ASPiRATION: Australian observational cohort study of comprehensive genomic profiling in metastatic lung cancer tissue.

ASPiRATION is a national prospective observational cohort study assessing the feasibility, clinical and economic value of up-front tissue-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) to identify actionable genomic alterations in participants with newly diagnosed metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in Australia. This study will enrol 1000 participants with tumor available for CGP and standard of care molecular testing (EGFR/ALK/ROS1). Participants with actionable variants may receive novel targeted treatments through ASPiRATION-specific substudies, other trials/programs. Clinical outcome data will be collected for a minimum of 2 years. Study outcomes are descriptive, including the ability of CGP to identify additional actionable variants, leading to personalized treatment recommendations, and will describe the feasibility, efficiency, cost and utility of implementation of CGP nationally.

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in Australia and worldwide. This disease often happens due to alterations in specific genes that allow cancer cells to develop and spread. Scientists have designed targeted drugs that are better at attacking cancer cells that have specific 'actionable' gene alterations and have less effect on other cells in the body. The result is often more benefit from treatment and fewer side effects than other standard treatments (chemotherapy or immunotherapy). The targeted drugs are well established as the best initial treatments for some gene alterations, but more research is needed to know if this is true for some of the less common or recently identified gene alterations, and where the targeted drugs are very new. Comprehensive genomic profiling is a new way of testing lung cancer cells for all the gene alterations (the well-known ones as well as the rare ones) in a single test. It is expected that this test will find many more of these gene alterations, which will allow more people to have safer and more effective targeted treatments leading to potentially better outcomes, and will allow some people to join clinical trials testing newer targeted treatments. The ASPiRATION study will help work out whether comprehensive genomic profiling is better than the current way of testing for gene alterations in Australia, and if it is feasible to use in all people diagnosed with advanced lung cancer in Australia. Clinical Trial Registration: ACTRN12621000221853 (ANZCTR).

Patient-Reported Bowel, Urinary, and Sexual Outcomes After Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection or Open Resection for Rectal Cancer: The Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Randomized Clinical Trial (ALaCart).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported urinary, bowel, and sexual functioning of ALaCaRT Trial participants randomized to open or laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The primary endpoint, noninferiority of laparoscopic surgical resection adequacy, was not established. METHODS: Participants completed QLQ-CR29 at baseline, 3, and 12 months post-surgery. Additionally, women completed Rosen's Female Sexual Functioning Index (FSFI). Men completed the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and QLQ-PR25. We compared the proportions of participants in each group who experienced moderate/severe symptoms/dysfunction at each time-point and compared mean difference scores from baseline to 12 months between groups. All analyses were intention-to-treat. Sexual functioning analyses included only the participants who expressed sexual interest at baseline. RESULTS: Baseline PRO compliance of 475 randomized participants was 88%. At 12 months, a lower proportion of open surgery participants experienced moderate-severe fecal incontinence and sore skin, compared to Laparoscopic participants, and a lower proportion of men randomized to open surgery experienced moderate-severe urinary symptoms. There were no differences at 3 months for bowel or urinary symptoms. Sexual functioning among sexually interested participants was similar between groups at 3 and 12 months; however, a lower proportion of women reported moderate to severe sexual dissatisfaction at 3 months in the open as compared to the laparoscopic group, (Rebecca.mercieca@sydney.edu.au., 95% CI 0.03-0.39). DISCUSSION: Despite the slightly lower proportions of open surgery participants self-reporting moderate-severe symptoms for 3 of 16 urinary/bowel domains, and lack of differences in sexual domains, it remains difficult to recommend one surgical approach over another for rectal resection.

The validity of progression-free survival 2 as a surrogate trial end point for overall survival.

