Search

Background: Patients with advanced oesophageal cancer have a median survival of 3–6 months, and most require intervention for dysphagia. Self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) insertion is the most typical form of palliation in these patients, but dysphagia deterioration and re-intervention are common. This study examined the efficacy of adjuvant external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) compared with usual care alone in preventing dysphagia deterioration and reducing service use after SEMS insertion. Methods: This was a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial based at cancer centres and acute care hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales. Patients (aged ≥16 years) with incurable oesophageal carcinoma receiving stent insertion for primary management of dysphagia were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive usual care alone or EBRT (20 Gy in five fractions or 30 Gy in ten fractions) plus usual care after stent insertion. Usual care was implemented according to need as identified by the local multidisciplinary team (MDT). Randomisation was via the method of minimisation stratified by treating centre, stage at diagnosis (I–III vs IV), histology (squamous or non-squamous), and MDT intent to give chemotherapy (yes vs no). The primary outcome was difference in proportions of participants with dysphagia deterioration (>11 point decrease on patient-reported European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire-oesophagogastric module [QLQ-OG25], or a dysphagia-related event consistent with such a deterioration) or death by 12 weeks in a modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population, which excluded patients who did not have a stent inserted and those without a baseline QLQ-OG25 assessment. Secondary outcomes included survival, quality of life (QoL), morbidities (including time to first bleeding event or hospital admission for bleeding event and first dysphagia-related stent complications or re-intervention), and cost-effectiveness. Safety analysis was undertaken in the modified ITT population. The study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, ISRCTN12376468, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01915693, and is completed. Findings: 220 patients were randomly assigned between Dec 16, 2013, and Aug 24, 2018, from 23 UK centres. The modified ITT population (n=199) comprised 102 patients in the usual care group and 97 patients in the EBRT group. Radiotherapy did not reduce dysphagia deterioration, which was reported in 36 (49%) of 74 patients receiving usual care versus 34 (45%) of 75 receiving EBRT (adjusted odds ratio 0·82 [95% CI 0·40–1·68], p=0·59) in those with complete data for the primary endpoint. No significant difference was observed in overall survival: median overall survival was 19·7 weeks (95% CI 14·4–27·7) with usual care and 18·9 weeks (14·7–25·6) with EBRT (adjusted hazard ratio 1·06 [95% CI 0·78–1·45], p=0·70; n=199). Median time to first bleeding event or hospital admission for a bleeding event was 49·0 weeks (95% CI 33·3–not reached) with usual care versus 65·9 weeks (52·7–not reached) with EBRT (adjusted subhazard ratio 0·52 [95% CI 0·28–0·97], p=0·038; n=199). No time versus treatment interaction was observed for prespecified QoL outcomes. We found no evidence of differences between trial group in time to first stent complication or re-intervention event. The most common (grade 3–4) adverse event was fatigue, reported in 19 (19%) of 102 patients receiving usual care alone and 22 (23%) of 97 receiving EBRT. On cost-utility analysis, EBRT was more expensive and less efficacious than usual care. Interpretation: Patients with advanced oesophageal cancer having SEMS insertion for the primary management of their dysphagia did not gain additional benefit from concurrent palliative radiotherapy and it should not be routinely offered. For a minority of patients clinically considered to be at high risk of tumour bleeding, concurrent palliative radiotherapy might reduce bleeding risk and the need for associated interventions. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Aim This is the first randomised study to evaluate toxicity and survival outcomes of two neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) regimens for patients with localised oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) or gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) adenocarcinoma. The initial results showed comparable toxicity between regimens and pathological complete response (pCR) rate favouring CarPacRT. Herein, we report survival, progression patterns, and long-term toxicity after a median follow-up of 40.7 months. Methods NeoSCOPE was an open-label, UK multicentre, randomised, phase II trial. Eighty-five patients with resectable OAC or GOJ adenocarcinoma, ≥cT3 and/or ≥cN1 (TNM v7), suitable for neoadjuvant CRT, were recruited between October 2013 and February 2015. Patients were randomised to OxCapRT (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 on Days 1, 15, and 29; capecitabine 625 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days of radiotherapy [RT]) or CarPacRT (carboplatin AUC2; paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29). RT dose was 45 Gy/25 fractions/5 weeks. Both arms received induction chemotherapy (two cycles oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on Day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m2 orally twice daily on Days 1–21) before CRT. Surgery was performed 6–8 weeks after CRT. The primary end-point was pCR. Secondary end-points were toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and patterns of progression. Results Eighty-five patients were recruited from 17 UK centres. The median OS was 41.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.6 to not reached) in the OxCapRT arm and was not reached in the CarPacRT arm (multivariable hazard ratio [HR] = 0.48, 95% CIs: 0.24–0.95, P = 0.035). The median PFS was 32.6 months (95% CIs: 17.1 to not reached) in the OxCapRT arm and was not reached in the CarPacRT arm (multivariable HR = 0.54, 95% CIs: 0.29–1.01, P = 0.053). In both arms, the distant progression was twice as common as locoregional progression. Conclusions OS and PFS favoured neoadjuvant CarPacRT over OxCapRT. Distant was more common than locoregional progression; therefore, priority should be given to optimising the systemic treatment component. Clinical trial information EudraCT Number: 2012-000640-10; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01843829., Highlights • Randomised study of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal adenocarcinoma. • The median overall survival was significantly better with CarPacRT. • Across both arms, the distant was more common than locoregional progression.

