Thromboxane biosynthesis in cancer patients and its inhibition by aspirin: a sub-study of the Add-Aspirin trial.

BACKGROUND: Pre-clinical models demonstrate that platelet activation is involved in the spread of malignancy. Ongoing clinical trials are assessing whether aspirin, which inhibits platelet activation, can prevent or delay metastases. METHODS: Urinary 11-dehydro-thromboxane B2 (U-TXM), a biomarker of in vivo platelet activation, was measured after radical cancer therapy and correlated with patient demographics, tumour type, recent treatment, and aspirin use (100 mg, 300 mg or placebo daily) using multivariable linear regression models with log-transformed values. RESULTS: In total, 716 patients (breast 260, colorectal 192, gastro-oesophageal 53, prostate 211) median age 61 years, 50% male were studied. Baseline median U-TXM were breast 782; colorectal 1060; gastro-oesophageal 1675 and prostate 826 pg/mg creatinine; higher than healthy individuals (~500 pg/mg creatinine). Higher levels were associated with raised body mass index, inflammatory markers, and in the colorectal and gastro-oesophageal participants compared to breast participants (P < 0.001) independent of other baseline characteristics. Aspirin 100 mg daily decreased U-TXM similarly across all tumour types (median reductions: 77-82%). Aspirin 300 mg daily provided no additional suppression of U-TXM compared with 100 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Persistently increased thromboxane biosynthesis was detected after radical cancer therapy, particularly in colorectal and gastro-oesophageal patients. Thromboxane biosynthesis should be explored further as a biomarker of active malignancy and may identify patients likely to benefit from aspirin.

Image-based consensus molecular subtype (imCMS) classification of colorectal cancer using deep learning.

OBJECTIVE: Complex phenotypes captured on histological slides represent the biological processes at play in individual cancers, but the link to underlying molecular classification has not been clarified or systematised. In colorectal cancer (CRC), histological grading is a poor predictor of disease progression, and consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) cannot be distinguished without gene expression profiling. We hypothesise that image analysis is a cost-effective tool to associate complex features of tissue organisation with molecular and outcome data and to resolve unclassifiable or heterogeneous cases. In this study, we present an image-based approach to predict CRC CMS from standard H&E sections using deep learning. DESIGN: Training and evaluation of a neural network were performed using a total of n=1206 tissue sections with comprehensive multi-omic data from three independent datasets (training on FOCUS trial, n=278 patients; test on rectal cancer biopsies, GRAMPIAN cohort, n=144 patients; and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), n=430 patients). Ground truth CMS calls were ascertained by matching random forest and single sample predictions from CMS classifier. RESULTS: Image-based CMS (imCMS) accurately classified slides in unseen datasets from TCGA (n=431 slides, AUC)=0.84) and rectal cancer biopsies (n=265 slides, AUC=0.85). imCMS spatially resolved intratumoural heterogeneity and provided secondary calls correlating with bioinformatic prediction from molecular data. imCMS classified samples previously unclassifiable by RNA expression profiling, reproduced the expected correlations with genomic and epigenetic alterations and showed similar prognostic associations as transcriptomic CMS. CONCLUSION: This study shows that a prediction of RNA expression classifiers can be made from H&E images, opening the door to simple, cheap and reliable biological stratification within routine workflows.

Adding new experimental arms to randomised clinical trials: Impact on error rates.

BACKGROUND: Experimental treatments pass through various stages of development. If a treatment passes through early-phase experiments, the investigators may want to assess it in a late-phase randomised controlled trial. An efficient way to do this is adding it as a new research arm to an ongoing trial while the existing research arms continue, a so-called multi-arm platform trial. The familywise type I error rate is often a key quantity of interest in any multi-arm platform trial. We set out to clarify how it should be calculated when new arms are added to a trial some time after it has started. METHODS: We show how the familywise type I error rate, any-pair and all-pairs powers can be calculated when a new arm is added to a platform trial. We extend the Dunnett probability and derive analytical formulae for the correlation between the test statistics of the existing pairwise comparison and that of the newly added arm. We also verify our analytical derivation via simulations. RESULTS: Our results indicate that the familywise type I error rate depends on the shared control arm information (i.e. individuals in continuous and binary outcomes and primary outcome events in time-to-event outcomes) from the common control arm patients and the allocation ratio. The familywise type I error rate is driven more by the number of pairwise comparisons and the corresponding (pairwise) type I error rates than by the timing of the addition of the new arms. The familywise type I error rate can be estimated using Sidák's correction if the correlation between the test statistics of pairwise comparisons is less than 0.30. CONCLUSIONS: The findings we present in this article can be used to design trials with pre-planned deferred arms or to add new pairwise comparisons within an ongoing platform trial where control of the pairwise error rate or familywise type I error rate (for a subset of pairwise comparisons) is required.

