Central Venous Access Devices for the Delivery of Systemic Anticancer Therapy: An Economic Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Patients undergoing long-term anticancer therapy typically require one of 3 venous access devices: Hickman-type device (HICK), peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC), or implantable chest wall port (PORT). Recent evidence has shown PORT is safer and improves patient satisfaction. However, PORT did not show improvement in quality-adjusted life-years and was more expensive. Decisions regarding cost-effectiveness in the United Kingdom are typically informed by a cost-per-quality-adjusted life-year metric. However, this approach is limited in its ability to capture the full range of relevant outcomes, especially in the context of medical devices. This study assessed the potential cost-effectiveness of HICK, PICC, and PORT in routine clinical practice. METHODS: This is a cost-consequence analysis to determine the trade-offs between the following outcomes: complication, infection, noninfection, chemotherapy interruption, unplanned device removals, health utilities, device insertion cost, follow-up cost, and total cost, using data from the Cancer and Venous Access clinical trial. We conducted value of implementation analysis of a PORT service. RESULTS: PORT was superior in terms of overall complication rate compared with both HICK (incidence rate ratio 0.422; 95% CI 0.286-0.622) and PICC (incidence rate ratio 0.295; 95% CI 0.189-0.458) and less likely to lead to an unplanned device removal. There was no difference in chemotherapy interruption or health utilities. Total cost with device in situ was lower on PORT than HICK (-£98.86; 95% CI -189.20 to -8.53) and comparable with PICC -£48.57 (95% CI -164.99 to 67.86). Value of implementation analysis found that PORT was likely to be considered cost-effective within the National Health Service. CONCLUSION: Decision makers should consider including PORT within the suite of venous access devices available within in the National Health Service.

Phase II proof-of-concept study of atorvastatin in castration-resistant prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To test for evidence of statin-mediated effects in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) as post-diagnosis use of statins in patients with prostate cancer is associated with favourable survival outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The SPECTRE trial was a 6-weeks-long proof-of-concept single-arm Phase II treatment trial, combining atorvastatin and androgen deprivation therapy in patients with CRPC (regardless of metastatic status), designed to test for evidence of statin-mediated effects in patients with CRPC. The primary study endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a ≥50% drop from baseline in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at any time over the 6-week period of atorvastatin medication (PSA response). Exploratory endpoints include PSA velocity and serum metabolites identified by mass spectrometry . RESULTS: At the scheduled interim analysis, one of 12 patients experienced a ≥50% drop in PSA levels (primary endpoint), with ≥2 patients satisfying the primary endpoint required for further recruitment. All 12 patients experienced substantial falls in serum cholesterol levels following statin treatment. While all patients had comparable pre-study PSA velocities, six of 12 patients showed decreased PSA velocities after statin treatment, suggestive of disease stabilization. Unbiased metabolomics analysis on serial weekly blood samples identified tryptophan to be the dominant metabolite associated with patient response to statin. CONCLUSIONS: Data from the SPECTRE study provide the first evidence of statin-mediated effects on CRPC and early sign of disease stabilization. Our data also highlight the possibility of altered tryptophan metabolism being associated with tumour response.

Central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy (CAVA): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hickman-type tunnelled catheters (Hickman), peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs), and totally implanted ports (PORTs) are used to deliver systemic anticancer treatment (SACT) via a central vein. We aimed to compare complication rates and costs of the three devices to establish acceptability, clinical effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of the devices for patients receiving SACT. METHODS: We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (Cancer and Venous Access [CAVA]) of three central venous access devices: PICCs versus Hickman (non-inferiority; 10% margin); PORTs versus Hickman (superiority; 15% margin); and PORTs versus PICCs (superiority; 15% margin). Adults (aged ≥18 years) receiving SACT (≥12 weeks) for solid or haematological malignancy from 18 oncology units in the UK were included. Four randomisation options were available: Hickman versus PICCs versus PORTs (2:2:1), PICCs versus Hickman (1:1), PORTs versus Hickman (1:1), and PORTs versus PICCs (1:1). Randomisation was done using a minimisation algorithm stratifying by centre, body-mass index, type of cancer, device history, and treatment mode. The primary outcome was complication rate (composite of infection, venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, inability to aspirate blood, mechanical failure, and other) assessed until device removal, withdrawal from study, or 1-year follow-up. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN44504648. FINDINGS: Between Nov 8, 2013, and Feb 28, 2018, of 2714 individuals screened for eligibility, 1061 were enrolled and randomly assigned, contributing to the relevant comparison or comparisons (PICC vs Hickman n=424, 212 [50%] on PICC and 212 [50%] on Hickman; PORT vs Hickman n=556, 253 [46%] on PORT and 303 [54%] on Hickman; and PORT vs PICC n=346, 147 [42%] on PORT and 199 [58%] on PICC). Similar complication rates were observed for PICCs (110 [52%] of 212) and Hickman (103 [49%] of 212). Although the observed difference was less than 10%, non-inferiority of PICCs was not confirmed (odds ratio [OR] 1·15 [95% CI 0·78-1·71]) potentially due to inadequate power. PORTs were superior to Hickman with a complication rate of 29% (73 of 253) versus 43% (131 of 303; OR 0·54 [95% CI 0·37-0·77]). PORTs were superior to PICCs with a complication rate of 32% (47 of 147) versus 47% (93 of 199; OR 0·52 [0·33-0·83]). INTERPRETATION: For most patients receiving SACT, PORTs are more effective and safer than both Hickman and PICCs. Our findings suggest that most patients receiving SACT for solid tumours should receive a PORT within the UK National Health Service. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Dynamics of circulating vascular endothelial growth factor-A predict benefit from antiangiogenic cediranib in metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer patients.