Background The Phase 2 SCALOP trial compared gemcitabine with capecitabine-based consolidation chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Methods Thirty-five systematically identified circulating biomarkers were analysed in plasma samples from 60 patients enroled in SCALOP. Each was measured in triplicate at baseline (prior to three cycles of gemcitabine-capecitabine induction chemotherapy) and, for a subset, prior to CRT. Association with overall survival (OS) was determined using univariable Cox regression and optimal thresholds delineating low to high values identified using time-dependent ROC curves. Independence from known prognostic factors was assessed using Spearman correlation and the Wilcoxon rank sum test prior to multivariable Cox regression modelling including independent biomarkers and known prognostic factors. Results Baseline circulating levels of C-C motif chemokine ligand 5 (CCL5) were significantly associated with OS, independent of other clinicopathological characteristics. Patients with low circulating CCL5 (CCL5low) had a median OS of 18.5 (95% CI 11.76–21.32) months compared to 11.3 (95% CI 9.86–15.51) months in CCL5high; hazard ratio 1.95 (95% CI 1.04–8.65; p = 0.037). Conclusions CCL5 is an independent prognostic biomarker in LAPC. Given the known role of CCL5 in tumour invasion, metastasis and the induction of an immunosuppressive micro-environment, targeting of CCL5-mediated pathways may offer therapeutic potential in pancreatic cancer. Clinical trial registration The SCALOP trial was registered with ISRCTN, number 96169987 (registered 29 May 2008).

Background Most patients with oesophageal cancer present with incurable disease. For those with advanced disease, the mean survival is 3–5 months. Treatment emphasis is therefore on effective palliation, with the majority of patients requiring intervention for dysphagia. Insertion of a self-expanding metal stent provides rapid relief but dysphagia may recur within 3 months owing to tumour progression. Evidence reviews have called for trials of interventions combined with stenting to better maintain the ability to swallow. Objectives The Radiotherapy after Oesophageal Cancer Stenting (ROCS) study examined the effectiveness of palliative radiotherapy, combined with insertion of a stent, in maintaining the ability to swallow. The trial also examined the impact that the ability to swallow had on quality of life, bleeding events, survival and cost-effectiveness. Design A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with follow-up every 4 weeks for 12 months. An embedded qualitative study examined trial experiences in a participant subgroup. Setting Participants were recruited in secondary care, with all planned follow-up at home. Participants Patients who were referred for stent insertion as the primary management of dysphagia related to incurable oesophageal cancer. Interventions Following stent insertion, the external beam radiotherapy arm received palliative oesophageal radiotherapy at a dose of 20 Gy in five fractions or 30 Gy in 10 fractions. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of participants with recurrent dysphagia, or death, at 12 weeks. Recurrent dysphagia was defined as deterioration of ≥ 11 points on the dysphagia scale of the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire oesophago-gastric module questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, bleeding risk and survival. Results The study recruited 220 patients: 112 were randomised to the usual-care arm and 108 were randomised to the external beam radiotherapy arm. There was no evidence that radiotherapy reduced recurrence of dysphagia at 12 weeks (48.6% in the usual-care arm compared with 45.3% in the external beam radiotherapy arm; adjusted odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 1.68; p = 0.587) and it was less cost-effective than stent insertion alone. There was no difference in median survival or key quality-of-life outcomes. There were fewer bleeding events in the external beam radiotherapy arm. Exploration of patient experience prompted changes to trial processes. Participants in both trial arms experienced difficulty in managing the physical and psychosocial aspects of eating restriction and uncertainties of living with advanced oesophageal cancer. Limitations Change in timing of the primary outcome to 12 weeks may affect the ability to detect a true intervention effect. However, consistency of results across sensitivity analyses is robust, including secondary analysis of dysphagia deterioration-free survival. Conclusions Widely accessible palliative external beam radiotherapy in combination with stent insertion does not reduce the risk of dysphagia recurrence at 12 weeks, does not have an impact on survival and is less cost-effective than inserting a stent alone. Reductions in bleeding events should be considered in the context of patient-described trade-offs of fatigue and burdens of attending hospital. Trial design elements including at-home data capture, regular multicentre nurse meetings and qualitative enquiry improved recruitment/data capture, and should be considered for future studies. Future work Further studies are required to identify interventions that improve stent efficacy and to address the multidimensional challenges of eating and nutrition in this patient population. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12376468 and Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01915693. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

