host-related molecular factors has not yet been described. We report a case of a cancer patient with Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, HNPCC) who manifested SARS-CoV-2 PCR (polymerase chain reaction) positivity for at least 54 days after contracting mild COVID-19 illness. We propose that deficient mismatch repair (MMR) may play a role in the prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding. Case presentation A patient with Lynch syndrome was under surveillance for metastatic adenocarcinoma after completing palliative chemotherapy in October 2019. Between the period of April 2020 to June 2020, he was admitted multiple times to address several clinical needs mainly related to his underlying malignancy. These included progressive disease observed in the aortocaval lymph nodes leading to recurrent episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, dehydration resulting in acute kidney injury and a short-lived episode of pyrexia. A SARS-CoV-2 PCR of the nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) was positive at his initial admission with mild COVID-19 symptoms. He remained positive on subsequent admissions when tested routinely for SARS-CoV-2 without demonstrating any apparent clinical features of COVID-19 infection. The MMR pathway, a component of DNA damage response (DDR), is impaired in Lynch syndrome due to an inherited genetic mutation. This pathway is also required for viral clearance from the host cells following certain RNA viral infections like influenza virus and other coronaviridae. Here we provide a current understanding of the importance of DDR deficiencies in the clearance of RNA virus and suggest how this may play a similar role in the clearance of COVID-19, as evident in our case that demonstrated persistent positivity. Conclusion The importance of understanding the scientific basis of extended viral shedding during the COVID-19 pandemic is now centre-stage in the establishment of robust track and trace services to allow the recovery and function of societies and economies. This patient with Lynch syndrome recovered from infection but had prolonged viral positivity, which might merit further investigation to better understand the effect of this condition on infection duration and outcome.

Abstract Background Advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (aPDAC) patients have a lifetime all type thromboembolic event (ATTE) rate of 25–35%. Efficacy and safety of increased dose primary thromboprophylaxis (IDPTP) with low molecular heparin (LMWH) given for 3 months has been shown in two prospective randomized trials. Objectives To report on efficacy -reduction of all type thromboembolic events (ATTE)-, safety -incidence of Major Bleeding (MB)- and compliance in a single-centre cohort of aPDAC patients receiving first line chemotherapy and LMWH-IDPTP. Methods From May 2009 to October 2016, 82 patients received IDPTP –LMWH with dalteparin. Schedule: 55 kg and below: 7500 IU, between 55 and 80 kg: 10,000 IU, above 80 kg: 12,500 IU. MB is reported using the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) criteria. ATTE was defined as any arterial or venous event, incidental or clinically symptomatic, including visceral VTE. Results Mean and median time on dalteparin was 10.2 (95%CI 8.1, 12.4) and 8.0 (95%CI 6.2, 9.7) months respectively. ATTE was observed in 7 (8.5%) of patients, with a median time on IDPTP of 6.2 months (95% CI 10.0, 13.2). MB was seen in 10 (12.2%) patients with a median time on IDPTP of 4.5 months (95% CI 1.6, 7.4). Six major bleeds (60%) were the direct or indirect result of aPDAC. Eighty-one patients had died at the time of data collection with a median overall survival time of 8.7 months (95%CI 6.4, 11.0). Thromboembolism and bleeding were late events. No impact of thromboembolism or bleeding on overall survival was observed. Conclusions IDPTP-dalteparin was associated with lower ATTE occurrence rates than expected and comparable major bleeding rates. ATTE and MB were late events, the majority of MB was from direct or indirect result of locally progressing aPDAC. Since these conditions can frequently arise in aPDAC, IDPTP should be regularly reviewed beyond 3 months.