BACKGROUND: Overall survival (OS) is the gold-standard end point for oncology trials. However, the availability of multiple therapeutic options after progression and crossover to receive investigational agents confound and delay OS data maturation. Progression-free survival 2 (PFS-2), defined as the time from randomization to progression on first subsequent therapy, has been proposed as a surrogate for OS. Using a meta-analytic approach, the authors aimed to assess the association between OS and PFS-2 and compare this with progression-free survival 1 (PFS-1) and the objective response rate (ORR). METHODS: An electronic literature search was performed to identify randomized trials of systemic therapies in advanced solid tumors that reported PFS-2 as a prespecified end point. Correlations between OS and PFS-2, OS and PFS-1, and OS and ORR as hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios (ORs) were assessed via linear regression weighted by trial size. RESULTS: Thirty-eight trials were included, and they comprised 19,031 patients across 8 tumor types. PFS-2 displayed a moderate correlation with OS (r = 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.69). Conversely, correlations of ORR (r = 0.12; 95% CI, 0.00-0.13) and PFS-1 (r = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.00-0.33) were poor. The findings for PFS-2 were consistent for subgroup analyses by treatment type (immunotherapy vs nonimmunotherapy: r = 0.67 vs 0.67), survival post progression (<12 vs ≥12 months: r = 0.86 vs 0.79), and percentage not receiving subsequent treatment (<50% vs ≥50%: r = 0.70 vs 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Across diverse tumors and therapies, the treatment effect on PFS-2 correlated moderately with the treatment effect on OS. PFS-2 performed consistently better than PFS-1 and ORR, regardless of postprogression treatment and postprogression survival. PFS-2 should be included as a key trial end point in future randomized trials of solid tumors.

Changes to design and analysis elements of research plans during randomised controlled trials in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the frequency and legitimacy of substantive changes to the research plans of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken in Australia. DESIGN: Comparison of methodology and analysis plans for RCTs specified in protocol documents (full protocols, published protocol articles, statistical analysis plans, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry [ANZCTR] registration entries) and described in publications of primary results. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: 181 RCTs registered with the ANZCTR, 1 September 2007 - 31 December 2013, for which primary results had been published. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Changes made to research plan, both overall and by specific item (primary outcome, analysis set, eligibility criteria, sample size, primary analysis method, and treatment arms included in the primary comparison in multi-arm trials); trial characteristics associated with changes. RESULTS: Protocol documents were available for 124 of 181 eligible RCTs (69%; 46 publicly available, 78 provided by trial groups on request). Full audit of RCTs with protocols found clear or probable changes in 111 trials (90%), for 101 of which (91%) it was unclear whether changes had been made blinded to treatment outcomes. After seeking clarification from investigators, changes to 78 trials were confirmed (63%), for 61 of which (78%) changes were made blinded to treatment outcomes. Any change was less likely for trials with publicly available protocols than for trials for which we needed to request protocols (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06-0.77). Limited reviews of trials without protocols identified that changes had been made to 42 of 57 trials (74%). CONCLUSION: Changes to RCT study plans in Australia are both frequent and usually made appropriately blinded to treatment outcomes. However, the documentation of changes made to RCT protocols should be formalised to improve transparency.

Outcomes of Two Trials of Oxygen-Saturation Targets in Preterm Infants.

