Search

Objectives Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM) remains a major oncological challenge with limited therapeutic options. HSV1716 is a replication restricted oncolytic herpes simplex virus with anti-tumor effects in multiple cell lines including MPM. Intrapleural treatment appeals because MPM is typically multifocal but confined to the pleura, and distant metastases are uncommon. We assessed the safety and possible efficacy of intrapleural HSV1716 for inoperable MPM. Materials and methods Patients with MPM received 1 × 107iu HSV1716 injected via an indwelling intrapleural catheter (IPC) on one, two or four occasions a week apart. The primary endpoint was the safety and tolerability of HSV1716. Secondary endpoints were assessment of HSV1716 replication, detection of immune response and evaluation of tumor response. Results Of thirteen patients enrolled, five had received previous pemetrexed-cisplatin chemotherapy, and eight were chemotherapy naive. Three patients were enrolled to receive one dose, three patients to two doses and seven patients to four doses. The treatment was well-tolerated with few virus-related adverse events and no dose limiting toxicities. Twelve patients were evaluable for response, as one patient withdrew early after a catheter fracture. There was evidence of viral replication/persistence in pleural fluid in seven of the twelve patients. Induction of Th1 cytokine responses to HSV1716 treatment occurred in eight patients and four patients developed novel anti-tumor IgG. No objective responses were observed but disease stabilization was reported in 50 % of patients at 8 weeks. Conclusions Intrapleural HSV1716 was well-tolerated and demonstrated an anti-tumor immune response in MPM patients. These results provide a rationale for further studies with this agent in MPM and in combination with other therapies.

Objectives\ud \ud Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) responds well to chemoradiotherapy but frequently relapses. Here, we evaluate activity and safety of the poly (adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib as maintenance treatment for patients with chemoresponsive SCLC.\ud \ud \ud \ud Materials and methods\ud \ud Eligible patients had complete or partial response to first line chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for SCLC. Patients were randomised 2:2:1:1 to olaparib 300 mg twice a day (BD), olaparib 200 mg three times a day (TDS), placebo BD or placebo TDS. The primary outcome was progression-free survival time (PFS). The trial design had 80% power to detect a 3-month difference in median PFS based on a one-sided 5% significance level. Secondary outcome measures included overall survival time (OS), adverse events and quality of life.\ud \ud \ud \ud ISRCTN 73164486, EudraCT 2010-021165-76.\ud \ud \ud \ud Results\ud \ud 220 patients were randomised: 74 placebo, 73 olaparib BD, 73 olaparib TDS. Median PFS (90% confidence interval (CI)) was 2·5 (1·8, 3·7), 3·7 (3·1, 4·6) and 3·6 (2·8, 4·7) months in the placebo, olaparib BD and TDS arms, respectively. There was no significant difference in PFS between olaparib and placebo for either BD (Hazard Ratio (HR) (90%CI) 0·76 (0·57, 1·02), P = 0·125 or TDS 0·86, (0·64, 1·15), P = 0·402. Common adverse events on olaparib were fatigue, nausea, anaemia, vomiting and anorexia. Of 214 patients who discontinued treatment before 24 months, toxicity was the reason cited for 66 (18 placebo, 24 olaparib BD, 24 olaparib TDS).\ud \ud \ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud This trial does not provide sufficient evidence that either the BD or TDS regimen for maintenance olaparib monotherapy improves PFS or OS in an unselected SCLC population to warrant further research. Toxicity for olaparib was similar to other studies.