PATHOS is a phase II/III randomized controlled trial (RCT) of risk-stratified, reduced intensity adjuvant treatment in patients undergoing transoral surgery (TOS) for human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC). The study opened in the UK in October 2015 and, after successful recruitment into the phase II, transitioned into phase III in the autumn of 2018. PATHOS aims to establish whether the de-intensification of adjuvant treatment in patients with favorable prognosis HPV-positive OPSCC will confer improved swallowing outcomes, whilst maintaining high rates of cure. In this article, we will outline the rationale for the study and how it aims to answer fundamentally important questions about the safety, effectiveness and functional outcomes of minimally invasive TOS techniques followed by adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) or chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) in this patient population.

The aim of this work was to investigate radiomic analysis of contrast and non-contrast enhanced planning CT images of oesophageal cancer (OC) patients in terms of stability, dimensionality and contrast agent dependency. The prognostic significance of CT-based radiomic features was also evaluated. Different 2D and 3D radiomic features were extracted from contrast and non-contrast enhanced CT images of 213 patients from the multi-centre SCOPE1 randomised controlled trial (RCT) in OC. Feature stability was evaluated by randomly dividing patients into three groups and identifying textures with similar distributions among groups with a Kruskal-Wallis analysis. A paired two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to assess for significant differences in the remaining corresponding 2D and 3D stable features. A prognostic model was constructed using clinical characteristics and remaining filtered features. The discriminative ability of significant variables was tested using Kaplan-Meier analysis. A total of 238 2D and 3D radiomic features were computed from oesophageal CT images. More than 75 features were stable if extracted from homogeneous cohort (contrast or non-contrast enhanced CT images) and inhomogeneous cohort (contrast and non-contrast enhanced CT images). Among the remaining corresponding stable features computed from both cohorts, only 4 features did not show a statistically significant difference if obtained in 2D or in 3D (p-value < 0.05). A Cox regression model constructed using 5 clinical variables (age, sex, tumour, node and metastasis (TNM) stage, WHO performance status and contrast administration) and 4 radiomic variables (inverse varianceGLCM, large distance emphasisGLDZM, zone distance non uniformity normGLDZM, zone distance varianceGLDZM), identified one radiomic feature (zone distance varianceGLDZM) that was significantly associated with overall survival (p-value = 0.032, HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.02–1.52). A significant difference in overall survival between groups was found when considering a threshold of zone distance varianceGLDZM equals to 1.70 (X2 = 7.692, df = 1, p-value = 0.006). Zone distance varianceGLDZM was identified as the only stable CT radiomic feature statistically correlated with overall survival, independent of dimensionality and contrast administration. This feature was able to identify high-risk patients and if validated, could be the subject of a future clinical trial aiming to improve clinical decision making and personalise OC treatment.

Background: The ELCID (Early Lung Cancer Investigation and Diagnosis) trial was a feasibility randomised controlled trial examining the effect on lung cancer diagnosis of lowering the threshold for referral for urgent chest x-ray for smokers and recent ex-smokers, aged over 60 years with new chest symptoms. The qualitative component aimed to explore the feasibility of individually randomising patients to an urgent chest x-ray or not and to investigate any barriers to patient recruitment and participation. We integrated this within the feasibility trial to inform the design of any future definitive trial, particularly in view of the lack of research exploring symptomatic patients’ experiences of participating in diagnostic trials for possible/suspected lung cancer. Although previous studies contributed valuable information concerning screening for lung cancer and patient participation in trials, this paper is the first to explore issues relating to this specific patient group.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 patients, comprising 9 who had been randomised to receive an immediate chest x-ray, 10 who were randomised to receive the standard treatment according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, and 2 who chose not to participate in the trial. Interviews were analysed using a framework approach.\ud \ud \ud \ud Results: The findings of this analysis showed that altruism, personal benefit and the reassurance of not having lung cancer were important factors in patient participation. However, patients largely believed that being in the intervention arm was more beneficial, highlighting a lack of understanding of clinical equipoise. Disincentives to participation in the trial included the stigmatisation of patients who smoked (given the inclusion criteria). Although the majority of patients reported that they were happy with the trial design, there was evidence of poor understanding. Last, for several patients, placing trust in health professionals was preferred to understanding the trial processes.\ud \ud \ud \ud Conclusions: The integration of a qualitative study focusing on participant experience as a secondary outcome of a feasibility trial enabled exploration of patient response to participation and recruitment. The study demonstrated that although it is feasible to recruit patients to the ELCID trial, more work needs to be done to ensure an understanding of study principles and also of smoking stigmatisation.\ud \ud \ud \ud Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01344005. Registered on 27 April 2011.