BackgroundThe diagnosis of symptomatic cancer-associated thrombosis often causes distress and alarm for patients, especially for those unaware of the risk, or the signs and symptoms to look out for. There are few data about cancer patients' experiences of incidentally diagnosed pulmonary embolism (IPE), where lack of warning (recognised signs, symptoms) may cause delayed diagnosis and aggravate distress.ObjectivesTo explore cancer patients' experience of the diagnosis of and living with incidental pulmonary embolism treated with anticoagulation.MethodsA qualitative study using modified grounded theory approach. Semi-structured interviews were conducted as part of a mixed- methods prospective observational survey study of consenting patients with IPE. Data were subjected to thematic analysis. The qualitative findings are presented.FindingsEleven participants were interviewed (mean age 68.3 years, range 38-82 years; various forms of cancer and stages). Three major themes and one cross-cutting theme were generated. Theme (1): IPE is experienced in the context of cancer and concomitant comorbidities. Issues are understood in the shadow of-and often overshadowed by-current serious illness. Theme (2): Being diagnosed with IPE. Misattribution to cancer or other comorbidities caused delay in help-seeking and diagnosis. Theme (3): Coping with anticoagulation. Participants' incorporated anticoagulation treatment and its effects into their daily routine with acceptance and stoicism. Finally, the cross-cutting theme relates to a lack of information and uncertainty, contributing to distress throughout the experience.ConclusionThe diagnosis of IPE was upsetting and unexpected. Expert and timely information was valued by those with IPE. Education called for about the increased risk of cancer-associated thrombosis and the signs and symptoms to be aware of.

Abstract Background Patients with cancer‐associated thrombosis (CAT) have a high risk of recurrent venous thromboembolic events, which contribute to significant morbidity and mortality. Direct oral anticoagulants may provide a convenient treatment option for these patients. Objectives To assess clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with active cancer changing to rivaroxaban after ≥4 weeks of standard therapy for the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in clinical practice. This analysis focused on secondary outcomes of Cancer‐associated thrOmboSIs – Patient‐reported outcoMes with rivarOxaban (COSIMO). Patients COSIMO was a multinational, prospective, noninterventional, single‐arm cohort study. Overall, 505 patients received at least one dose of rivaroxaban; 96.6% changing from low‐molecular‐weight heparin, 1.6% from a vitamin K antagonist, and 1.8% from fondaparinux. Results Most patients had solid tumors (n = 449; 88.9%) and approximately half of these patients had metastases. The qualifying venous thromboembolic event was deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in 45.3% of patients, pulmonary embolism (PE) in 37.2% of patients, DVT with PE in 9.7% of patients, and catheter‐associated DVT in 7.5% of patients. Approximately 75.1% of patients received rivaroxaban for at least 3 months; 150 (29.7%) patients received concomitant chemotherapy during the study. VTE recurrence, major bleeding, nonmajor bleeding, and major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 18 (3.6%), 18 (3.6%), 81 (16.0%), and 12 (2.4%) patients, respectively. Conclusions In patients with CAT who changed to rivaroxaban treatment after ≥4 weeks of standard therapy, the observed incidence proportions of recurrent VTE and bleeding events were in keeping with the recognized effectiveness and safety profile of rivaroxaban for the treatment of CAT.