BACKGROUND: The safest ranges of oxygen saturation in preterm infants have been the subject of debate. METHODS: In two trials, conducted in Australia and the United Kingdom, infants born before 28 weeks' gestation were randomly assigned to either a lower (85 to 89%) or a higher (91 to 95%) oxygen-saturation range. During enrollment, the oximeters were revised to correct a calibration-algorithm artifact. The primary outcome was death or disability at a corrected gestational age of 2 years; this outcome was evaluated among infants whose oxygen saturation was measured with any study oximeter in the Australian trial and those whose oxygen saturation was measured with a revised oximeter in the U.K. trial. RESULTS: After 1135 infants in Australia and 973 infants in the United Kingdom had been enrolled in the trial, an interim analysis showed increased mortality at a corrected gestational age of 36 weeks, and enrollment was stopped. Death or disability in the Australian trial (with all oximeters included) occurred in 247 of 549 infants (45.0%) in the lower-target group versus 217 of 545 infants (39.8%) in the higher-target group (adjusted relative risk, 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98 to 1.27; P=0.10); death or disability in the U.K. trial (with only revised oximeters included) occurred in 185 of 366 infants (50.5%) in the lower-target group versus 164 of 357 infants (45.9%) in the higher-target group (adjusted relative risk, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.24; P=0.15). In post hoc combined, unadjusted analyses that included all oximeters, death or disability occurred in 492 of 1022 infants (48.1%) in the lower-target group versus 437 of 1013 infants (43.1%) in the higher-target group (relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.23; P=0.02), and death occurred in 222 of 1045 infants (21.2%) in the lower-target group versus 185 of 1045 infants (17.7%) in the higher-target group (relative risk, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.43; P=0.04). In the group in which revised oximeters were used, death or disability occurred in 287 of 580 infants (49.5%) in the lower-target group versus 248 of 563 infants (44.0%) in the higher-target group (relative risk, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.27; P=0.07), and death occurred in 144 of 587 infants (24.5%) versus 99 of 586 infants (16.9%) (relative risk, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.82; P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of an oxygen-saturation target range of 85 to 89% versus 91 to 95% resulted in nonsignificantly higher rates of death or disability at 2 years in each trial but in significantly increased risks of this combined outcome and of death alone in post hoc combined analyses. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and others; BOOST-II Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN00842661, and Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12605000055606.).

Cancer Molecular Screening and Therapeutics (MoST): a framework for multiple, parallel signal-seeking studies of targeted therapies for rare and neglected cancers.

BACKGROUND: Precision medicine aims to link molecular targets in tumours with corresponding therapies, particularly for patients with rare cancers. Innovative approaches are needed to translate molecular opportunities into clinical care. The Cancer Molecular Screening and Therapeutics (MoST) program employs a molecular screening platform to identify molecular changes of therapeutic relevance (actionable changes) and a master protocol for multiple, parallel signal-seeking clinical substudies, focused on therapies for patients with rare and neglected cancers. Methods and analysis: Archival pathology laboratory samples from patients with treatment-refractory advanced solid cancer of any histologic type undergo molecular tumour profiling. Following review by a Molecular Tumour Board, eligible patients are offered treatment in therapeutic substudies. This novel master protocol allows expedited addition of individual substudies; at least 12 open label, single arm, signal-seeking substudies during the initial 4 years of MoST are planned. The primary objectives are to identify signals of efficacy for developing biomarker-driven therapies and biomarkers that more accurately predict response to therapy, as well as to evaluate the MoST design. Ethics approval: The program has been approved by the St Vincent's Hospital Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (reference, HREC/16/SVH/23). Dissemination of results: A report summarising and interpreting collected study data will be published. Our findings will be presented at national and international conferences and scientific meetings, and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12616000908437 (8 July 2016).

Rapid blood-pressure lowering in patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Whether rapid lowering of elevated blood pressure would improve the outcome in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage is not known. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2839 patients who had had a spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage within the previous 6 hours and who had elevated systolic blood pressure to receive intensive treatment to lower their blood pressure (with a target systolic level of <140 mm Hg within 1 hour) or guideline-recommended treatment (with a target systolic level of <180 mm Hg) with the use of agents of the physician's choosing. The primary outcome was death or major disability, which was defined as a score of 3 to 6 on the modified Rankin scale (in which a score of 0 indicates no symptoms, a score of 5 indicates severe disability, and a score of 6 indicates death) at 90 days. A prespecified ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin score was also performed. The rate of serious adverse events was compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Among the 2794 participants for whom the primary outcome could be determined, 719 of 1382 participants (52.0%) receiving intensive treatment, as compared with 785 of 1412 (55.6%) receiving guideline-recommended treatment, had a primary outcome event (odds ratio with intensive treatment, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.01; P=0.06). The ordinal analysis showed significantly lower modified Rankin scores with intensive treatment (odds ratio for greater disability, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.00; P=0.04). Mortality was 11.9% in the group receiving intensive treatment and 12.0% in the group receiving guideline-recommended treatment. Nonfatal serious adverse events occurred in 23.3% and 23.6% of the patients in the two groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with intracerebral hemorrhage, intensive lowering of blood pressure did not result in a significant reduction in the rate of the primary outcome of death or severe disability. An ordinal analysis of modified Rankin scores indicated improved functional outcomes with intensive lowering of blood pressure. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; INTERACT2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00716079.).

