Search

Background: Complex innovative design trials are becoming increasingly common and offer potential for improving patient outcomes in a faster time frame. FOCUS4 was the first molecularly stratified trial in metastatic colorectal cancer and it remains one of the first umbrella trial designs to be launched globally. Here, we aim to describe lessons learned from delivery of the trial over the last 10 years. Methods: FOCUS4 was a Phase II/III molecularly stratified umbrella trial testing the safety and efficacy of targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer. It used adaptive statistical methodology to decide which sub-trial should close early, and new therapies were added as protocol amendments. Patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer were registered, and central laboratory testing was used to stratify their tumour into molecular subtypes. Following 16 weeks of first-line therapy, patients with stable or responding disease were eligible for randomisation into either a molecularly stratified sub-trial (FOCUS4-B, C or D) or non-stratified FOCUS4-N. The primary outcome for all studies was progression-free survival comparing the intervention with active monitoring/placebo. At the close of the trial, feedback was elicited from all investigators through surveys and interviews and consolidated into a series of recommendations and lessons learned for the delivery of similar future trials. Results: Between January 2014 and October 2020, 1434 patients were registered from 88 UK hospitals. Of the 20 drug combinations that were explored for inclusion in the platform trial, three molecularly targeted sub-trials were activated: FOCUS4-D (February 2014–March 2016) evaluated AZD8931 in the BRAF-PIK3CA-RAS wildtype subgroup; FOCUS4-B (February 2016–July 2018) evaluated aspirin in the PIK3CA mutant subgroup and FOCUS4-C (June 2017–October 2020) evaluated adavosertib in the RAS+TP53 double mutant subgroup. FOCUS4-N was active throughout and evaluated capecitabine monotherapy versus a treatment break. A total of 361 (25%) registered patients were randomised into a sub-trial. Feedback on the experiences of delivery of FOCUS4 could be grouped into three main areas of challenge: funding/infrastructure, biomarker testing procedures and trial design efficiencies within which 20 recommendations are summarised. Conclusion: Adaptive stratified medicine platform studies are feasible in common cancers but present challenges. Our stakeholder feedback has helped to inform how these trial designs can succeed and answer multiple questions efficiently, providing resource is adequate.

PURPOSEOutcomes in RAS-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remain poor and patients have limited therapeutic options. Adavosertib is the first small-molecule inhibitor of WEE1 kinase. We hypothesized that aberrations in DNA replication seen in mCRC with both RAS and TP53 mutations would sensitize tumors to WEE1 inhibition.METHODSPatients with newly diagnosed mCRC were registered into FOCUS4 and tested for TP53 and RAS mutations. Those with both mutations who were stable or responding after 16 weeks of chemotherapy were randomly assigned 2:1 between adavosertib and active monitoring (AM). Adavosertib (250 mg or 300 mg) was taken orally once on days 1-5 and days 8-12 of a 3-week cycle. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), with a target hazard ratio (HR) of 0.5 and 80% power with a one-sided 0.025 significance level.RESULTSFOCUS4-C was conducted between April 2017 and Mar 2020 during which time 718 patients were registered; 247 (34%) were RAS/TP53-mutant. Sixty-nine patients were randomly assigned from 25 UK hospitals (adavosertib = 44; AM = 25). Adavosertib was associated with a PFS improvement over AM (median 3.61 v 1.87 months; HR = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.68; P = .0022). Overall survival (OS) was not improved with adavosertib versus AM (median 14.0 v 12.8 months; HR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.94; P = .93). In prespecified subgroup analysis, adavosertib activity was greater in left-sided tumors (HR = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.51), versus right-sided (HR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.41 to 2.56; interaction P = .043). Adavosertib was well-tolerated; grade 3 toxicities were diarrhea (9%), nausea (5%), and neutropenia (7%).CONCLUSIONIn this phase II randomized trial, adavosertib improved PFS compared with AM and demonstrates potential as a well-tolerated therapy for RAS/TP53-mutant mCRC. Further testing is required in this sizable population of unmet need.