BACKGROUND: Achieving earlier stage diagnosis is one option for improving lung cancer outcomes in the United Kingdom. Patients with lung cancer typically present with symptoms to general practitioners several times before referral or investigation. METHODS: We undertook a mixed methods feasibility individually randomised controlled trial (the ELCID trial) to assess the feasibility and inform the design of a definitive, fully powered, UK-wide, Phase III trial of lowering the threshold for urgent investigation of suspected lung cancer. Patients over 60, with a smoking history, presenting with new chest symptoms to primary care, were eligible to be randomised to intervention (urgent chest X-ray) or usual care. RESULTS: The trial design and materials were acceptable to GPs and patients. We randomised 255 patients from 22 practices, although the proportion of eligible patients who participated was lower than expected. Survey responses (89%), and the fidelity of the intervention (82% patients X-rayed within 3 weeks) were good. There was slightly higher anxiety and depression in the control arm in participants aged >75. Three patients (1.2%) were diagnosed with lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated the feasibility of individually randomising patients at higher risk of lung cancer, to a trial offering urgent investigation or usual care.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication 10 January 2017; doi:10.1038/bjc.2016.414 www.bjcancer.com.

Aims\ud \ud \ud Gastrointestinal toxicity impedes dose escalation in chemoradiotherapy for hepatobiliary malignancies. Toxicity risk depends on clinical and radiotherapy metrics. We aimed to identify predictive factors using data from two prospective phase II clinical trials of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC).\ud \ud \ud \ud Materials and methods\ud \ud \ud Ninety-one patients with available data from the ARCII (59.4 Gy in 33 fractions with gemcitabine, cisplatin and nelfinavir, n = 23) and SCALOP (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with capecitabine or gemcitabine, n = 74) trials were studied. The independent variables analysed comprised age, sex, performance status, baseline symptoms, tumour size, weight loss, chemotherapy regimen and dose–volume histogram of stomach and duodenum in 5 Gy bins. The outcome measures used were Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade and risk of CTCAE grade ≥2 acute upper gastrointestinal toxicity (anorexia, pain, nausea and/or vomiting). The risk of CTCAE grade ≥2 events was modelled using multivariable logistic regression and prediction of severity grade using ordinal regression.\ud \ud \ud \ud Results\ud \ud \ud CTCAE grade ≥2 symptoms occurred in 38 patients (42%). On univariate analysis, stomach V35–45Gy was predictive of risk (odds ratio 1.035, 95% confidence interval 1.007–1.063) and grade (1.023, 1.003–1.044) of toxicity. The area under the curve was 0.632 (0.516–0.747) with toxicity risk 33/66 (50%) above and 5/25 (20%) below the optimal discriminatory threshold (7.1 cm3). Using a threshold of 30 cm3, risk was 13/20 (65%) versus 25/71 (35%). The optimal multivariable logistic regression model incorporated patient sex, chemotherapy regimen and stomach V35–45Gy. Receiving gemcitabine rather than capecitabine (odds ratio 3.965, 95% confidence interval 1.274–12.342) and weight loss during induction chemotherapy (1.216, 1.043–1.419) were significant predictors for the SCALOP cohort, whereas age predicted toxicity risk in ARCII only (1.344, 1.015–1.780). Duodenum dose–volume did not predict toxicity risk or severity in any cohort.\ud \ud \ud \ud Conclusions\ud \ud \ud In chemoradiotherapy for LAPC the volume of stomach irradiated to a moderately high dose (35–45 Gy) predicts the incidence and severity of acute toxicity. Other predictive factors can include age, sex, recent weight loss and concomitant chemotherapy agents.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the trade-off in tumor coverage and organ-at-risk sparing when applying dose escalation for concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CRT) of mid-esophageal cancer, using radiobiological modeling to estimate local control and normal tissue toxicity. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-one patients with mid-esophageal cancer were selected from the SCOPE1 database (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials number 47718479), with a mean planning target volume (PTV) of 327 cm(3). A boost volume, PTV2 (GTV + 0.5 cm margin), was created. Radiobiological modeling of tumor control probability (TCP) estimated the dose required for a clinically significant (+20%) increase in local control as 62.5 Gy/25 fractions. A RapidArc (RA) plan with a simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) to PTV2 (RA62.5) was compared to a standard dose plan of 50 Gy/25 fractions (RA50). Dose-volume metrics and estimates of normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for heart and lungs were compared. RESULTS: Clinically acceptable dose escalation was feasible for 16 of 21 patients, with significant gains (>18%) in tumor control from 38.2% (RA50) to 56.3% (RA62.5), and only a small increase in predicted toxicity: median heart NTCP 4.4% (RA50) versus 5.6% (RA62.5) P