Choosing the right strategy based on individualized treatment effect predictions: combination versus sequential chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Translating results from randomized trials to individual patients is challenging, since treatment effects may vary due to heterogeneous prognostic characteristics. We aimed to demonstrate model development for individualized treatment effect predictions in cancer patients. We used data from two randomized trials that investigated sequential versus combination chemotherapy in unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used data from 803 patients included in CAIRO for prediction model development and internal validation, and data from 1423 patients included in FOCUS for external validation. A Weibull model with pre-specified patient and tumour characteristics was developed for a prediction of gain in median overall survival (OS) by upfront combination versus sequential chemotherapy. Decision curve analysis with net benefit was used. A nomogram was built using logistic regression for estimating the probability of receiving second-line treatment after the first-line monochemotherapy. RESULTS: Median-predicted gain in OS for the combination versus sequential chemotherapy was 2.3 months (IQR: -1.1 to 3.7 months). A predicted gain in favour of sequential chemotherapy was found in 231 patients (29%) and a predicted gain of >3 months for combination chemotherapy in 294 patients (37%). Patients with benefit from sequential chemotherapy had metachronous metastatic disease and a left-sided primary tumour. Decision curve analyses showed improvement in a net benefit for treating all patients according to prediction-based treatment compared to treating all patients with combination chemotherapy. Multiple characteristics were identified as prognostic variables which identify patients at risk of never receiving second-line treatment if treated with initial monochemotherapy. External validation showed good calibration with moderate discrimination in both models (C-index 0.66 and 0.65, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We successfully developed individualized prediction models including prognostic characteristics derived from randomized trials to estimate treatment effects in mCRC patients. In times where the heterogeneity of CRC becomes increasingly evident, such tools are an important step towards personalized treatment.

Comprehensive pharmacogenetic profiling of the epidermal growth factor receptor pathway for biomarkers of response to, and toxicity from, cetuximab.

BACKGROUND: Somatic mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) intracellular signalling pathways predict non-response to cetuximab in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC). We hypothesised that common germline variants within these pathways may also play similar roles. METHODS: We analysed 54 potentially functional, common, inherited EGFR pathway variants in 815 patients with aCRC treated with oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy plus cetuximab. Primary endpoints were response and skin rash (SR). We had >85% power to detect ORs=1.6 for variants with minor allele frequencies >20%. RESULTS: We identified five potential biomarkers for response and four for SR, although none remained significant after correction for multiple testing. Our initial data supported a role for Ser313Pro in PIK3R2 in modulating response to cetuximab-in patients with KRAS wild-type CRCs, 36.4% with one allele encoding proline responded, as compared with 71.2% homozygous for allele encoding serine (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.56, p=0.0014), and this association was predictive for cetuximab (pinteraction=0.017); however, independent replication failed to validate this association. No previously proposed predictive biomarkers were validated. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the need to validate potential pharmacogenetic biomarkers. We did not find strong evidence for common germline biomarkers of cetuximab response and toxicity.

Common variation at 2q22.3 (ZEB2) influences the risk of renal cancer.

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) of renal cell cancer (RCC) have identified four susceptibility loci thus far. To identify an additional RCC common susceptibility locus, we conducted a GWAS and performed a meta-analysis with published GWASs (totalling 2215 cases and 8566 controls of European background) and followed up the most significant association signals [nine single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in eight genomic regions] in 3739 cases and 8786 controls. A combined analysis identified a novel susceptibility locus mapping to 2q22.3 marked by rs12105918 (P = 1.80 × 10(-8); odds ratio 1.29, 95% CI: 1.18-1.41). The signal localizes to intron 2 of the ZEB2 gene (zinc finger E box-binding homeobox 2). Our findings suggest that genetic variation in ZEB2 influences the risk of RCC. This finding provides further insights into the genetic and biological basis of inherited genetic susceptibility to RCC.