Abstract Background An incidental/unsuspected diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (IPE) in cancer patients is a frequent occurrence. This single-institution analysis of uniformly managed patients investigates short and long-term outcomes and proposes a prognostic risk score, aiming to assist clinical decision-making. Methods Data from a prospectively recorded cohort of 234 consecutive cancer patients with IPE were analysed. Multivariate logistic regression and the Cox regression survival methods were used to identify factors with independent association with early (30-day, 3-month, 6-month) mortality and survival. Receiver operator characteristic analysis (ROC) was used to assess appropriate cut-offs for continuous variables and the fitness of prognostic scoring. Results 30-day, 3-month and 6-month mortality was 3.4% (n = 8), 15% (n = 35) and 31% (n = 72) respectively. Recurrence during anticoagulation occurred in 2.6% (n = 6) and major haemorrhage in 2.1% (n = 5) of the patients. A prognostic score incorporating performance status (0 vs 1–2 vs 3–4) and the presence of new or worsening symptoms, with and without the consideration of the presence of incurable malignancy, correlated with overall survival (p

Table of contents O1 Tumour heterogeneity: what does it mean? Dow-Mu Koh O2 Skeletal sequelae in adult survivors of childhood cancer Sue Creviston Kaste O3 Locoregional effects of breast cancer treatment Sarah J Vinnicombe O4 Imaging of cancer therapy-induced CNS toxicity Giovanni Morana, Andrea Rossi O5 Screening for lung cancer Christian J. Herold O6Risk stratification of lung nodules Theresa C. McLoud O7 PET imaging of pulmonary nodules Kirk A Frey O8 Transarterial tumour therapy Bernhard Gebauer O9 Interventional radiology in paediatric oncology Derek Roebuck O10 Image guided prostate interventions Jurgen J. Fütterer O11 Imaging cancer predisposition syndromes Alexander J. Towbin O12Chest and chest wall masses Thierry AG Huisman O13 Abdominal masses: good or bad? Anne MJB Smets O14 Hepatobiliary MR contrast: enhanced liver MRI for HCC diagnosis and management Giovanni Morana O15 Role of US elastography and multimodality fusion for managing patients with chronic liver disease and HCC Jeong Min Lee O16 Opportunities and challenges in imaging metastatic disease Hersh Chandarana O17 Diagnosis, treatment monitoring, and follow-up of lymphoma Marius E. Mayerhoefer, Markus Raderer, Alexander Haug O18 Managing high-risk and advanced prostate cancer Matthias Eiber O19 Immunotherapy: imaging challenges Bernhard Gebauer O20 RECIST and RECIST 1.1 Andrea Rockall O21 Challenges of RECIST in oncology imaging basics for the trainee and novice Aslam Sohaib O22 Lymphoma: PET for interim and end of treatment response assessment: a users’ guide to the Deauville Score Victoria S Warbey O23 Available resources Hebert Alberto Vargas O24 ICIS e-portal and the online learning community Dow-Mu Koh O25 Benign lesions that mimic pancreatic cancer Jay P Heiken O26 Staging and reporting pancreatic malignancies Isaac R Francis, Mahmoud, M Al-Hawary, Ravi K Kaza O27 Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm Giovanni Morana O28 Cystic pancreatic tumours Mirko D’Onofrio O29 Diffusion-weighted imaging of head and neck tumours Harriet C. Thoeny O30 Radiation injury in the head and neck Ann D King O31 PET/MR of paediatric brain tumours Giovanni Morana, Arnoldo Piccardo, Maria Luisa Garrè, Andrea Rossi O32 Structured reporting and beyond Hebert Alberto Vargas O33 Massachusetts General Hospital experience with structured reporting Theresa C. McLoud O34 The oncologist’s perspective: what the oncologist needs to know Nick Reed O35 Towards the cure of all children with cancer: global initiatives in pediatric oncology Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo O36 Multiparametric imaging of renal cancers Hersh Chandarana O37 Linking imaging features of renal disease and their impact on management strategies Hebert Alberto Vargas O38 Adrenals, retroperitoneum and peritoneum Isaac R Francis, Ashish P Wasnik O39 Lung and pleura Stefan Diederich O40 Advances in MRI Jurgen J. Fütterer O41 Advances in molecular imaging Wim J.G. Oyen O42 Incorporating advanced imaging, impact on treatment selection and patient outcome Cheng Lee Chaw, Nicholas van As S1 Combining ADC-histogram features improves performance of MR diffusion-weighted imaging for Lymph node characterisation in cervical cancer Igor Vieira, Frederik De Keyzer, Elleke Dresen, Sileny Han, Ignace Vergote, Philippe Moerman, Frederic Amant, Michel Koole, Vincent Vandecaveye S2 Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI for surgical planning in patients with colorectal cancer and peritoneal