PURPOSE SORCE is an international, randomized, double-blind, three-arm trial of sorafenib after surgical excision of primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) found to be at intermediate or high risk of recurrence. PATIENTS AND METHODS We randomly assigned participants (2:3:3) to 3 years of placebo (arm A), 1 year of sorafenib followed by 2 years of placebo (arm B), or 3 years of sorafenib (arm C). The initial sorafenib dose was 400 mg twice per day orally, amended to 400 mg daily. The primary outcome analysis, which was revised as a result of external results, was investigator-reported disease-free survival (DFS) comparing 3 years of sorafenib versus placebo. RESULTS Between July 2007 and April 2013, we randomly assigned 1,711 participants (430, 642, and 639 participants in arms A, B, and C, respectively). Median age was 58 years, 71% of patients were men, 84% had clear cell histology, 53% were at intermediate risk of recurrence, and 47% were at high risk of recurrence. We observed no differences in DFS or overall survival in all randomly assigned patients, patients with high risk of recurrence, or patients with clear cell RCC only. Median DFS was not reached for 3 years of sorafenib or for placebo (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.23; P = .95). We observed nonproportional hazards; the restricted mean survival time (RMST) was 6.81 years for 3 years of sorafenib and 6.82 years for placebo (RMST difference, 0.01 year; 95% CI, −0.49 to 0.48 year; P = .99). Despite offering treatment adaptations, more than half of participants stopped treatment by 12 months. Grade 3 hand-foot skin reaction was reported in 24% of participants on sorafenib. CONCLUSION Sorafenib should not be used as adjuvant therapy for RCC. Active surveillance remains the standard of care for patients at intermediate or high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy and is the appropriate control of our current international adjuvant RCC trial, RAMPART.

Background SORCE is a randomised, double-blind trial of sorafenib after surgical excision of primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at intermediate or high risk of recurrence (Leibovich classification). Methods We recruited patients from 147 sites in the UK, Australia, France, Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands and Spain and randomised them (2:3:3) between three years of placebo (A), one year of sorafenib followed by two years of placebo (B) and three years of sorafenib (C). The initial sorafenib dose was 400mg twice per day orally, amended during trial recruitment to a reduced starting dose of 400mg daily. The primary outcome is investigator-reported disease-free survival (DFS). Given the results of the ASSURE and S-TRAC trials, and blinded to SORCE outcomes, we revised the primary analysis to compare three years of sorafenib (arm C) vs placebo (arm A) to focus on the question of longer exposure to sorafenib. Results Between July 2007 and April 2013, we randomised 1711 patients; 430, 642, and 639 to arms A, B, and C respectively. Median age was 58 years; 71% male, 84% clear cell histology, 53% at intermediate risk of recurrence and 47% at high risk of recurrence. We observed no differences in DFS or OS in any of our pre-planned and pre-powered analyses: all randomised patients, high-risk patients only, and patients with clear cell RCC only. Median DFS was not reached for three years sorafenib or for placebo (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.83 -1.23, p=0.95). We observed non-proportional hazards: restricted mean survival time (RMST) was 6.81 years for three years of sorafenib and 6.82 years for placebo, RMST difference 0.01, 95% CI -0.49 – 0.48, p=0.99. Despite offering treatment adaptations, over half of patients stopped treatment early. Grade 3 hand-foot syndrome was reported in 24% of patients on sorafenib. Conclusions Sorafenib should not be used as adjuvant therapy for RCC. Active surveillance remains the standard of care for patients at intermediate or high risk of recurrence following nephrectomy; it is the appropriate control of our current international adjuvant RCC trial, RAMPART. Clinical trial identification ISRCTN38934710; EudraCT: 2006-006079-19; NCT00492258. Legal entity responsible for the study University College London (UCL). Funding Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Educational Grants and Drug Supply from Bayer, Cancer Australia Support for Cancer Clinical Trials Program and University College London. Disclosure T.Q.G. Eisen: Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (self): Bayer; Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (self): Pfizer; Research grant / Funding (self), Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self): Novartis; Honoraria (self): GSK; Honoraria (self): AVEO; Honoraria (self): Astellas; Honoraria (self): Boehringer Ingelheim. I.D. Davis: Research grant / Funding (institution): Astellas Pharma; Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche / Genentech; Research grant / Funding (institution): MSD Oncology; Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Research grant / Funding (institution): Janssen Oncology; Research grant / Funding (institution): Eisai; Research grant / Funding (institution): Bayer; Research grant / Funding (institution): Amgen; Research grant / Funding (institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb. M.R. Stockler: Research grant / Funding (institution): Bayer; Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Research grant / Funding (institution): Astellas; Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Research grant / Funding (institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb; Research grant / Funding (institution): Binomics; Research grant / Funding (institution): Celgene; Research grant / Funding (institution): Medivation; Research grant / Funding (institution): Sanofi; Research grant / Funding (institution): Tilray. J.M.G. Larkin: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): MSD; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Achilles Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche; Research grant / Funding (institution): Nektar Therapeutics; Research grant / Funding (institution): Covance; Research grant / Funding (institution): Immunocore; Research grant / Funding (institution): Pharmacyclics; Research grant / Funding (institution): Aveo; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Boston Biomedical; Advisory / Consultancy: Eisai; Advisory / Consultancy: EUSA Pharma; Advisory / Consultancy: GSK; Advisory / Consultancy: Ipsen; Advisory / Consultancy: Imugene; Advisory / Consultancy: Incyte; Advisory / Consultancy: iOnctura. A. Bex: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy, Non-remunerated activity/ies: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Ipsen; Advisory / Consultancy: Eusa; Non-remunerated activity/ies: Roche. S. Joniau: Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (institution): Astellas ; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (institution): Bayer; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (institution): Ferring; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: GSK; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Ipsen; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (institution): Janssen; Research grant / Funding (institution): MDX Health; Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Sanofi. J. Bellmunt: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Genentech; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self), Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Pierre-Fabre; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Janssen; Honoraria (self), Honoraria (institution), Research grant / Funding (self), Research grant / Funding (institution): Takeda; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: Biocline. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background Clarity and accuracy of the pharmacy aspects of cancer clinical trial protocols is essential. Inconsistencies and ambiguities in such protocols have the potential to delay research and jeopardise both patient safety and collection of credible data. The Chemotherapy and Pharmacy Advisory Service was established by the UK National Cancer Research Network, currently known as National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network, to improve the quality of pharmacy-related content in cancer clinical research protocols. This article reports the scope of Chemotherapy and Pharmacy Advisory Service, its methodology of mandated protocol review and pharmacy-related guidance initiatives and its current impact. Methods Over a 6-year period (2008–2013) since the inception of Chemotherapy and Pharmacy Advisory Service, cancer clinical trial protocols were reviewed by the service, prior to implementation at clinical trial sites. A customised Review Checklist was developed and used by a panel of experts to standardise the review process and report back queries and inconsistencies to chief investigators. Based on common queries, a Standard Protocol Template comprising specific guidance on drug-related content and a Pharmacy Manual Template were developed. In addition, a guidance framework was established to address ‘ad hoc’ pharmacy-related queries. The most common remarks made at protocol review have been summarised and categorised through retrospective analysis. In order to evaluate the impact of the service, chief investigators were asked to respond to queries made at protocol review and make appropriate changes to their protocols. Responses from chief investigators have been collated and acceptance rates determined. Results A total of 176 protocols were reviewed. The median number of remarks per protocol was 26, of which 20 were deemed clinically relevant and mainly concerned the drug regimen, support medication, frequency and type of monitoring and drug supply aspects. Further analysis revealed that 62% of chief investigators responded to the review. All responses were positive with an overall acceptance rate of 89% of the proposed protocol changes. Conclusion Review of pharmacy content of cancer clinical trial protocols is feasible and exposes many undetected clinically relevant issues that could hinder efficient trial conduct. Our service audit revealed that the majority of suggestions were effectively incorporated in the final protocols. The refinement of existing and development of new pharmacy-related guidance documents by Chemotherapy and Pharmacy Advisory Service might aid in better and safer clinical research.