BACKGROUND: Both oxaliplatin/capecitabine-based chemoradiation (OXCAP-RT) and carboplatin-paclitaxel based radiation (CarPac-RT) are active regimens in oesophageal adenocarcinoma, but no randomised study has compared their efficacy and toxicity. This randomised phase II "pick a winner" trial will identify the optimum regimen to take forward to a future phase III trial against neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, the current standard in the UK. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus or Siewert Type 1-2 gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ), ≥T3 and/or ≥ N1 are eligible for the study. Following two cycles of induction OXCAP chemotherapy (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 D1, Cape 625 mg/m(2) D1-21, q 3 wk), patients are randomised 1:1 to OXCAP-RT (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) Day 1,15,29; capecitabine 625 mg/m(2) twice daily on days of RT; RT-45 Gy/25 fractions/5 weeks) or CarPac-RT (Carboplatin AUC2 and paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 Day 1,8,15,22,29; RT-45 Gy/25 fractions/5 weeks). Restaging CT/PET-CT is performed 4-6 weeks after CRT, and a two-phase oesophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy is performed six to eight weeks after CRT. The primary end-point is pathological complete response rate (pCR) at resection and will include central review. Secondary endpoints include: recruitment rate, toxicity, 30-day surgical morbidity/mortality, resection margin positivity rate and overall survival (median, 3- and 5-yr OS. 76 patients (38/arm) gives 90% power and one-sided type 1 error of 10% if patients on one novel treatment have a response rate of 35% while the second treatment has a response rate of 15%. A detailed RT Quality Assurance (RTQA) programme includes a detailed RT protocol and guidance document, pre-accrual RT workshop, outlining exercise, and central evaluation of contouring and planning. This trial has been funded by Cancer Research UK (C44694/A14614), sponsored by Velindre NHS Trust and conducted through the Wales Cancer Trials Unit at Cardiff University on behalf of the NCRI Upper GI CSG. DISCUSSION: Following encouraging results from previous trials, there is an interest in neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and CRT containing regimens for treatment of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. NEOSCOPE will first establish the efficacy, safety and feasibility of two different neo-adjuvant CRT regimens prior to a potential phase III trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Eudract No: 2012-000640-10. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01843829 .

Background In order to improve lung cancer survival in the UK, a greater proportion of resectable cancers must be diagnosed. It is likely that resectability rates would be increased by more timely diagnosis. Aside from screening, the only way of achieving this is to reduce the time to diagnosis in symptomatic cancers. Currently, lung cancers are mainly diagnosed by general practitioners (GPs) using the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for urgent referral for chest X-ray, which recommend urgent imaging or referral for patients who have one of a number of chest symptoms for more than 3 weeks. We are proposing to expand this recommendation to include one of a number of chest symptoms of any duration in higher-risk patients. Methods/Design We intend to conduct a trial of imaging in these higher-risk patients and compare it with NICE guidelines to see if imaging improves stage at diagnosis and resection rates. This trial would have to be large (and consequently resource-intensive) because most of these patients will not have lung cancer, making optimal design crucial. We are therefore conducting a pilot trial that will ascertain the feasibility of running a full trial and provide key information that will be required in order to design the full trial. Discussion This trial will assess the feasibility and inform the design of a large, UK-wide, clinical trial of a change to the NICE guidelines for urgent referral for chest X-ray for suspected lung cancer. It utilizes a combination of workshop, health economic, quality of life, qualitative, and quantitative methods in order to fully assess feasibility. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01344005