Intermittent chemotherapy plus either intermittent or continuous cetuximab for first-line treatment of patients with KRAS wild-type advanced colorectal cancer (COIN-B): a randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Advanced colorectal cancer is treated with a combination of cytotoxic drugs and targeted treatments. However, how best to minimise the time spent taking cytotoxic drugs and whether molecular selection can refine this further is unknown. The primary aim of this study was to establish how cetuximab might be safely and effectively added to intermittent chemotherapy. METHODS: COIN-B was an open-label, multicentre, randomised, exploratory phase 2 trial done at 30 hospitals in the UK and one in Cyprus. We enrolled patients with advanced colorectal cancer who had received no previous chemotherapy for metastases. Randomisation was done centrally (by telephone) by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit using minimisation with a random element. Treatment allocation was not masked. Patients were assigned (1:1) to intermittent chemotherapy plus intermittent cetuximab or to intermittent chemotherapy plus continuous cetuximab. Chemotherapy was FOLFOX (folinic acid and oxaliplatin followed by bolus and infused fluorouracil). Patients in both groups received FOLFOX and weekly cetuximab for 12 weeks, then either had a planned interruption (those taking intermittent cetuximab) or planned maintenance by continuing on weekly cetuximab (continuous cetuximab). On RECIST progression, FOLFOX plus cetuximab or FOLFOX was recommenced for 12 weeks followed by further interruption or maintenance cetuximab, respectively. The primary outcome was failure-free survival at 10 months. The primary analysis population consisted of patients who completed 12 weeks of treatment without progression, death, or leaving the trial. We tested BRAF and NRAS status retrospectively. The trial was registered, ISRCTN38375681. FINDINGS: We registered 401 patients, 226 of whom were enrolled. Results for 169 with KRAS wild-type are reported here, 78 (46%) assigned to intermittent cetuximab and 91 (54%) to continuous cetuximab. 64 patients assigned to intermittent cetuximab and 66 of those assigned to continuous cetuximab were included in the primary analysis. 10-month failure-free survival was 50% (lower bound of 95% CI 39) in the intermittent group versus 52% (lower bound of 95% CI 41) in the continuous group; median failure-free survival was 12.2 months (95% CI 8.8-15.6) and 14.3 months (10.7-20.4), respectively. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were skin rash (21 [27%] of 77 patients vs 20 [22%] of 92 patients), neutropenia (22 [29%] vs 30 [33%]), diarrhoea (14 [18%] vs 23 [25%]), and lethargy (20 [26%] vs 19 [21%]). INTERPRETATION: Cetuximab was safely incorporated in two first-line intermittent chemotherapy strategies. Maintenance of biological monotherapy, with less cytotoxic chemotherapy within the first 6 months, in molecularly selected patients is promising and should be validated in phase 3 trials.

Optimal maintenance strategy following FOLFOX plus anti-EGFR induction therapy in patients with RAS wild type metastatic colorectal cancer: An individual patient data pooled analysis of randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Anti-EGFR antibodies plus doublet chemotherapy is the standard of care in RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). No phase-3 level of evidence is available to guide treatment de-escalation after anti-EGFR-based first-line. Several randomised clinical trials investigated de-intensification strategies with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) and/or anti-EGFR. METHODS: We performed an individual patient data pooled analysis of Valentino, Panama, MACRO-2, COIN-B trials including RAS wild-type mCRC patients who received first-line therapy with FOLFOX plus panitumumab or cetuximab followed by pre-specified maintenance strategy. Only patients who started maintenance according to the assigned arm were included. Patients were categorised by type of maintenance (i.e. 5-FU/LV, anti-EGFR or 5-FU/LV + anti-EGFR). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the start of maintenance; toxicity was evaluated for the maintenance treatment period. RESULTS: A total of 518 patients were included in the pooled analysis. Overall, 123, 185 and 210 patients received maintenance with 5-FU/LV, anti-EGFR, 5-FU/LV + anti-EGFR, respectively. Median PFS was 5.6, 6.0 and 9.0 (P = 0.009) and OS was 25.7, 24.0 and 28.0 months (P = 0.134) in 5-FU/LV, anti-EGFR and 5-FU/LV + anti-EGFR arms, respectively. Monotherapy maintenance (either 5-FU/LV or anti-EGFR) was inferior to combination in terms of PFS (hazard ratios [HR] 1.26, P = 0.016) and non-significantly trending also in OS (HR 1.20, P = 0.111). An increase of overall any grade and grade ≥ 3 AEs and selected AEs was reported in combination compared to either 5-FU/LV or anti-EGFR arms. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis including four randomised phase II supports the use of 5-FU/LV plus anti-EGFR as the preferred maintenance regimen. Data provide rational for a more individualised maintenance treatment approach based on tumour and patients features.

Addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based first-line combination chemotherapy for treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: results of the randomised phase 3 MRC COIN trial.

BACKGROUND: In the Medical Research Council (MRC) COIN trial, the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted antibody cetuximab was added to standard chemotherapy in first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer with the aim of assessing effect on overall survival. METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial, patients who were fit for but had not received previous chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy (arm A), the same combination plus cetuximab (arm B), or intermittent chemotherapy (arm C). The choice of fluoropyrimidine therapy (capecitabine or infused fluouroracil plus leucovorin) was decided before randomisation. 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 C is described in a companion paper. Here, we present the comparison of arm A and B, for which the primary outcome was overall survival in patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. Analysis was by intention to treat. Further analyses with respect to NRAS, BRAF, and EGFR status were done. The trial is registered, ISRCTN27286448. FINDINGS: 1630 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (815 to standard therapy and 815 to addition of cetuximab). Tumour samples from 1316 (81%) patients were used for somatic molecular analyses; 565 (43%) had KRAS mutations. In patients with KRAS wild-type tumours (arm A, n=367; arm B, n=362), overall survival did not differ between treatment groups (median survival 17·9 months [IQR 10·3-29·2] in the control group vs 17·0 months [9·4-30·1] in the cetuximab group; HR 1·04, 95% CI 0·87-1·23, p=0·67). Similarly, there was no effect on progression-free survival (8·6 months [IQR 5·0-12·5] in the control group vs 8·6 months [5·1-13·8] in the cetuximab group; HR 0·96, 0·82-1·12, p=0·60). Overall response rate increased from 57% (n=209) with chemotherapy alone to 64% (n=232) with addition of cetuximab (p=0·049). Grade 3 and higher skin and gastrointestinal toxic effects were increased with cetuximab (14 vs 114 and 67 vs 97 patients in the control group vs the cetuximab group with KRAS wild-type tumours, respectively). Overall survival differs by somatic mutation status irrespective of treatment received: BRAF mutant, 8·8 months (IQR 4·5-27·4); KRAS mutant, 14·4 months (8·5-24·0); all wild-type, 20·1 months (11·5-31·7). INTERPRETATION: This trial has not confirmed a benefit of addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Cetuximab increases response rate, with no evidence of benefit in progression-free or overall survival in KRAS wild-type patients or even in patients selected by additional mutational analysis of their tumours. The use of cetuximab in combination with oxaliplatin and capecitabine in first-line chemotherapy in patients with widespread metastases cannot be recommended. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Cancer Research Wales, UK Medical Research Council, Merck KGgA.

The cost-effectiveness of different chemotherapy strategies for patients with poor prognosis advanced colorectal cancer (MRC FOCUS).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the value for money of alternative chemotherapy strategies for managing advanced colorectal cancer using irinotecan or oxaliplatin, either in sequence or in combination with fluorouracil. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed using data from the U.K. fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and CPT11 (irinotecan)--use and sequencing (FOCUS) trial. The analysis adopted the perspective of the U.K. National Health Service. Input parameters were derived using a system of risk equations (for probabilities), count data regression models (for resource use), and generalized linear models (for utilities). Parameter estimates were obtained using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods, propagating the simulation values through the state-transition model to characterize appropriately the joint distributions of expected cost, survival and quality-adjusted life years for each treatment strategy. An acceptability frontier was used to represent the probability that the optimal option is cost-effective at different values of the cost-effectiveness threshold. RESULTS: The base-case analysis used drug unit costs provided by a typical English hospital. First-line doublet therapy combination therapy fluorouracil (5FU) plus irinotecan was the most cost-effective strategy at standard thresholds, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £14,877 (pound sterling) compared with first-line 5FU until treatment failure followed by single agent irinotecan. Other strategies were all subject to extended dominance. A sensitivity analysis using published drug (list) prices found the most cost-effective strategy would be first-line fluorouracil until failure followed by 5FU plus irinotecan (ICER: £19,753). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of 5FU and irinotecan (whether used first or second line) appears to be more cost-effective than the single agent sequential therapies used in the FOCUS trial, or 5FU plus oxaliplatin.