metastases R Dresen, S De Vuysere, F De Keyzer, E Van Cutsem, A D’Hoore, A Wolthuis, V Vandecaveye S3 Role of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) diffusion-weighted MRI for predicting extra capsular extension of prostate cancer. P. Pricolo (paola.pricolo@ieo.it), S. Alessi, P. Summers, E. Tagliabue, G. Petralia S4 Generating evidence for clinical benefit of PET/CT – are management studies sufficient as surrogate for patient outcome? C. Pfannenberg, B. Gückel, SC Schüle, AC Müller, S. Kaufmann, N. Schwenzer, M. Reimold,C. la Fougere, K. Nikolaou, P. Martus S5 Heterogeneity of treatment response in skeletal metastases from breast cancer with 18F-fluoride and 18F-FDG PET GJ Cook, GK Azad, BP Taylor, M Siddique, J John, J Mansi, M Harries, V Goh S6 Accuracy of suspicious breast imaging—can we tell the patient? S Seth, R Burgul, A Seth S7 Measurement method of tumour volume changes during neoadjuvant chemotherapy affects ability to predict pathological response S Waugh, N Muhammad Gowdh, C Purdie, A Evans, E Crowe, A Thompson, S Vinnicombe S8 Diagnostic yield of CT IVU in haematuria screening F. Arfeen, T. Campion, E. Goldstraw S9 Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer: preliminary results D’Onofrio M, Ciaravino V, Crosara S, De Robertis R, Pozzi Mucelli R S10 Iodine maps from dual energy CT improve detection of metastases in staging examinations of melanoma patients M. Uhrig, D. Simons, H. Schlemmer S11Can contrast enhanced CT predict pelvic nodal status in malignant melanoma of the lower limb? Kate Downey S12 Current practice in the investigation for suspected Paraneoplastic Neurological Syndromes (PNS) and positive malignancy yield. S Murdoch, AS Al-adhami, S Viswanathan P1 Technical success and efficacy of Pulmonary Radiofrequency ablation: an analysis of 207 ablations S Smith, P Jennings, D Bowers, R Soomal P2 Lesion control and patient outcome: prospective analysis of radiofrequency abaltion in pulmonary colorectal cancer metastatic disease S Smith, P Jennings, D Bowers, R Soomal P3 Hepatocellular carcinoma in a post-TB patient: case of tropical infections and oncologic imaging challenges TM Mutala, AO Odhiambo, N Harish P4 Role of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) diffusion-weighted MRI for predicting extracapsular extension of prostate cancer P. Pricolo, S. Alessi, P. Summers, E. Tagliabue, G. Petralia P5 What a difference a decade makes; comparison of lung biopsies in Glasgow 2005 and 2015 M. Hall, M. Sproule, S. Sheridan P6 Solid pseudopapillary tumour of pancreas: imaging features of a rare neoplasm KY Thein, CH Tan, YL Thian, CM Ho P7 MDCT - pathological correlation in colon adenocarcinoma staging: preliminary experience S De Luca, C Carrera, V Blanchet, L Alarcón, E Eyheremnedy P8 Image guided biopsy of thoracic masses and reduction of pneumothorax risk: 25 years experience B K Choudhury, K Bujarbarua, G Barman P9 Tumour heterogeneity analysis of 18F-FDG-PET for characterisation of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumours in neurofibromatosis-1 GJ Cook, E Lovat, M Siddique, V Goh, R Ferner, VS Warbey P10 Impact of introduction of vacuum assisted excision (VAE) on screen detected high risk breast lesions L Potti, B Kaye, A Beattie, K Dutton P11 Can we reduce prevalent recall rate in breast screening? AA Seth, F Constantinidis, H Dobson P12 How to reduce prevalent recall rate? Identifying mammographic lesions with low Positive Predictive Value (PPV) AA Seth (archana.seth@nhs.net), F Constantinidis, H Dobson P13 Behaviour of untreated pulmonary thrombus in oncology patients diagnosed with incidental pulmonary embolism on CT R. Bradley, G. Bozas, G. Avery, A. Stephens, A. Maraveyas P14 A one-stop lymphoma biopsy service – is it possible? S Bhuva, CA Johnson, M Subesinghe, N Taylor P15 Changes in the new TNM classification for lung cancer (8th edition, effective January 2017) LE Quint, RM Reddy, GP Kalemkerian P16 Cancer immunotherapy: a review of adequate imaging assessment G González Zapico, E Gainza Jauregui, R Álvarez Francisco, S Ibáñez Alonso, I Tavera Bahillo, L Múgica Álvarez P17 Succinate dehydrogenase mutations and their associated tumours O Francies, R Wheeler, L Childs, A Adams, A Sahdev P18 Initial experience in the usefulness of dual energy technique in the abdomen SE De Luca, ME Casalini Vañek, MD Pascuzzi, T Gillanders, PM Ramos, EP Eyheremendy P19 Recognising the serious complication of Richter’s transformation in CLL patients C Stove, M Digby P20 Body diffusion-weighted MRI in oncologic practice: truths, tricks and tips M. Nazar, M. Wirtz, MD. Pascuzzi, F. Troncoso, F. Saguier, EP. Eyheremendy P21 Methotrexate-induced leukoencephalopathy in paediatric ALL Patients