BACKGROUND: In the UK, chemotherapy is the standard treatment for inoperable, locally advanced, non-metastatic pancreatic cancer. Chemoradiotherapy is also an acceptable treatment option, for which gemcitabine, fluorouracil, or capecitabine can be used as concurrent chemotherapy agents. We aimed to assess the activity, safety, and feasibility of both gemcitabine-based and capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy after induction chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, two-arm, phase 2 trial, patients aged 18 years or older with histologically proven, locally advanced pancreatic cancer (with a tumour diameter of 7 cm or less) were recruited from 28 UK centres between Dec 24, 2009 and Oct 25, 2011. After 12 weeks of induction gemcitabine and capecitabine chemotherapy (three cycles of gemcitabine [1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle] and capecitabine [830 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle]), patients with stable or responding disease, tumour diameter of 6 cm or less, and WHO performance status 0-1 were randomly assigned to receive a further cycle of gemcitabine and capecitabine chemotherapy followed by either gemcitabine (300 mg/m(2) once per week) or capecitabine (830 mg/m(2) twice daily, Monday to Friday only), both in combination with radiation (50·4 Gy in 28 fractions). Randomisation (1:1) was done via a central computerised system and used stratified minimisation. The primary endpoint was 9-month progression-free survival, analysed by intention to treat including only those patients with valid CT assessments. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 96169987. FINDINGS: 114 patients were registered and 74 were randomly allocated (38 to the gemcitabine group and 36 to the capecitabine group). After 9 months, 22 of 35 assessable patients (62·9%, 80% CI 50·6-73·9) in the capecitabine group and 18 of 35 assessable patients (51·4%, 39·4-63·4) in the gemcitabine group had not progressed. Median overall survival was 15·2 months (95% CI 13·9-19·2) in the capecitabine group and 13·4 months (95% CI 11·0-15·7) in the gemcitabine group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·39, 95% CI 0·18-0·81; p=0·012). 12-month overall survival was 79·2% (95% CI 61·1-89·5) in the capecitabine group and 64·2 (95% CI 46·4-77·5) in the gemcitabine group. Median progression-free survival was 12·0 months (95% CI 10·2-14·6) in the capecitabine group and 10·4 months (95% CI 8·9-12·5) in the gemcitabine group (adjusted HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·32-1·12; p=0·11). Eight patients in the capecitabine group had an objective response at 26 weeks, as did seven in the gemcitabine group. More patients in the gemcitabine group than in the capecitabine group had grade 3-4 haematological toxic effects (seven [18%] vs none, p=0·008) and non-haematological toxic effects (ten [26%] vs four [12%], p=0·12) during chemoradiation treatment; the most frequent events were leucopenia, neutropenia, and fatigue. Two patients in the capecitabine group progressed during the fourth cycle of induction chemotherapy. Of the 34 patients in the capecitabine group who received chemoradiotherapy, 25 (74%) received the full protocol dose of radiotherapy, compared with 26 (68%) of 38 patients in the gemcitabine group. Quality-of-life scores were not significantly different between the treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that a capecitabine-based regimen might be preferable to a gemcitabine-based regimen in the context of consolidation chemoradiotherapy after a course of induction chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution because the difference in the primary endpoint was non-significant and the number of patients in the trial was small. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

BACKGROUND: A new protocol for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing within the UK cervical screening programme commenced in April 2011, creating new patient experiences. This is the first review to synthesise a substantial body of international evidence of women's information needs, views and preferences regarding HPV testing. We aimed to inform the development of educational materials to promote informed choice, reduce anxiety and improve disease control.METHODS: We searched 12 bibliographic databases. Two reviewers independently screened papers and assessed study quality; disagreements were resolved by discussion. Results were extracted verbatim and authors' findings treated as primary data. Studies were synthesised collaboratively using framework methods.RESULTS: We synthesised findings from 17 studies. Women had overwhelmingly negative concerns; an HPV diagnosis was daunting, had associated problems of disclosure of a sexually transmitted infection (STI), impacted on relationships and provoked fear of stigmatisation. Nevertheless, many thought HPV testing could be a preferable alternative to repeat cytology. Knowledge was poor; women struggled to interpret limited information in the context of existing knowledge about STIs and cervical cancer.CONCLUSION: Women are likely to be poorly informed, have limited understanding and many unanswered questions. This could increase anxiety and reduce ability to make informed choices, presenting a substantial challenge for those who design and provide information. British Journal of Cancer (2012) 107, 243-254. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.256 www.bjcancer.com Published online 14 June 2012 (c) 2012 Cancer Research UK