Intermittent versus continuous oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine combination chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: results of the randomised phase 3 MRC COIN trial.

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.

External Validation of the 2003 Leibovich Prognostic Score in Patients Randomly Assigned to SORCE, an International Phase III Trial of Adjuvant Sorafenib in Renal Cell Cancer.

PURPOSE: The 2003 Leibovich score guides prognostication and selection to adjuvant clinical trials for patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after nephrectomy. We provide a robust external validation of the 2003 Leibovich score using contemporary data from SORCE, an international, randomized trial of sorafenib after excision of primary RCC. METHODS: Data used to derive the 2003 Leibovich score were compared with contemporary data from SORCE. Discrimination and calibration of the metastasis-free survival outcome were assessed in data from patients with clear-cell RCC, using Cox proportional hazards regression, Kaplan-Meier curves, and calculation of Harrell's c indexes. Secondary analyses involved three important SORCE groups: patients with any non-clear-cell subtype, papillary, and chromophobe carcinomas. RESULTS: Four hundred seven recurrences occurred in 982 patients in the Leibovich cohort and 520 recurrences were recorded in 1,445 patients in the primary SORCE cohort. Clear discrimination between intermediate-risk and high-risk SORCE cohorts was shown; hazard ratio 2.74 (95% CI, 2.29 to 3.28), c-index 0.63 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.65). A hazard ratio of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.70) confirmed poor calibration of the two cohorts. Discrimination was observed in secondary populations, with c-indexes of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.69) for non-clear-cell RCC, 0.63 (95% CI, 0.56 to 0.69) for papillary RCC, and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.55 to 0.76) for chromophobe RCC. CONCLUSION: The 2003 Leibovich score discriminates between intermediate-risk and high-risk clear-cell and non-clear-cell RCC groups in contemporary data, supporting its use for risk stratification in adjuvant clinical trials. Over time, metastasis-free survival for patients with locally advanced RCC has improved. Contemporary data from adjuvant RCC trials should be used to improve prognostication for patients with RCC.

RAMPART: A phase III multi-arm multi-stage trial of adjuvant checkpoint inhibitors in patients with resected primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high or intermediate risk of relapse.

BACKGROUND: 20-60% of patients with initially locally advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) develop metastatic disease despite optimal surgical excision. Adjuvant strategies have been tested in RCC including cytokines, radiotherapy, hormones and oral tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs), with limited success. The predominant global standard-of-care after nephrectomy remains active monitoring. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective in the treatment of metastatic RCC; RAMPART will investigate these agents in the adjuvant setting. METHODS/DESIGN: RAMPART is an international, UK-led trial investigating the addition of ICIs after nephrectomy in patients with resected locally advanced RCC. RAMPART is a multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) platform trial, upon which additional research questions may be addressed over time. The target population is patients with histologically proven resected locally advanced RCC (clear cell and non-clear cell histological subtypes), with no residual macroscopic disease, who are at high or intermediate risk of relapse (Leibovich score 3-11). Patients with fully resected synchronous ipsilateral adrenal metastases are included. Participants are randomly assigned (3,2:2) to Arm A - active monitoring (no placebo) for one year, Arm B - durvalumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) 4-weekly for one year; or Arm C - combination therapy with durvalumab 4-weekly for one year plus two doses of tremelimumab (CTLA-4 inhibitor) at day 1 of the first two 4-weekly cycles. The co-primary outcomes are disease-free-survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes include safety, metastasis-free survival, RCC specific survival, quality of life, and patient and clinician preferences. Tumour tissue, plasma and urine are collected for molecular analysis (TransRAMPART). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN #: ISRCTN53348826, NCT #: NCT03288532, EUDRACT #: 2017-002329-39, CTA #: 20363/0380/001-0001, MREC #: 17/LO/1875, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03288532, RAMPART grant number: MC_UU_12023/25, TransRAMPART grant number: A28690 Cancer Research UK, RAMPART Protocol version 5.0.