PURPOSE Despite extensive randomized evidence supporting the use of treatment breaks in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), they are not universally offered to patients despite improvements in quality of life without detriment to overall survival (OS). FOCUS4-N was set up to explore the impact of oral maintenance therapy in patients who are responding to first-line therapy. METHODS FOCUS4 was a molecularly stratified trial program that registered patients with newly diagnosed mCRC. The FOCUS4-N trial was offered to patients in whom a targeted subtrial was unavailable or biomarker tests failed. Patients were randomly assigned using a 1:1 ratio between maintenance capecitabine and active monitoring (AM). The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) with secondary outcomes including OS toxicity and tolerability. RESULTS Between March 2014 and March 2020, 254 patients were randomly assigned (127 to capecitabine and 127 to AM) across 88 UK sites. Baseline characteristics were balanced. There was strong evidence of efficacy for PFS (hazard ratio = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75; P < .0001), but no significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.27; P = .66) was observed. Compliance with treatment was good, and toxicity from capecitabine versus AM was as expected with grade ≥ 2 fatigue (25% v 12%), diarrhea (23% v 13%), and hand-foot syndrome (26% v 3%). Quality of life showed little difference between the groups. CONCLUSION Despite strong evidence of disease control with maintenance therapy, OS remains unaffected and FOCUS4-N provides additional evidence to support the use of treatment breaks as safe management alternatives for patients who are stable or responding to first-line treatment for mCRC. Capecitabine without bevacizumab may be used to extend PFS in the interval after 16 weeks of first-line therapy.

Purpose: The DNA damage immune response (DDIR) assay was developed in breast cancer based on biology associated with deficiencies in homologous recombination and Fanconi anemia pathways. A positive DDIR call identifies patients likely to respond to platinum-based chemotherapies in breast and esophageal cancers. In colorectal cancer, there is currently no biomarker to predict response to oxaliplatin. We tested the ability of the DDIR assay to predict response to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in colorectal cancer and characterized the biology in DDIR-positive colorectal cancer. Experimental Design: Samples and clinical data were assessed according to DDIR status from patients who received either 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or 5FUFA (bolus and infusion 5-FU with folinic acid) plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) within the FOCUS trial (n = 361, stage IV), or neoadjuvant FOLFOX in the FOxTROT trial (n = 97, stage II/III). Whole transcriptome, mutation, and IHC data of these samples were used to interrogate the biology of DDIR in colorectal cancer. Results: Contrary to our hypothesis, DDIR-negative patients displayed a trend toward improved outcome for oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy compared with DDIR-positive patients. DDIR positivity was associated with microsatellite instability (MSI) and colorectal molecular subtype 1. Refinement of the DDIR signature, based on overlapping IFN-related chemokine signaling associated with DDIR positivity across colorectal cancer and breast cancer cohorts, further confirmed that the DDIR assay did not have predictive value for oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. Conclusions: DDIR positivity does not predict improved response following oxaliplatin treatment in colorectal cancer. However, data presented here suggest the potential of the DDIR assay in identifying immune-rich tumors that may benefit from immune checkpoint blockade, beyond current use of MSI status.

Oncolytic viruses and radiotherapy represent two diverse areas of cancer therapy, utilising quite different treatment modalities and with non-overlapping cytotoxicity profile. It is therefore an intriguing possibiltiy to consider that oncolytic ('cancer-killing') viruses may act as cancer-selective radiosensitisers, enhancing the therapeutic consequences of radiation treatment on tumours whilst exerting minimal effects on normal tissue. There is a solid mechanistic basis for this potential synergy, with many viruses having developed strategies to inhibit cellular DNA repair pathways in order to protect themselves, during genome replication, from unwanted interference by cell processes that are normally triggered by DNA damage. Exploiting these abilities to inhibit cellular DNA repair following damage by therapeutic irradiation may well augment the anticancer potency of the approach. In this review we focus on oncolytic adenovirus, the most widely developed and best understood oncolytic virus, and explore its various mechanisms for modulating cellular DNA repair pathways. The most obvious effects of the various adenovirus serotypes are to interfere with activity of the MRN complex, temporally one of the first sensors of double stranded DNA damage, and inhibition of DNA ligase IV, a central repair enzyme for healing double stranded breaks by non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ). There have been several preclinical and clinical studies of this approach and we assess the current state of progress. In addition, oncolytic viruses provide the option to promote a localised proinflammatory response, both by mediating immunogenic death of cancer cells by oncosis and also by encoding and expressing proinflammatory biologics within the tumour microenvironment. Both of these approaches provide exciting potential to augment the known immunological consequences of radiotherapy, aiming to develop systems capable of creating a systemic anticancer immune response following localised tumour treatment.

The All Wales Lymphoma Panel (AWLP) was established in January 1998 to provide a central expert pathological review service for district general hospital pathologists. A discordance rate of 20% between the submitted and reviewed diagnosis has previously been identified. It has not been known whether this change in diagnosis affects clinical management. Ninety-nine patients whose diagnosis was changed as a result of central pathological review are presented. Between January 1998 and August 2000, 125 of 745 (17%) specimens submitted for AWLP review had a consequent change in pathological diagnosis. Of these 125 specimens, 99 (79%) complete case notes were recovered. In all 99 cases, a hypothetical management plan was generated using collected data, clinical protocols and the submitted pathological diagnosis. These plans were compared with the actual management patients received based on the reviewed diagnosis proffered by the AWLP. Forty-six of 99 (46%) cases had a change in management as a result of central pathological review. Overall, management was changed in 8% of cases referred for central pathological review. In conclusion, expert central pathological review has a direct effect on patient management.