D.J. Quint, L. Dang, M. Carlson, S. Leber, F. Silverstein P22 Pitfalls in oncology CT reporting. A pictorial review R Rueben, S Viswanathan P23 Imaging of perineural extension in head and neck tumours B Nazir, TH Teo, JB Khoo P24 MRI findings of molecular subtypes of breast cancer: a pictorial primer K Sharma, N Gupta, B Mathew, T Jeyakumar, K Harkins P25 When cancer can’t wait! A pictorial review of oncological emergencies K Sharma, B Mathew, N Gupta, T Jeyakumar, S Joshua P26 MRI of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: an approach to interpretation D Christodoulou, S Gourtsoyianni, A Jacques, N Griffin, V Goh P27 Gynaecological cancers in pregnancy: a review of imaging CA Johnson, J Lee P28 Suspected paraneoplastic neurological syndromes - review of published recommendations to date, with proposed guideline/flowchart JA Goodfellow, AS Al-adhami, S Viswanathan P29 Multi-parametric MRI of the pelvis for suspected local recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy R Bradley P30 Utilisation of PI-RADS version 2 in multi-parametric MRI of the prostate; 12-months experience R Bradley P31 Radiological assessment of the post-chemotherapy liver A Yong, S Jenkins, G Joseph P32 Skeletal staging with MRI in breast cancer – what the radiologist needs to know S Bhuva, K Partington P33 Perineural spread of lympoma: an educational review of an unusual distribution of disease CA Johnson, S Bhuva, M Subesinghe, N Taylor P34 Visually isoattenuating pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Diagnostic imaging tools. C Carrera, A Zanfardini, S De Luca, L Alarcón, V Blanchet, EP Eyheremendy P35 Imaging of larynx cancer: when is CT, MRI or FDG PET/CT the best test? K Cavanagh, E Lau

Microvesicles were isolated from the conditioned media of 3 cell lines (MDA-MB-231, AsPC-1 and A375) by ultracentrifugation at a range of relative centrifugal forces, and the tissue factor (TF) protein and activity, microvesicle number, size distribution and relative density compared. Also, by expressing TF-tGFP in cells and isolating the microvesicles, the relative density of TF-containing microvesicles was established. Nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA) indicated that the larger-diameter microvesicles (>200 nm) were primarily sedimented at 100,000g and possessed TF-dependent thrombin and factor Xa generation potential, while in the absence of factor VII, all microvesicles possessed some thrombin generation capacity. Immuno-precipitation of TF-containing microvesicles followed by NTA also indicated the range of these microvesicles to be 200–400 nm. Analysis of the microvesicles by gradient density centrifugation showed that lower-density (

Introduction Parenteral anticoagulants may improve outcomes in patients with cancer by reducing risk of venous thromboembolic disease and through a direct antitumour effect. Study-level systematic reviews indicate a reduction in venous thromboembolism and provide moderate confidence that a small survival benefit exists. It remains unclear if any patient subgroups experience potential benefits.Methods and analysis First, we will perform a comprehensive systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, hand search scientific conference abstracts and check clinical trials registries for randomised control trials of participants with solid cancers who are administered parenteral anticoagulants. We anticipate identifying at least 15 trials, exceeding 9000 participants. Second, we will perform an individual participant data meta-analysis to explore the magnitude of survival benefit and address whether subgroups of patients are more likely to benefit from parenteral anticoagulants. All analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle. For our primary outcome, mortality, we will use multivariable hierarchical models with patient-level variables as fixed effects and a categorical trial variable as a random effect. We will adjust analysis for important prognostic characteristics. To investigate whether intervention effects vary by predefined subgroups of patients, we will test interaction terms in the statistical model. Furthermore, we will develop a risk-prediction model for venous thromboembolism, with a focus on control patients of randomised trials.Ethics and dissemination Aside from maintaining participant anonymity, there are no major ethical concerns. This will be the first individual participant data meta-analysis addressing heparin use among patients with cancer and will directly influence recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Major cancer guideline development organisations will use eventual results to inform their guideline recommendations. Several knowledge users will disseminate results through presentations at clinical rounds as well as national and international conferences. We will prepare an evidence brief and facilitate dialogue to engage policymakers and stakeholders in acting on findings.Trial registration number PROSPERO CRD42013003526.