RAMPART: A model for a regulatory-ready academic-led phase III trial in the adjuvant renal cell carcinoma setting.

The development of therapeutics in oncology is a highly active research area for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, but also has a strong academic base. Many new agents have been developed in recent years, most with specific biological targets. This has mandated the need to look at different ways to streamline the evaluation of new agents. One solution has been the development of adaptive trial designs that allow the evaluation of multiple agents, concentrating on the most promising agents while screening out those which are unlikely to benefit patients. Another way forward has been the growth of partnerships between academia and industry with the shared goal of designing and conducting high quality clinical trials which answer important clinical questions as efficiently as possible. The RAMPART trial (NCT03288532) brings together both of these processes in an attempt to improve outcomes for patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), where no globally acceptable adjuvant strategy after nephrectomy currently exist. RAMPART is led by the MRC CTU at University College London (UCL), in collaboration with other international academic groups and industry. We aim to facilitate the use of data from RAMPART, (dependent on outcomes), for a future regulatory submission that will extend the license of the agents being investigated. We share our experience in order to lay the foundations for an effective trial design and conduct framework and to guide others who may be considering similar collaborations. Trial Registration: ISRCTN #: ISRCTN53348826, NCT #: NCT03288532, EUDRACT #: 2017-002329-39. CTA #: 20363/0380/001-0001. MREC #: 17/LO/1875. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03288532 RAMPART grant number: MC_UU_12023/25. . RAMPART Protocol version 5.0.

Adjuvant Sorafenib for Renal Cell Carcinoma at Intermediate or High Risk of Relapse: Results From the SORCE Randomized Phase III Intergroup Trial.

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.

Different strategies of sequential and combination chemotherapy for patients with poor prognosis advanced colorectal cancer (MRC FOCUS): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the non-curative setting, the sequence in which anticancer agents are used, singly or in combination, may be important if patients are to receive the maximum period of disease control with the minimum of adverse effects. We compared sequential and combination chemotherapy strategies in patients with unpretreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, who were regarded as not potentially curable irrespective of response. METHODS: We studied patients with advanced colorectal cancer, starting treatment with non-curative intent. 2135 unpretreated patients were randomly assigned to three treatment strategies in the ratio 1:1:1. Strategy A (control group) was single-agent fluorouracil (given with levofolinate over 48 h every 2 weeks) until failure, then single-agent irinotecan. Strategy B was fluorouracil until failure, then combination chemotherapy. Strategy C was combination chemotherapy from the outset. Within strategies B and C, patients were randomly assigned to receive, as the combination regimen, fluorouracil plus irinotecan (groups B-ir and C-ir) or fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin (groups B-ox and C-ox). The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN 79877428. RESULTS: Median survival of patients allocated to control strategy A was 13.9 months. Median survival of each of the other groups was longer (B-ir 15.0, B-ox 15.2, C-ir 16.7, and C-ox 15.4 months). However, log-rank comparison of each group against control showed that only C-ir--the first-line combination strategy including irinotecan--satisfied the statistical test for superiority (p=0.01). Overall comparison of strategy B with strategy C was within the predetermined non-inferiority boundary of HR=1.18 or less (HR=1.06, 90% CI 0.97-1.17). INTERPRETATION: Our data challenge the assumption that, in this non-curative setting, maximum tolerable treatment must necessarily be used first-line. The staged approach of initial single-agent treatment upgraded to combination when required is not worse than first-line combination, and is an alternative option for discussion with patients.

Methods for delivering the UK's multi-centre prison-based naloxone-on-release pilot randomised trial (N-ALIVE): Europe's largest prison-based randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Naloxone is an opioid antagonist used for emergency resuscitation following opioid overdose. Prisoners with a history of heroin use by injection have a high risk of drug-related death in the first weeks after prison-release. The N-ALIVE trial was planned as a large prison-based randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the effectiveness of naloxone-on-release in the prevention of fatal opiate overdoses soon after release. The N-ALIVE pilot trial was conducted to test the main trial's assumptions on recruitment of prisons and prisoners, and the logistics for ensuring that participants received their N-ALIVE pack on release. DESIGN AND METHODS: Adult prisoners who had ever injected heroin, were incarcerated for ≥7 days and were expected to be released within 3 months were eligible. Participants were randomised to receive, on liberation, a pack containing a single 'rescue' injection of naloxone or a control pack with no naloxone syringe. The trial was double-blind prior to prison-release. RESULTS: We randomised 1685 prisoners (842 naloxone; 843 control) across 16 prisons in England. We stopped randomisation on 8 December 2014 because only one-third of administrations of naloxone-on-release were to the randomised ex-prisoner; two-thirds were to others whom we were not tracing. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Prevention RCTs are seldom conducted within prisons; we demonstrated the feasibility of conducting a multi-prison RCT to prevent fatality from opioid overdose in the outside community. We terminated the N-ALIVE trial due to the infeasibility of individualised randomisation to naloxone-on-release. Large RCTs are feasible within prisons.