Three hundred patients with symptomatic, locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC not requiring immediate radiotherapy were enrolled into this randomized multicentre trial comparing gemcitabine + BSC vs BSC alone. Patients allocated gemcitabine received 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle, for a maximum of six cycles. The main aim of this trial was to compare patient assessment of a predefined subset of commonly reported symptoms (SS14) from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC13 scales. The primary end-points were defined as (1) the percentage change in mean SS14 score between baseline and 2 months and (2) the proportion of patients with a marked (> or = 25%) improvement in SS14 score between baseline and 2 months sustained for > or =4 weeks. The secondary objectives were to compare treatments with respect to overall survival, and multidimensional QL parameters. The treatment groups were balanced with regard to age, gender, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) and disease stage (40% had metastatic disease). The percentage change in mean SS14 score from baseline to 2 months was a 10% decrease (i.e. improvement) for gemcitabine plus BSC and a 1% increase (i.e. deterioration) for BSC alone (P = 0.113, two-sample t-test). A sustained (> or = 4 weeks) improvement (> or =25%) on SS14 was recorded in a significantly higher proportion of gemcitabine + BSC patients (22%) than in BSC alone patients (9%) (P = 0.0014, Pearson's chi-squared test). The QLQ-C30 and L13 subscales showed greater improvement in the gemcitabine plus BSC arm (in 11 domains) than in the BSC arm (one symptom item). There was greater deterioration in the BSC alone arm (six domains/items) than in the gemcitabine + BSC arm (three QL domains). Tumour response occurred in 19% (95% CI 13-27) of gemcitabine patients. There was no difference in overall survival: median 5.7 months (95% CI 4.6-7.6) for gemcitabine + BSC patients and 5.9 months (95% CI 5.0-7.9) (log-rank, P = 0.84) for BSC patients, and 1 -year survival was 25% for gemcitabine + BSC and 22% for BSC. Overall, 74 (49%) gemcitabine + BSC patients and 119 (79%) BSC patients received palliative radiotherapy. The median time to radiotherapy was 29 weeks for gemcitabine + BSC patients and 3.8 weeks for BSC. Patients treated with gemcitabine + BSC reported better QL and reduced disease-related symptoms compared with those receiving BSC alone. These improvements in patient-assessed QL were significant in magnitude and were sustained.

BACKGROUND: COIN compared first-line continuous chemotherapy with the same chemotherapy given intermittently or with cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC). METHODS: Choice between oxaliplatin/capecitabine (OxCap) and oxaliplatin/leucovorin (LV)/infusional 5-FU (OxFU) was by physician and patient choice and switching regimen was allowed. We compared OxCap with OxFU and OxCap+cetuximab with OxFU+cetuximab retrospectively in patients and examined efficacy, toxicity profiles and the effect of mild renal impairment. RESULTS: In total, 64% of 2397 patients received OxCap(± cetuximab). Overall survival, progression free survival and overall response rate were similar between OxCap and OxFU but rate of radical surgeries was higher for OxFU. Progression free survival was longer for OxFU+cetuximab compared with OxCap+cetuximab but other efficacy measures were similar. Oxaliplatin/LV/infusional 5-FU (± cetuximab) was associated with more mucositis and infection whereas OxCap(± cetuximab) caused more gastrointestinal toxicities and palmar-plantar erythema. In total, 118 patients switched regimen, mainly due to toxicity; only 16% came off their second regimen due to intolerance. Patients with creatinine clearance (CrCl) 50-80 ml min(-1) on OxCap(± cetuximab) or OxFU+cetuximab had more dose modifications than those with better renal function. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, OxFU and OxCap are equally effective in treating aCRC. However, the toxicity profiles differ and switching from one regimen to the other for poor tolerance is a reasonable option. Patients with CrCl 50-80 ml min(-1) on both regimens require close toxicity monitoring.

A comparative study of bone marrow scintigraphy using 99Tcm-nanocolloid, conventional bone scintigraphy and bone marrow biopsy were performed in 35 patients with histologically proven small cell carcinoma of the lung to determine whether bone marrow scintigraphy has a role in the early detection of bone marrow metastases. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for detection of metastases were 100, 92 and 94%, respectively, in bone marrow scintigraphy, 91, 88 and 89%, respectively, in bone scintigraphy, and 50, 100 and 86%, respectively in bone marrow biopsy. This study confirmed that bone marrow scintigraphy is a useful technique for the detection of early metastases. Bone marrow scintigraphy is also suggested as the first choice examination in clinical practice for diagnosis of metastases in small cell carcinoma of the lung.