AIMS: There is a need for predictive and surrogate response biomarkers to support treatment with antiangiogenic vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors. We aimed to identify a minimally-invasive biomarker predicting benefit from cediranib pretreatment or early during treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer. METHODS: Blood samples were collected before treatment, during treatment and upon disease progression where appropriate from patients enrolled in CIRCCa, a randomised phase II trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without cediranib. Plasma concentrations of VEGF-A, VEGF-receptor 2, Ang1 and Tie2 were measured using multiplex enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Pretreatment and temporal changes of the biomarkers were investigated using proportional hazard regression and unsupervised clustering analysis. RESULTS: Samples (n = 556) from 52 patients were analysed. VEGF-receptor 2 (P = .0006) and Tie2 (P = .04) were downregulated following cediranib, while VEGF-A (P = .0025) was upregulated. High Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (P = .02, hazard ratio [HR] = 2.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-4.09) and low pretreatment Tie2 concentrations (P = .003, HR = 0.57, 95%CI 0.39-0.83) were independent prognostic factors associated with reduced progression-free survival. Two patterns of changes in VEGF-A following cediranib were identified. Patients with elevated VEGF-A in the first 3 treatment cycles, regardless of magnitude, had reduced progression-free survival in the placebo arm but improved survival with the addition of cediranib (P = .019, HR = 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.71). CONCLUSION: Patterns of early elevation in plasma VEGF-A should be studied further as a potential biomarker to predict treatment benefit from cediranib.

Hickman catheter and implantable port devices for the delivery of chemotherapy: a phase II randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom, totally implantable venous access systems (TIVAS) are not routinely used. Compared with Hickman catheters, these devices are more expensive and complex to insert. However, it is unclear whether the higher costs may be offset by perceived greater health benefits. This pilot trial aimed to generate relevant data to inform the design of a larger definitive randomised controlled trial. METHODS: This was a phase II prospective, randomised, open trial from two UK oncology centres. The primary end point was overall complication rate. Secondary end points included individual complication rates, time to first complication and quality of life. Analysis was by intention to treat. An economic evaluation was also carried out. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were randomised in a 3 : 1 ratio to receive a Hickman or a TIVAS. Overall, 54% of patients in the Hickman arm suffered one or more complications compared with 38% in the TIVAS arm (one-sided P=0.068). In the Hickman arm, 28% of the devices were removed prematurely due to a complication compared with 4% in the TIVAS arm. Quality of life based on the device-specific questionnaire was greater in the TIVAS arm for 13 of the 16 questions. The economic evaluation showed that Hickman arm was associated with greater mean cost per patient £1803 (95% CI 462, 3215), but similar quality-adjusted life years -0.01 (95% CI -0.15, 0.15) than the TIVAS arm. However, there is much uncertainty associated with the results. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with Hickman catheters, TIVAS may be the cost-effective option. A larger multicentre trial is needed to confirm these preliminary findings.