Background:\ud \ud Molecular characteristics of cancer vary between individuals. In future, most trials will require assessment of biomarkers to allocate patients into enriched populations in which targeted therapies are more likely to be effective. The MRC FOCUS3 trial is a feasibility study to assess key elements in the planning of such studies.\ud \ud \ud Patients and Methods:\ud \ud Patients with advanced colorectal cancer were registered from 24 centres between February 2010 and April 2011. With their consent, patients’ tumour samples were analysed for KRAS/BRAF oncogene mutation status and topoisomerase 1 (topo-1) immunohistochemistry. Patients were then classified into one of four molecular strata; within each strata patients were randomised to one of two hypothesis-driven experimental therapies or a common control arm (FOLFIRI chemotherapy). A 4-stage suite of patient information sheets (PISs) was developed to avoid patient overload.\ud \ud \ud Results:\ud \ud A total of 332 patients were registered, 244 randomised. Among randomised patients, biomarker results were provided within 10 working days (w.d.) in 71%, 15 w.d. in 91% and 20 w.d. in 99%. DNA mutation analysis was 100% concordant between two laboratories. Over 90% of participants reported excellent understanding of all aspects of the trial. In this randomised phase II setting, omission of irinotecan in the low topo-1 group was associated with increased response rate and addition of cetuximab in the KRAS, BRAF wild-type cohort was associated with longer progression-free survival.\ud \ud \ud Conclusions:\ud \ud Patient samples can be collected and analysed within workable time frames and with reproducible mutation results. Complex multi-arm designs are acceptable to patients with good PIS. Randomisation within each cohort provides outcome data that can inform clinical practice.

Aim: The Chemotherapy and Pharmacy Advisory Service (CPAS) was established in 2007 by the UK National Cancer Research Network (NCRN) to improve the quality of pharmacy-related issues in clinical research protocols. We report the scope and methodology of the CPAS, and its impact on the quality of clinical research protocols. Methods: All clinical research protocols were independently reviewed by a minimum of three health professionals including at least one oncology pharmacist, using a customised protocol review checklist (assessing 12 areas of clinical oncology/pharmacy). A collated review was subsequently drafted by the CPAS pharmacy advisor and returned to the chief investigators. A working party performed a systematic review of all protocol reviews conducted by CPAS during the 6-year period since its inception (2008-2013) and categorised the remarks. A service evaluation audit was conducted to check response rate and acceptance rate of the proposed changes with chief investigators. Results: During the 6 year systematic review period a total of 176 clinical research protocols were reviewed. The median number of remarks per protocol was 26 of which 20 were deemed clinically relevant. The majority of clinically relevant remarks concerned the drug regimen, guidelines concerning support medication, frequency and type of monitoring and drug supply aspects. Further analysis of the 176 protocols reviewed revealed that 62% of chief investigators responded to the review. All responses were positive with an overall acceptance rate of 89% of the proposed protocol changes. Conclusions: Review of pharmacy aspects regarding clinical cancer research protocols is feasible and reveals many undetected clinically relevant issues that could hinder efficient trial conduct. Our service audit revealed that the very large majority of suggestions were effectively incorporated in the final protocols. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

It is likely that future trials for many solid tumours will be stratified by predictive/prognostic biomarkers in order to a) derive more homogeneous patient cohorts; b) "personalize" treatment interventions in relation to tumour (or host) phenotype; and c) improve the likelihood of discovering a beneficial effect, in at least a subset of patients with the disease. In some settings there are likely to be multiple relevant biomarkers and treatments to be tested. For logistical reasons it would be efficient to combine these into single trials. Moreover, the inclusion of overlapping or common treatment arms could serve to further validate the use of a given biomarker for selection and support retrospective testing of other biomarker selection algorithms that may arise during the course of a trial’s enrolment period. These requirements present significant challenges both for creating efficient designs and for making these comprehensible for prospective subjects. Methods: FOCUS 3 is a feasibility study designed to address these issues and test a novel design for examining the predictive role of biomarkers (KRAS/BRAF mutations and topo-1 expression) for 1st-line therapy of aCRC. It employs an unusual design in which the two biomarkers defined four possible cohorts. Specific treatment questions were relevant to each marker and, because each cohort was defined by 2 markers, there were 2 relevant experimental arms for each cohort, plus 1 common control arm for all cohorts (FOLFIRI). The study thus incorporates 5 treatment regimens, but only 3 possibilities for each patient, defined by marker phenotype. We will complete recruitment of 240 patients by April 2011. Paraffin blocks from 24 sites were obtained for central biomarker analysis and aim to feedback results within 10 working days. A 4 stage suite of patient information sheets (PIS) was designed to avoid patient overload and we are assessing patients’ comprehension in a qualitative study. Conclusion: Patient samples can be collected and analysed centrally within acceptable time constraints. Complex, stratified, multi arm designs can be made acceptable to patients through good PIS design, ensured by patient and carer input into their design.