Pharmacogenetic analyses of 2183 patients with advanced colorectal cancer; potential role for common dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase variants in toxicity to chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Inherited genetic variants may influence response to, and side-effects from, chemotherapy. We sought to generate a comprehensive inherited pharmacogenetic profile for oxaliplatin and 5FU/capecitabine therapy in advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC). METHODS: We analysed more than 200 potentially functional, common, inherited variants in genes within the 5FU, capecitabine, oxaliplatin and DNA repair pathways, together with four rare dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD) variants, in 2183 aCRC patients treated with oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy with, or without, cetuximab (from MRC COIN and COIN-B trials). Primary end-points were response, any toxicity and peripheral neuropathy. We had >85% power to detect odds ratios (ORs) = 1.3 for variants with minor allele frequencies >20%. RESULTS: Variants in DNA repair genes (Asn279Ser in EXO1 and Arg399Gln in XRCC1) were most associated with response (OR 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-2.9, P = 0.004, and OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-0.9, P = 0.003, respectively). Common variants in DPYD (Cys29Arg and Val732Ile) were most associated with toxicity (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.7-1.0, P = 0.008, and OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.1, P = 0.006, respectively). Two rare DPYD variants were associated with increased toxicity (Asp949Val with neutropenia, nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea and infection; IVS14+1G>A with lethargy, diarrhoea, stomatitis, hand-foot syndrome and infection; all ORs > 3). Asp317His in DCLRE1A was most associated with peripheral neuropathy (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.6, P = 0.003). No common variant associations remained significant after Bonferroni correction. CONCLUSIONS: DNA repair genes may play a significant role in the pharmacogenetics of aCRC. Our data suggest that both common and rare DPYD variants may be associated with toxicity to fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy.

What Survival Benefits are Needed to Make Adjuvant Sorafenib Worthwhile After Resection of Intermediate- or High-Risk Renal Cell Carcinoma? Clinical Investigators' Preferences in the SORCE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Decisions about adjuvant therapy involve trade-offs between possible benefits and harms. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the survival benefits that clinical investigators would judge as sufficient to warrant treatment with adjuvant sorafenib in the SORCE trial after nephrectomy for apparently localised renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: A subset of clinical investigators in the SORCE trial completed a validated questionnaire that elicited the minimum survival benefits they judged sufficient to warrant one year of adjuvant sorafenib in scenarios with hypothetical baseline survival times of 5 years and 15 years, and baseline survival rates at 5 years of 65% and 85%. RESULTS: The 100 participating SORCE investigators had a median age of 42 years, and 74 were male. For one year of sorafenib versus no therapy, the median benefits in survival times the investigators judged sufficient to warrant treatment were an extra nine months beyond five years and an extra 12 months beyond 15 years; the median benefits in survival rates were an extra 5% beyond baseline survival rates of both 65% and 85% at five years. The patients recruited in the SORCE trial by these investigators judged smaller benefits sufficient to warrant adjuvant sorafenib for both survival rate scenarios (p≤0.0001). The survival benefits the investigators judged sufficient to warrant one year of adjuvant therapy with sorafenib for RCC were similar to those of other clinicians considering three months of adjuvant chemotherapy for lung cancer, but smaller than those of clinicians considering six months of adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. CONCLUSION: SORCE investigators judged larger benefits necessary to warrant adjuvant sorafenib than their patients. The benefits required by the investigators were similar or smaller than those other clinicians considered sufficient to warrant adjuvant chemotherapy for other cancers. Clinicians should recognise that their patients and colleagues may have preferences that differ from their own when considering the potential benefits and harms of adjuvant treatment.