Sentinel lymph node based management or routine axillary clearance? Three-year outcomes of the RACS sentinel node biopsy versus axillary clearance (SNAC) 1 trial.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the benefits of sentinel node based management (SNBM) over routine axillary clearance (RAC) at 1 year persisted to 3 years of follow-up. METHODS: A total of 1,088 women with clinically node-negative breast cancer were randomly assigned to the SNBM or RAC group. Upper limb volume, symptoms, and function were assessed at 1, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after surgery objectively with upper limb measurements by clinicians and subjectively by patients' using validated self-rating scales. RESULTS: Upper limb volume increased in both groups over the first 2 years and differed between the two groups all time points beyond 1 month (P < 0.02) but then plateaued. Upper limb swelling was no worse in women who had axillary clearance as a two-stage procedure than in women assigned RAC as a one-stage procedure. Upper limb volume had increased 15 % or more in 6.0 % at 6 months and 17.6 % at 3 years in those assigned RAC versus 4.2 and 11.9 % in those assigned SNBM. Reductions in upper limb movement were also greater, with RAC than SNBM over 6 months, but improved and were similar in the two groups from 1 to 3 years. Subjective ratings of upper limb swelling, symptoms, dysfunction, and disability over 3 years were worse in the RAC group. Upper limb swelling at 3 years was rated severe by few women (1.1 %) but was rated as moderate by 9.4 % in the RAC group and 2.5 % in the SNBM group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of SNBM over RAC persist 3 years after surgery.

Australian clinical trial activity and burden of disease: an analysis of registered trials in National Health Priority Areas.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether Australian clinical trials activity in National Health Priority Areas (NHPAs) reflects the relative disease burden. DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of trials registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) or ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2008 to December 2012 that planned recruitment in Australia and investigated interventions for NHPA conditions (cancer control, cardiovascular health, mental health, obesity, injury prevention/control, diabetes mellitus, arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions, dementia and asthma). Australian estimates of disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) were used to quantify the burden of disease for each NHPA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For each NHPA, the total number of registered trials, planned recruitment, and the predicted numbers based on disability-adjusted life-years expressed as a proportion of the total burden of disease in Australia (%DALY). RESULTS: 5143 trials with Australian sites were registered in the 5-year study period with total planned recruitment of 2 404 609 participants. Of these, 3032 trials (59%) with planned recruitment of 1 532 064 participants (64%) investigated NHPA conditions. Trial numbers and planned recruitment were highest for cancer, cardiovascular and mental health - reflecting their higher disease burden. In contrast, planned recruitment into obesity and dementia trials was ≤ 50% of that predicted from total trial activity based on their relative disease burden. The number of registered trials for these conditions was also lower than predicted. Overall, of 3032 NHPA trials, 2335 (77%) used randomisation and 1520 (50%) planned to recruit > 100 participants. CONCLUSIONS: Australian clinical trial activity for obesity and dementia interventions is lower that would be expected based on their relative disease burden. Trial registries provide a valuable public database to identify and monitor gaps in research activity.

Semiparametric methods for multistate survival models in randomised trials.