Objectives To assess the effect of vitamin A supplementation in women of reproductive age in Ghana on cause- and age-specific infant mortality. In addition, because of recently published studies from Guinea Bissau, effects on infant mortality by sex and season were assessed. Design Double-blind, cluster-randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Setting 7 contiguous districts in the Brong Ahafo region of Ghana. Participants All women of reproductive age (15–45 years) resident in the study area randomised by cluster of residence. All live born infants from 1 June 2003 to 30 September 2008 followed up through 4-weekly home visits. Intervention Weekly low-dose (25 000 IU) vitamin A. Main outcome measures Early infant mortality (1–5 months); late infant mortality (6–11 months); infection-specific infant mortality (0–11 months). Results 1086 clusters, 62 662 live births, 52 574 infant-years and 3268 deaths yielded HRs (95% CIs) comparing weekly vitamin A with placebo: 1.04 (0.88 to 1.05) early infant mortality; 0.99 (0.84 to 1.18) late infant mortality; 1.03 (0.92 to 1.16) infection-specific infant mortality. There was no evidence of modification of the effect of vitamin A supplementation on infant mortality by sex (Wald statistic =0.07, p=0.80) or season (Wald statistic =0.03, p=0.86). Conclusions This is the largest analysis of cause of infant deaths from Africa to date. Weekly vitamin A supplementation in women of reproductive age has no beneficial or deleterious effect on the causes of infant death to age 6 or 12 months in rural Ghana. Trial registration number http://ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00211341., Article summary Article focus This paper reports the results of planned (a priori) analyses of the effect of vitamin A supplementation in women of reproductive age on cause- and age-specific infant mortality in the ObaapaVitA trial. In addition, because of the recent interest in potential differential effects, we also assessed effects by sex and season. Key messages The analyses from this trial indicate that weekly vitamin A supplementation in women of reproductive age has no beneficial or deleterious effect on the causes of death in their babies of age 6 or 12 months, no effect on infection-specific infant mortality and no role for inclusion in child survival programs in Asia and Africa. We also failed to demonstrate any benefit or harm from vitamin A supplementation in women of reproductive age and in infant males or females in our study population. There was also no modification of the effect of vitamin A supplementation and mortality by season. Strengths and limitations of this study There were some limitations to our trial. There was no direct observation of capsule taking; however, adherence was supported by an extensive Information, Education and Communication strategy, and we estimated that on average 75% of women both received and took all four capsules every month. We also used verbal postmortems (VPMs) and physician coders to assign cause of death, and it was not possible to use health facility records or postmortem examinations to verify the cause of death. Misclassification is common in VPM studies, but this can be minimised when broad categories such as ‘infection’, ‘prematurity’ and ‘asphyxia’ are used. Our VPM tools were also validated in similar study populations, and acceptable sensitivity and specificity were reported in comparison to a gold standard. Strengths included the fact that our study was large (62 000 infants) prospective and population-based. All resident women in the trial districts and their babies were enrolled, and loss to follow-up was low, even in women with babies who had died.

Background In a non-inferiority (NI) trial, analysis based on the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle is anti-conservative, so current guidelines recommend analysing on a per-protocol (PP) population in addition. However, PP analysis relies on the often implausible assumption of no confounders. Randomisation-based efficacy estimators (RBEEs) allow for treatment non-adherence while maintaining a comparison of randomised groups. Fischer et al. have developed an approach for estimating RBEEs in randomised trials with two active treatments, a common feature of NI trials. The aim of this paper was to demonstrate the use of RBEEs in NI trials using this approach, and to appraise the feasibility of these estimators as the primary analysis in NI trials. Methods Two NI trials were used. One comparing two different dosing regimens for the maintenance of remission in people with ulcerative colitis (CODA), and the other comparing an orally administered treatment to an intravenously administered treatment in preventing skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer (ZICE). Variables that predicted adherence in each of the trial arms, and were also independent of outcome, were sought in each of the studies. Structural mean models (SMMs) were fitted that conditioned on these variables, and the point estimates and confidence intervals compared to that found in the corresponding ITT and PP analyses. Results In the CODA study, no variables were found that differentially predicted treatment adherence while remaining independent of outcome. The SMM, using standard methodology, moved the point estimate closer to 0 (no difference between arms) compared to the ITT and PP analyses, but the confidence interval was still within the NI margin, indicating that the conclusions drawn would remain the same. In the ZICE study, cognitive functioning as measured by the corresponding domain of the QLQ-C30, and use of chemotherapy at baseline were both differentially associated with adherence while remaining independent of outcome. However, while the SMM again moved the point estimate closer to 0, the confidence interval was wide, overlapping with any NI margin that could be justified. Conclusion Deriving RBEEs in NI trials with two active treatments can provide a randomisation-respecting estimate of treatment efficacy that accounts for treatment adherence, is straightforward to implement, but requires thorough planning during the design stage of the study to ensure that strong baseline predictors of treatment are captured. Extension of the approach to handle nonlinear outcome variables is also required. Trial registration The CODA study: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00708656. Registered on 8 April 2008. The ZICE study trial: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00326820. Registered on 16 May 2006. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1837-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the risk of adverse birth outcomes associated with residence near landfill sites in Great Britain. DESIGN: Geographical study of risks of adverse birth outcomes in populations living within 2 km of 9565 landfill sites operational at some time between 1982 and 1997 (from a total of 19 196 sites) compared with those living further away. SETTING: Great Britain. SUBJECTS: Over 8.2 million live births, 43 471 stillbirths, and 124 597 congenital anomalies (including terminations). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All congenital anomalies combined, some specific anomalies, and prevalence of low and very low birth weight (