Cediranib combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer (CIRCCa): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients treated with standard chemotherapy for metastatic or relapsed cervical cancer respond poorly to conventional chemotherapy (response achieved in 20-30% of patients) with an overall survival of less than 1 year. High tumour angiogenesis and high concentrations of intratumoural VEGF are adverse prognostic features. Cediranib is a potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFR1, 2, and 3. In this trial, we aimed to assess the effect of the addition of cediranib to carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy in patients with metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial, which was done in 17 UK cancer treatment centres, patients aged 18 years or older initially diagnosed with metastatic carcinoma or who subsequently developed metastatic disease or local pelvic recurrence after radical treatment that was not amenable to exenterative surgery were recruited. Eligible patients received carboplatin AUC of 5 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) by infusion every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles and were randomised centrally (1:1) through a minimisation approach to receive cediranib 20 mg or placebo orally once daily until disease progression. The stratification factors were disease site, disease-free survival after primary therapy or primary stage IVb disease, number of lines of previous treatment, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and investigational site. All patients, investigators, and trial personnel were masked to study drug allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat, and the safety analysis included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with the ISCRTN registry, number ISRCTN23516549, and has been completed. FINDINGS: Between Aug 19, 2010, and July 27, 2012, 69 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to cediranib (n=34) or placebo (n=35). After a median follow-up of 24·2 months (IQR 21·9-29·5), progression-free survival was longer in the cediranib group (median 8·1 months [80% CI 7·4-8·8]) than in the placebo group (6·7 months [6·2-7·2]), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·58 (80% CI 0·40-0·85; one-sided p=0·032). Grade 3 or worse adverse events that occurred in the concurrent chemotherapy and trial drug period in more than 10% of patients were diarrhoea (five [16%] of 32 patients in the cediranib group vs one [3%] of 35 patients in the placebo group), fatigue (four [13%] vs two [6%]), leucopenia (five [16%] vs three [9%]), neutropenia (10 [31%] vs four [11%]), and febrile neutropenia (five [16%] vs none). The incidence of grade 2-3 hypertension was higher in the cediranib group than in the control group (11 [34%] vs four [11%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 18 patients in the placebo group and 19 patients in the cediranib group. INTERPRETATION: Cediranib has significant efficacy when added to carboplatin and paclitaxel in the treatment of metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer. This finding was accompanied by an increase in toxic effects (mainly diarrhoea, hypertension, and febrile neutropenia). FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca.

Venous access devices for the delivery of long-term chemotherapy: the CAVA three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Venous access devices are used for patients receiving long-term chemotherapy. These include centrally inserted tunnelled catheters or Hickman-type devices (Hickman), peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and centrally inserted totally implantable venous access devices (PORTs). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of these devices for the central delivery of chemotherapy. DESIGN: An open, multicentre, randomised controlled trial to inform three comparisons: (1) peripherally inserted central catheters versus Hickman, (2) PORTs versus Hickman and (3) PORTs versus peripherally inserted central catheters. Pre-trial and post-trial qualitative research and economic evaluation were also conducted. SETTING: This took place in 18 UK oncology centres. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) receiving chemotherapy (≥ 12 weeks) for either a solid or a haematological malignancy were randomised via minimisation. INTERVENTIONS: Hickman, peripherally inserted central catheters and PORTs. PRIMARY OUTCOME: A composite of infection (laboratory confirmed, suspected catheter related and exit site infection), mechanical failure, venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, inability to aspirate blood and other complications in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Overall, 1061 participants were recruited to inform three comparisons. First, for the comparison of peripherally inserted central catheters (n = 212) with Hickman (n = 212), it could not be concluded that peripherally inserted central catheters were significantly non-inferior to Hickman in terms of complication rate (odds ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.71). The use of peripherally inserted central catheters compared with Hickman was associated with a substantially lower cost (-£1553) and a small decrement in quality-adjusted life-years gained (-0.009). Second, for the comparison of PORTs (n = 253) with Hickman (n = 303), PORTs were found to be statistically significantly superior to Hickman in terms of complication rate (odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.77). PORTs were found to dominate Hickman with lower costs (-£45) and greater quality-adjusted life-years gained (0.004). This was alongside a lower complications rate (difference of 14%); the incremental cost per complication averted was £1.36. Third, for the comparison of PORTs (n = 147) with peripherally inserted central catheters (n = 199), PORTs were found to be statistically significantly superior to peripherally inserted central catheters in terms of complication rate (odds ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.83). PORTs were associated with an incremental cost of £2706 when compared with peripherally inserted central catheters and a decrement in quality-adjusted life-years gained (-0.018) PORTs are dominated by peripherally inserted central catheters: alongside a lower complications rate (difference of 15%), the incremental cost per complication averted was £104. The qualitative work showed that attitudes towards all three devices were positive, with patients viewing their central venous access device as part of their treatment and recovery. PORTs were perceived to offer unique psychological benefits, including a greater sense of freedom and less intrusion in the context of personal relationships. The main limitation was the lack of adequate power (54%) in the non-inferiority comparison between peripherally inserted central catheters and Hickman. CONCLUSIONS: In the delivery of long-term chemotherapy, peripherally inserted central catheters should be considered a cost-effective option when compared with Hickman. There were significant clinical benefits when comparing PORTs with Hickman and with peripherally inserted central catheters. The health economic benefits were less clear from the perspective of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained. However, dependent on the willingness to pay, PORTs may be considered to be cost-effective from the perspective of complications averted. FUTURE WORK: The deliverability of a PORTs service merits further study to understand the barriers to and methods of improving the service. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN44504648. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NHIR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