Following the publication of this study [1] the authors identified the following errors inadvertently introduced during the production process:

Low molecular weight heparins have demonstrated superiority over coumarins in the extended treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis and are recommended as first-line therapy in clinical guidelines. Non-vitamin K oral antagonists are yet to be evaluated against low molecular weight heparin for this indication. Nevertheless, a perception that patients favor oral anticoagulants over injections may lead to an increased prescribing of warfarin or non-vitamin K oral antagonists despite the evidence gap. There has been no evaluation of cancer patient preferences for anticoagulants and whether such an evidence gap is an acceptable trade-off for patients prescribed orals. We conducted a study to assess what features are most important to CAT patients regarding their choice of anticoagulant. Two modules were applied: Initial in-depth interviews with 9 patients diagnosed with cancer-associated thrombosis, and thereafter quantitative research, where a further 100 patients completed a choice-based-conjoint exercise, where 15 different scenarios were presented to identify the most important attributes of an anticoagulant. Seventy percent of the patients were treated with injected medication (low molecular weight heparin) and 30% with oral medications. Patients most valued an anticoagulant with minimal interference with their cancer treatment (39%), low thrombosis recurrence rate (24%), and low risk of major bleed (19%). Preference for oral administration over injection had moderate importance (13%). The results show that patients prefer an anticoagulant that does not interfere with their cancer treatment, suggesting the primacy of the cancer disease over venous thromboembolism in these patients. Patients also favor efficacy and safety over convenience of route of administration.

Abstract Background Around 20% of venous thromboembolism (VTE) cases occur in patients with cancer. Current guidelines recommend low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) as the preferred anticoagulant for VTE treatment. However, some guidelines state that vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are acceptable alternatives for long-term therapy in some patients if LMWHs are not available. LMWHs and VKAs have a number of drawbacks that can increase the burden on patients. DOACs, such as rivaroxaban, can ameliorate some burdens and may offer an opportunity to increase patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The Cancer-associated thrOmboSIs – patient-reported outcoMes with rivarOxaban (COSIMO) study is designed to provide real-world information on treatment satisfaction in patients with active cancer who switch from LMWH or VKA to rivaroxaban for the treatment of acute VTE or to prevent recurrent VTE. Methods COSIMO is a prospective, non-interventional, single-arm cohort study that aims to recruit 500 patients in Europe, Canada and Australia. Adults with active cancer who are switching to rivaroxaban having received LMWH/VKA for the treatment and secondary prevention of recurrent VTE for at least the previous 4 weeks are eligible. Patients will be followed for 6 months. The primary outcome is treatment satisfaction assessed as change in the Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS) Burdens score at week 4 after enrolment compared with baseline. Secondary outcomes include treatment preferences, measured using a discrete choice experiment, change in ACTS Burdens score at months 3 and 6, and change in HRQoL (assessed using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Fatigue questionnaire). COSIMO will collect data on patients’ medical history, patterns of anticoagulant use and incidence of bleeding and thromboembolic events. Study recruitment started in autumn 2016. Conclusions COSIMO will provide information on outcomes associated with switching from LMWH or VKA therapy to rivaroxaban for the treatment or secondary prevention of cancer-associated thrombosis in a real-life setting. The key goal is to assess whether there is a change in patient-reported treatment satisfaction. In addition, COSIMO will facilitate the evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of rivaroxaban in preventing recurrent VTE in this patient population. Trial registration NCT02742623. Registered 19 April 2016.