Background Chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care for patients with oesophageal cancer unsuitable for surgery due to the presence of co-morbidity or extent of disease, and is a standard treatment option for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus. Modern regimens of chemoradiotherapy can lead to significant long-term survival. However the majority of patients will die of their disease, most commonly with local progression/recurrence of their tumours. Cetuximab may overcome one of the principal mechanisms of tumour radio-resistance, namely tumour repopulation, in patients treated with chemoradiotherapy. The purpose of this research is first to determine whether the addition of cetuximab to definitive chemoradiotherapy for treatment of patients with non-metastatic carcinoma of the oesophagus is active (in terms of failure-free rate), safe, and feasible within the context of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial in the UK. If the first stage is successful then the trial will continue to accrue sufficient patients to establish whether the addition of cetuximab to the standard treatment improves overall survival. Methods/Design SCOPE1 is a two arm, open, randomised multicentre Phase II/III trial. Eligible patients will have histologically confirmed carcinoma of the oesophagus and have been chosen to receive definitive chemoradiotherapy by an accredited multidisciplinary team including a specialist Upper GI surgeon. 420 patients will be randomised to receive definitive chemoradiotherapy with or without cetuximab using a 1:1 allocation ratio. During Phase II of the study, the trial will assess safety (toxicity), activity (failure-free rate) and feasibility (recruitment rate and protocol dose modifications/delays) in 90 patients in the experimental arm. If the experimental arm is found to be active, safe, and feasible by the Independent Data Monitoring Committee then recruitment will continue into Phase III. This second stage will recruit a further 120 patients into each arm and compare the overall survival of both groups. All patients randomised into Phase II will contribute to the Phase III comparison of overall survival. In addition to overall survival, Phase III of the study will also assess toxicity, health related quality of life and cost effectiveness. A detailed radiotherapy protocol and quality assurance procedure has been incorporated into this trial. Trial registration ISRCTN: ISRCTN47718479

Background\ud The ELCID Trial is a feasibility randomised controlled\ud trial examining the effect on lung cancer diagnosis of\ud giving an urgent chest x-ray to smokers, and recent exsmokers,\ud aged over 60 with new chest symptoms.\ud Aims\ud The qualitative component explores the feasibility of\ud individually randomising patients to an urgent CXR or\ud not and investigates any barriers to patient participation.\ud Methods\ud To date we have conducted semi-structured interviews\ud with six primary care staff (practice managers, research\ud nurses), ten patients randomised to ‘extra-NICE’ guidelines\ud for referral for urgent chest x-ray, and six patients\ud randomised to ‘usual care’ (NICE guidelines)). We hope\ud to also interview patients who decline randomisation.\ud Interviews were analysed using a Framework approach.\ud Results\ud Initial analysis indicated that practices have struggled to\ud recruit patients, partly due to the eligibility criteria that\ud requires ex-smokers to have stopped smoking within the\ud last five years. Practices with a research nurse have\ud recruited the most patients. Patients indicated that they\ud are happy to take part in the trial and their anxiety\ud levels were not raised. Most patients hoped to be\ud randomised to urgent chest x-ray, although those who\ud were not did not go back to their GP to request one.\ud Conclusions\ud Eligibility criteria needed revision to include ex-smokers\ud of any duration. These preliminary findings suggest that\ud the trial appears to be feasible and patients are happy to\ud accept randomisation. The findings will inform the\ud design of the main trial in the future.