Background: When cure is impossible, cancer treatment should focus on both length and quality of life. Maximisation of time without toxic effects could be one effective strategy to achieve both of these goals. The COIN trial assessed preplanned treatment holidays in advanced colorectal cancer to achieve this aim. Methods: COIN was a randomised controlled trial in patients with previously untreated advanced colorectal cancer. Patients received either continuous oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine combination (arm A), continuous chemotherapy plus cetuximab (arm B), or intermittent (arm C) chemotherapy. In arms A and B, treatment continued until development of progressive disease, cumulative toxic effects, or the patient chose to stop. In arm C, patients who had not progressed at their 12-week scan started a chemotherapy-free interval until evidence of disease progression, when the same treatment was restarted. Randomisation was done centrally (via telephone) by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit using minimisation. Treatment allocation was not masked. The comparison of arms A and B is described in a companion paper. Here, we compare arms A and C, with the primary objective of establishing whether overall survival on intermittent therapy was non-inferior to that on continuous therapy, with a predefined non-inferiority boundary of 1·162. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol analyses were done. This trial is registered, ISRCTN27286448. Findings: 1630 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (815 to continuous and 815 to intermittent therapy). Median survival in the ITT population (n=815 in both groups) was 15·8 months (IQR 9·4–26·1) in arm A and 14·4 months (8·0–24·7) in arm C (hazard ratio [HR] 1·084, 80% CI 1·008–1·165). In the per-protocol population (arm A, n=467; arm C, n=511), median survival was 19·6 months (13·0–28·1) in arm A and 18·0 months (12·1–29·3) in arm C (HR 1·087, 0·986–1·198). The upper limits of CIs for HRs in both analyses were greater than the predefined non-inferiority boundary. Preplanned subgroup analyses in the per-protocol population showed that a raised baseline platelet count, defined as 400 000 per μL or higher (271 [28%] of 978 patients), was associated with poor survival with intermittent chemotherapy: the HR for comparison of arm C and arm A in patients with a normal platelet count was 0·96 (95% CI 0·80–1·15, p=0·66), versus 1·54 (1·17–2·03, p=0·0018) in patients with a raised platelet count (p=0·0027 for interaction). In the per-protocol population, more patients on continuous than on intermittent treatment had grade 3 or worse haematological toxic effects (72 [15%] vs 60 [12%]), whereas nausea and vomiting were more common on intermittent treatment (11 [2%] vs 43 [8%]). Grade 3 or worse peripheral neuropathy (126 [27%] vs 25 [5%]) and hand–foot syndrome (21 [4%] vs 15 [3%]) were more frequent on continuous than on intermittent treatment. Interpretation: Although this trial did not show non-inferiority of intermittent compared with continuous chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer in terms of overall survival, chemotherapy-free intervals remain a treatment option for some patients with advanced colorectal cancer, offering reduced time on chemotherapy, reduced cumulative toxic effects, and improved quality of life. Subgroup analyses suggest that patients with normal baseline platelet counts could gain the benefits of intermittent chemotherapy without detriment in survival, whereas those with raised baseline platelet counts have impaired survival and quality of life with intermittent chemotherapy and should not receive a treatment break. Funding: Cancer Research UK.