Transform methods have proved effective for networks describing a progression of events. In semi-Markov networks, we calculated the transform of time to a terminating event from corresponding transforms of intermediate steps. Saddlepoint inversion then provided survival and hazard functions, which integrated, and fully utilised, the network data. However, the presence of censored data introduces significant difficulties for these methods. Many participants in controlled trials commonly remain event-free at study completion, a consequence of the limited period of follow-up specified in the trial design. Transforms are not estimable using nonparametric methods in states with survival truncated by end-of-study censoring. We propose the use of parametric models specifying residual survival to next event. As a simple approach to extrapolation with competing alternative states, we imposed a proportional incidence (constant relative hazard) assumption beyond the range of study data. No proportional hazards assumptions are necessary for inferences concerning time to endpoint; indeed, estimation of survival and hazard functions can proceed in a single study arm. We demonstrate feasibility and efficiency of transform inversion in a large randomised controlled trial of cholesterol-lowering therapy, the Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease study. Transform inversion integrates information available in components of multistate models: estimates of transition probabilities and empirical survival distributions. As a by-product, it provides some ability to forecast survival and hazard functions forward, beyond the time horizon of available follow-up. Functionals of survival and hazard functions provide inference, which proves sharper than that of log-rank and related methods for survival comparisons ignoring intermediate events.

Validity and Efficiency of Progression-Free Survival-2 as a Surrogate End Point for Overall Survival in Advanced Cancer Randomized Trials.

PURPOSE: Progression-free survival (PFS)-2, defined as the time from randomization to progression on second-line therapy, is potentially a more reliable surrogate than PFS for overall survival (OS), but will require longer follow-up and a larger sample size. We sought to compare the validity and efficiency, defined as proportional increase in follow-up time and sample size, of PFS-2 to PFS. METHODS: We performed an electronic search to identify randomized trials of advanced solid tumors reporting PFS, PFS-2, and OS as prespecified end points. Only studies that had protocols that defined measurement of PFS-2 and follow-up for patients after first disease progression were included. We compared correlations in the relative treatment effect for OS with PFS and PFS-2. We reconstructed individual patient data from survival curves to estimate time to statistical significance (TSS) of the relative treatment effect. We further computed the sample size (person-year [PY] follow-up) required to reach statistical significance. RESULTS: Across the 42 analysis units and 21,255 patients, the correlation of the relative treatment effect between OS and PFS-2, r, was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.41 to 0.80) and r = 0.46 (95% CI, 0.26 to 0.74) for OS and PFS. The median differences in TSS between OS with PFS, OS with PFS-2, and PFS with PFS-2 were 16.59 (95% CI, 4.48 to not reached [NR]), 10.0 (95% CI, 2.2 to NR), and 4.31 (95% CI, 2.92 to 13.13) months, respectively. The median difference in PYs required to reach statistical significance for PFS-2 over PFS was 156 (95% CI, 82 to 500) PYs, equivalent to an estimated median 12.7% increase in PYs. CONCLUSION: PFS-2 offers improved correlation with OS than PFS with a modest increase in follow-up time and sample size. PFS-2 should be considered as a primary end point in future trials of advanced cancers.

Framework for the Use of External Controls to Evaluate Treatment Outcomes in Precision Oncology Trials.

Advances in genomics have enabled anticancer therapies to be tailored to target specific genomic alterations. Single-arm trials (SATs), including those incorporated within umbrella, basket, and platform trials, are widely adopted when it is not feasible to conduct randomized controlled trials in rare biomarker-defined subpopulations. External controls (ECs), defined as control arm data derived outside the clinical trial, have gained renewed interest as a strategy to supplement evidence generated from SATs to allow comparative analysis. There are increasing examples demonstrating the application of EC in precision oncology trials. The prospective application of EC in conducting comparative studies is associated with distinct methodological challenges, the specific considerations for EC use in biomarker-defined subpopulations have not been adequately discussed, and a formal framework is yet to be established. In this review, we present a framework for conducting a prospective comparative analysis using EC. Key steps are (1) defining the purpose of using EC to address the study question, (2) determining if the external data are fit for purpose, (3) developing a transparent study protocol and a statistical analysis plan, and (iv) interpreting results and drawing conclusions on the basis of a prespecified hypothesis. We specify the considerations required for the biomarker-defined subpopulations, which include (1) specifying the comparator and biomarker status of the comparator group, (2) defining lines of treatment, (3) assessment of the biomarker testing panels used, and (4) assessment of cohort stratification in tumor-agnostic studies. We further discuss novel clinical trial designs and statistical techniques leveraging EC to propose future directions to advance evidence generation and facilitate drug development in precision oncology.