For patients who need long-term chemotherapy delivered through a vein, there are currently three options: (1) a Hickman-type device, which is a flexible tube (central line) inserted underneath the skin on the chest into a large vein; (2) a peripherally inserted central catheter, which is a long line tube inserted into a vein in the arm and passed through a large vein in the chest; and (3) a totally implantable device, which is a small chamber (accessed externally by a needle) that sits underneath the skin, usually in the chest, and goes into a large vein. The Cancer And Venous Access (CAVA) trial compared these devices in > 1000 patients and looked at complications, quality of life, acceptability and value for money. We found that totally implantable devices halved the risk of complications compared with the other two options (which had similar complication rates to each other). We found that patients' quality of life was similar for all three devices, although a quality-of-life measure specific to these devices showed some emotional and psychological benefits in favour of totally implantable devices. All three devices work, although the totally implantable devices are associated with fewer complications and are less intrusive for patients. In the CAVA trial, we found that totally implantable devices are the most costly device to use, followed by the Hickman-type device, with the peripherally inserted central device being the cheapest. This is partly because of the tendency for totally implantable devices to remain in patients for a longer period of time than the other two options. The costs could potentially be reduced by training nurse-led teams to insert totally implantable devices, as already happens with the other two devices. Totally implantable devices can be considered value for money depending on how people value avoiding complications and the quality-of-life benefits for patients.

Accelerated, Dose escalated, Sequential Chemoradiotherapy in Non-small-cell lung cancer (ADSCaN): a protocol for a randomised phase II study.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer mortality in the UK, and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately 85% of all lung cancers. Most patients present with inoperable disease; therefore, radiotherapy plays a major role in treatment. However, the majority of patients are not suitable for the gold standard treatment (concurrent chemoradiotherapy) due to performance status and comorbidities. Novel strategies integrating radiotherapy advances and radiobiological knowledge need to be evaluated in patients treated with sequential chemoradiotherapy. Four separate dose escalation accelerated radiotherapy schedules have been completed in UK (CHART-ED, IDEAL-CRT, I-START and Isotoxic IMRT). This study will compare these schedules with a UK standard sequential chemoradiotherapy schedule of 55 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks. As it would be impossible to test all schedules in a phase III study, the aim is to use a combined randomised phase II screening/'pick the winner' approach to identify the best schedule to take into a randomised phase III study against conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Suitable patients will have histologically/cytologically confirmed, stage III NSCLC and are able to undergo chemoradiotherapy treatment. The study will recruit 360 patients; 120 on the standard arm and 60 on each experimental arm. Patients will complete 2-4 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy before being randomised to one of the radiotherapy schedules. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival, with overall survival, time to local-regional failure, toxicity and cost-effectiveness as secondary objectives. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval (research ethics committee (REC) reference: 16/WS/0165) from the West of Scotland REC 1. The trial is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN47674500.

Prostate gland lengths and iceball dimensions predict micturition functional outcome following salvage prostate cryotherapy in men with radiation recurrent prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Tissue cryoablation is a potential curative option for solid malignancies, including radiation recurrent prostate cancer (RRPC). Case series of salvage cryotherapy (SCT) in RRPC have reported promising disease free survival (DFS) outcomes and acceptable toxicity profile. While many men receive SCT, no predictive factors for treatment induced side effects are known. The aim of this study is to validate the oncologic outcome of SCT in a large multi-centre patient cohort and to identify potential parameters associated with an increased risk of micturition symptoms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, we studied 283 consecutive patients with RRPC treated by SCT in three independent U.K. centres (between 2001 and 2011). Two freeze-thaw cycles of transperineal cryotherapy were performed under transrectal ultrasound guidance by a single surgeon in each of the 3 sites. We analysed clinico-pathological factors against tumour response. Functional outcomes were assessed by continence status and IPSS questionnaire. Predictive factors for SCT-induced micturition symptoms were analysed in a sub-group (n=42) of consecutive cases. RESULTS: We found that nadir post-SCT PSA levels strongly associated with DFS. The DFS rates at 12- and 36-month were 84% and 67% for the ≤ 1 ng/ml group and 56% and 14% for the >1 ng/ml group, respectively (p<0.001). Correlative analysis revealed highly significant association between patients' post-SCT micturition status with prostate gland and iceball lengths following SCT. Finally, in a reduction model, both gland length and maximal length of iceball were highly associated with patients' IPSS outcome (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: We report the largest European patient cohort treated with SCT for RRPC. Oncologic outcome guided by nadir PSA of <1 ng/ml is consistent with earlier single-centre series. For the first time, we identified physical parameters to predict micturition symptoms following SCT. Our data will directly assist on-going and future trial design in cryotherapy in prostate cancer.