Abstract Background Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a common complication of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). PICCs are increasingly utilised in the management of cancer patients, a group which carries both additional risks for vascular thromboembolism as well as for complex morbidity. We analysed a cohort of cancer patients subjected to PICC insertion in a single cancer centre for the incidence of all-type vascular thromboembolism (VTE) and investigated relative risk factors. Methods In this clinical audit, the records of patients referred for PICC insertion in our centre in the period between 1/1/2011 and 1/4/2014 were retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcomes investigated were a) PICC-related deep vein thrombosis (PRDVT) and b) distant VTE (lower limb DVT and pulmonary embolism). 4Fr single lumen PICCs were placed in all patients. The Kaplan Meier method was used to study time from PICC insertion to PRDVT/VTE. Survival curves were compared using the log rank method. Logistic and Cox regression analyses were used to assess local, distant and combined endpoints. Results Four hundred ninety patients were included in the analysis of which 27 (5.5%) developed a PRDVT. Statistically significant risk factors for developing PRDVT in multivariate analysis included more than one attempt for insertion (OR 2.61, 95%CI: 1.12–6.05) and the use of fluoropyrimidine containing chemotherapy (OR 4.27, 95%CI 1.3–14.07). Twenty-six patients developed a distant VTE. Male gender was the only significant risk factor for distant VTE. When all-type VTE were considered together fluoropyrimidine containing chemotherapy (OR 4.54, 95% CI 1.63–12.61), male gender (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.04–3.93) and white cell count (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.00–1.26) were statistically significant as risk factors in this analysis. Conclusions This is a large study of VTE following PICC insertion in cancer patients which also looks at the rate of distant VTE. The observed PRDVT incidence is comparable with available literature. Fluoropyrimidine containing chemotherapy and more than one attempt for PICC insertion were independent predictors of PICC-associated VTE whilst the former remained an independent predictor of all-type VTE. Anticoagulation did not prevent thrombotic events in this cohort.

Tissue factor (TF)-positive microvesicles from various sources can promote cellular proliferation or alternatively induce apoptosis, but the determining factors are unknown. In this study the hypothesis that the ratio of fVIIa:TF within microvesicles determines this outcome was examined. Microvesicles were isolated from HepG2, BxPC-3, 786-O, MDA-MB-231, and MCF-7 cell lines and microvesicle-associated fVIIa and TF antigen and activity levels were measured. Human coronary artery endothelial cells (HCAECs) were incubated with these purified microvesicles, or with combinations of fVIIa-recombinant TF, and cell proliferation/apoptosis was measured. Additionally, by expressing mCherry-PAR2 on HCAEC surface, PAR2 activation was quantified. Finally, the activation of PAR2 on HCAEC or the activities of TF and fVIIa in microvesicles were blocked prior to addition of microvesicles to cells. The purified microvesicles exhibited a range of fVIIa:TF ratios with HepG2 and 786-O cells having the highest (54:1) and lowest (10:1) ratios, respectively. The reversal from proapoptotic to proliferative was estimated to occur at a fVIIa:TF molar ratio of 15:1, but HCAEC could not be rescued at higher TF concentrations. The purified microvesicles induced HCAEC proliferation or apoptosis according to this ruling. Blocking PAR2 activation on HCAEC, or inhibiting fVIIa or TF-procoagulant function on microvesicles prevented the influence on HCAEC. Finally, incubation of HCAEC with recombinant TF resulted in increased surface exposure of fVII. The induction of cell proliferation or apoptosis by TF-positive microvesicles is dependent on the ratio of fVIIa:TF and involves the activation of PAR2. At lower TF concentrations, fVIIa can counteract the proapoptotic stimulus and induce proliferation.