Oral Cannabis Extract for Secondary Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Final Results of a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase II/III Trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of this randomized, placebo-controlled, two-stage, phase II/III trial was to determine the efficacy of an oral cannabis extract in adults with refractory nausea and/or vomiting during moderately or highly emetogenic, intravenous chemotherapy despite guideline-consistent antiemetic prophylaxis. Here, we report results of the prespecified combined analysis including the initial phase II and subsequent phase III components. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Study treatment consisted of oral capsules containing either tetrahydrocannabinol 2.5 mg plus cannabidiol 2.5 mg capsules (THC:CBD) or matching placebo, taken three times a day from days -1 to 5, in addition to guideline-consistent antiemetics. The primary measure of effect was the difference in the proportions of participants with no vomiting or retching and no use of rescue medications (a complete response) during hours 0-120 after the first cycle of chemotherapy on study (cycle A). RESULTS: We recruited 147 evaluable of a planned 250 participants from 2016 to 2022. Background antiemetic prophylaxis included a corticosteroid and 5-hydroxytryptamine antagonist in 97%, a neurokinin-1 antagonist in 80%, and olanzapine in 10%. THC:CBD compared with placebo improved the complete response rate from 8% to 24% (absolute difference 16%, 95% CI, 4 to 28, P = .01), with similar effects for absence of significant nausea, use of rescue medications, daily vomits, and the nausea scale on the Functional Living Index-Emesis quality-of-life questionnaire. More frequent bothersome adverse events of special interest included sedation (18% v 7%), dizziness (10% v 0%), and transient anxiety (4% v 1%). There were no serious adverse events attributed to THC:CBD. CONCLUSION: THC:CBD is an effective adjunct for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting despite standard antiemetic prophylaxis, but was associated with additional adverse events. Drug availability, cultural attitudes, legal status, and preferences may affect implementation. Future analyses will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of THC:CBD.

10-Year axillary recurrence in the RACS SNAC1 randomised trial of sentinel lymph node-based management versus routine axillary lymph node dissection.

BACKGROUND: Sentinel node-based management (SNBM) is the international standard of care for early breast cancer that is clinically node-negative based on randomised trials comparing it with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and reporting similar rates of axillary recurrence (AR) without distant disease. We report all ARs, overall survival, and breast cancer-specific survival at 10-years in SNAC1. METHODS: 1.088 women with clinically node-negative, unifocal breast cancers 3 cm or less in diameter were randomly assigned to either SNBM with ALND if the sentinel node (SN) was positive, or to SN biopsy followed by ALND regardless of SN involvement. RESULTS: First ARs were more frequent in those assigned SNBM rather than ALND (11 events, cumulative risk at 10-years 1·85%, 95% CI 0·95-3.27% versus 2 events, 0·37%, 95% CI 0·08-1·26%; HR 5·47, 95% CI 1·21-24·63; p = 0·013). Disease-free survival, breast cancer-specific survival, and overall survival were similar in those assigned SNBM versus ALND. Lymphovascular invasion was an independent predictor of AR (HR 6·6, 95% CI 2·25-19·36, p < 0·001). CONCLUSION: First ARs were more frequent with SNBM than ALND in women with small, unifocal breast cancers when all first axillary events were considered. We recommend that studies of axillary treatment should report all ARs to give an accurate indication of treatment effects. The absolute frequency of AR was low in women meeting our eligibility criteria, and SNBM should remain the treatment of choice in this group. However, for those with higher-risk breast cancers, further study is needed because the estimated risk of AR might alter their choice of axillary surgery.

Value of central review of RECIST v1.1 outcomes in the AGITG INTEGRATE randomised phase 2 international trial for advanced oesophago-gastric cancer.