Background: Venous thromboembolism is common in cancer patients and requires anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Current data recommend LMWH for anticoagulation as far as 6 months, yet guidelines recommend LMWH beyond 6 months in patients who have ongoing or active cancer. This recommendation, based on expert consensus, has not been evaluated in a clinical study. Objectives: (1) To identify the most clinically and cost-effective length of anticoagulation with LMWH in the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT); (2) to identify practicalities of conducting a full randomised controlled trial (RCT) with regard to recruitment, retention and outcome measurement; and (3) to explore the barriers for progressing to a full RCT. Design: The Anticoagulation with Low-molecular-weight heparin In the treatment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis (ALICAT) trial is a randomised, multicentre, feasibility mixed-methods study with three components: (1) a RCT comparing ongoing LMWH treatment for CAT with cessation of LMWH at 6 months’ treatment (current licensed practice) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer, consulted in three clinical settings (haematology outpatients, oncology outpatients and primary care); (2) a nested qualitative study, including focus groups with clinicians to investigate attitudes for recruiting to the study and identify the challenges of progressing to a full RCT, and semistructured interviews with patients and relatives to explore their attitudes towards participating in the study, and potential barriers and concerns to participation; and (3) a UK-wide survey exercise to develop a classification and enumeration system for the CAT models and pathways of care. Setting: A haematology outpatients department, an oncology outpatients department and primary care. Participants: Patients with ongoing active or metastatic cancer who have received 6 months of LMWH for CAT. Interventions: Ongoing LMWH treatment for CAT versus cessation of LMWH at 6 months’ treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer. Main outcome measures: (i) The number of eligible patients over 12 months; (ii) the number of recruited patients over 12 months (target recruitment rate of 30% of eligible patients); and (iii) the proportion of randomised participants with recurrent venous thromboembolisms (VTEs) during follow-up. Results: Following several delays in setting up the RCT component of the study, 5 out of 32 eligible patients consented to be randomised to the RCT suggesting progression to a full RCT was not feasible. Reasons for non-consenting were primarily based on a fixed preference for continuing or discontinuing treatment after 6 months of anticoagulation, and a fear of randomisation to their non-preferred option. Views were largely influenced by patients’ initial experience of CAT. Focus groups with clinicians revealed that they would be reticent to recruit to such a study as they had fixed views of best management despite the lack of evidence. Patient pathway modelling suggested that there is a broad heterogeneity of practice with respect to CAT management and co-ordination, with no consensus on which specialty should best manage such cases. Conclusions: The results of the RCT reflect recruitment from the oncology site only and provide no recruitment data from haematology centres. However, it is unlikely that these other sites would have access to more eligible patients. The management of cancer-associated thrombosis beyond 6 months will remain a clinical challenge. As it is unlikely that a prospective study will successfully recruit, other strategies to accrue relevant data are necessary. Currently the LONGHEVA (Long-term treatment for cancer patients with deep-venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) registry is in development to prospectively evaluate this important and common clinical scenario. Study registration: This study is registered as clinical trials.gov number NCT01817257 and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 37913976. Funding details: Funding for the ALICAT trial was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme (10/145/01) in response to a themed funding call. The study was designed in accordance with the initial funding brief and feedback from the review process.

We present a case of a rare and unusual occurrence of a desmoid tumor at the site of a resected gastrointestinal stromal tumor and mimicking a recurrence, with a brief discussion of the management of desmoid tumors.