PURPOSE: Activity estimates should be accurately evaluated in phase 2 clinical trials to ensure appropriate decisions about proceeding to phase 3 trials. RECIST v1.1. progression-free survival (PFS) is a common endpoint in oncology; however, it can be influenced by assessment criteria and trial design. We assessed the value of central adjudication of investigator-assessed PFS times of participants in a double-blind, randomised phase 2 trial evaluating regorafenib versus placebo in advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer (AGITG INTEGRATE) to inform plans for central review in future trials. METHODS: We calculated the proportion of participants with a disagreement between the site investigator assessment and blinded independent central review and in whom central review resulted in a change, then evaluated the effect of central review on study conclusions by comparing hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS based on site review versus central review. Post-progression unblinding was assessed with similar methods. Simulation studies explored the effect of differential and non-differential measurement error on treatment effect estimation and study power. RESULTS: Disagreements between site assessments versus central review occurred in 8/147 (5.4%) participants, 5 resulting in amended date of progression (3.4%). PFS HRs (sites vs central review progression dates) were similar (0.39 vs 0.40). RECIST progression occurred in 82/86 (95%) of cases where post-progression unblinding was requested by the site investigator. CONCLUSIONS: Blinded independent central review was feasible and supported the reliability of site assessments, trial results, and conclusions. Modelling showed that when treatment effects were large and outcome assessments blinded, central review was unlikely to affect conclusions.

Using patient management as a surrogate for patient health outcomes in diagnostic test evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Before a new test is introduced in clinical practice, evidence is needed to demonstrate that its use will lead to improvements in patient health outcomes. Studies reporting test accuracy may not be sufficient, and clinical trials of tests that measure patient health outcomes are rarely feasible. Therefore, the consequences of testing on patient management are often investigated as an intermediate step in the pathway. There is a lack of guidance on the interpretation of this evidence, and patient management studies often neglect a discussion of the limitations of measuring patient management as a surrogate for health outcomes. METHODS: We discuss the rationale for measuring patient management, describe the common study designs and provide guidance about how this evidence should be reported. RESULTS: Interpretation of patient management studies relies on the condition that patient management is a valid surrogate for downstream patient benefits. This condition presupposes two critical assumptions: the test improves diagnostic accuracy; and the measured changes in patient management improve patient health outcomes. The validity of this evidence depends on the certainty around these critical assumptions and the ability of the study design to minimise bias. Three common designs are test RCTs that measure patient management as a primary endpoint, diagnostic before-after studies that compare planned patient management before and after testing, and accuracy studies that are extended to report on the actual treatment or further tests received following a positive and negative test result. CONCLUSIONS: Patient management can be measured as a surrogate outcome for test evaluation if its limitations are recognised. The potential consequences of a positive and negative test result on patient management should be pre-specified and the potential patient benefits of these management changes clearly stated. Randomised comparisons will provide higher quality evidence about differences in patient management using the new test than observational studies. Regardless of the study design used, the critical assumption that patient management is a valid surrogate for downstream patient benefits or harms must be discussed in these studies.

Linking the evidence: intermediate outcomes in medical test assessments.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to review how health technology assessments (HTA) of medical tests incorporate intermediate outcomes in conclusions about the effectiveness of tests on improving health outcomes. METHODS: Systematic review of English-language test assessments in the HTA database from January 2005 to February 2010, supplemented by a search of the Web sites of International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) members. RESULTS: A total of 149 HTAs from eight countries were assessed. Half evaluated tests for screening or diagnosis, a third for disease classification (including staging, prognosis, monitoring), and a fifth for multiple purposes. In seventy-one HTAs (48 percent) only diagnostic accuracy was reported, while in seventeen (11 percent) evidence of health outcomes was reported in addition to accuracy. Intermediate outcomes, mainly the impact of test results on patient management, were considered in sixty-one HTAs (41 percent). Of these, forty-seven identified randomized trials or observational studies reporting intermediate outcomes. The validity of these intermediate outcomes as a surrogate for health outcomes was not consistently discussed; nor was the quality appraisal of this evidence. Clear conclusions about whether the test was effective were included in approximately 60 percent of HTAs. CONCLUSIONS: Intermediate outcomes are frequently assessed in medical test HTAs, but interpretation of this evidence is inconsistently reported. We recommend that reviewers explain the rationale for using intermediate outcomes, identify the assumptions required to link intermediate outcomes and patient benefits and harms, and assess the quality of included studies.

Association of LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B levels with risk of cardiovascular events among patients treated with statins: a meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: The associations of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), and apolipoprotein B (apoB) levels with the risk of cardiovascular events among patients treated with statin therapy have not been reliably documented. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative strength of the associations of LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and apoB with cardiovascular risk among patients treated with statin therapy. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized controlled statin trials in which conventional lipids and apolipoproteins were determined in all study participants at baseline and at 1-year follow-up. DATA SOURCES: Relevant trials were identified by a literature search updated through December 31, 2011. Investigators were contacted and individual patient data were requested and obtained for 62,154 patients enrolled in 8 trials published between 1994 and 2008. DATA EXTRACTION: Hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% CIs for risk of major cardiovascular events adjusted for established risk factors by 1-SD increase in LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and apoB. RESULTS: Among 38,153 patients allocated to statin therapy, 158 fatal myocardial infarctions, 1678 nonfatal myocardial infarctions, 615 fatal events from other coronary artery disease, 2806 hospitalizations for unstable angina, and 1029 fatal or nonfatal strokes occurred during follow-up. The adjusted HRs for major cardiovascular events per 1-SD increase were 1.13 (95% CI, 1.10-1.17) for LDL-C, 1.16 (95% CI, 1.12-1.19) for non-HDL-C, and 1.14 (95% CI, 1.11-1.18) for apoB. These HRs were significantly higher for non-HDL-C than LDL-C (P = .002) and apoB (P = .02). There was no significant difference between apoB and LDL-C (P = .21). CONCLUSION: Among statin-treated patients, on-treatment levels of LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and apoB were each associated with risk of future major cardiovascular events, but the strength of this association was greater for non-HDL-C than for LDL-C and apoB.

Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In a previous meta-analysis, we identified a survival benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy before surgery in patients with resectable oesophageal carcinoma. We updated this meta-analysis with results from new or updated randomised trials presented in the past 3 years. We also compared the benefits of preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: To identify additional studies and published abstracts from major scientific meetings, we searched Medline, Embase, and Central (Cochrane clinical trials database) for studies published since January, 2006, and also manually searched for abstracts from major conferences from the same period. Only randomised studies analysed by intention to treat were included, and searches were restricted to those databases citing articles in English. We used published hazard ratios (HRs) if available or estimates from other survival data. We also investigated treatment effects by tumour histology and relations between risk (survival after surgery alone) and effect size. FINDINGS: We included all 17 trials from the previous meta-analysis and seven further studies. 12 were randomised comparisons of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1854), nine were randomised comparisons of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1981), and two compared neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=194) in patients with resectable oesophageal carcinoma; one factorial trial included two comparisons and was included in analyses of both neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n=78) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=81). The updated analysis contained 4188 patients whereas the previous publication included 2933 patients. This updated meta-analysis contains about 3500 events compared with about 2230 in the previous meta-analysis (estimated 57% increase). The HR for all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.88; p<0.0001); the HR for squamous-cell carcinoma only was 0.80 (0.68-0.93; p=0.004) and for adenocarcinoma only was 0.75 (0.59-0.95; p=0.02). The HR for all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 0.87 (0.79-0.96; p=0.005); the HR for squamous-cell carcinoma only was 0.92 (0.81-1.04; p=0.18) and for adenocarcinoma only was 0.83 (0.71-0.95; p=0.01). The HR for the overall indirect comparison of all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 0.88 (0.76-1.01; p=0.07). INTERPRETATION: This updated meta-analysis provides strong evidence for a survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy over surgery alone in patients with oesophageal carcinoma. A clear advantage of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy over neoadjuvant chemotherapy has not been established. These results should help inform decisions about patient management and design of future trials. FUNDING: Cancer Australia and the NSW Cancer Institute.