Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy in first-line epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer treatment (ICON8): overall survival results from an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard-of-care first-line chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer is carboplatin and paclitaxel administered once every 3 weeks. The JGOG 3016 trial reported significant improvement in progression-free and overall survival with dose-dense weekly paclitaxel and 3-weekly (ie, once every 3 weeks) carboplatin. However, this benefit was not observed in the previously reported progression-free survival results of ICON8. Here, we present the final coprimary outcomes of overall survival and updated progression-free survival analyses of ICON8. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial (ICON8), women aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed stage IC-IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma (here collectively termed ovarian cancer, as defined by International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] 1988 criteria) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were recruited from 117 hospitals with oncology departments in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Ireland. Patients could enter the trial after immediate primary surgery (IPS) or with planned delayed primary surgery (DPS) during chemotherapy, or could have no planned surgery. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London randomisation line with stratification by Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup group, FIGO disease stage, and outcome and timing of surgery, to either 3-weekly carboplatin area under the curve (AUC)5 or AUC6 and 3-weekly paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (control; group 1), 3-weekly carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 and weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (group 2), or weekly carboplatin AUC2 and weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (group 3), all administered via intravenous infusion for a total of six 21-day cycles. Coprimary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival, with comparisons done between group 2 and group 1, and group 3 and group 1, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started at least one chemotherapy cycle. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01654146, and ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN10356387, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 patients were randomly assigned to group 1 (n=522), group 2 (n=523), or group 3 (n=521). The median age was 62 years (IQR 54-68), 1073 (69%) of 1566 patients had high-grade serous carcinoma, 1119 (71%) had stage IIIC-IV disease, and 745 (48%) had IPS. As of data cutoff (March 31, 2020), with a median follow-up of 69 months (IQR 61-75), no significant difference in overall survival was observed in either comparison: median overall survival of 47·4 months (95% CI 43·1-54·8) in group 1, 54·8 months (46·6-61·6) in group 2, and 53·4 months (49·2-59·6) in group 3 (group 2 vs group 1: hazard ratio 0·87 [97·5% CI 0·73-1·05]; group 3 vs group 1: 0·91 [0·76-1·09]). No significant difference was observed for progression-free survival in either comparison and evidence of non-proportional hazards was seen (p=0·037), with restricted mean survival time of 23·9 months (97·5% CI 22·1-25·6) in group 1, 25·3 months (23·6-27·1) in group 2, and 24·8 months (23·0-26·5) in group 3. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were reduced neutrophil count (78 [15%] of 511 patients in group 1, 183 [36%] of 514 in group 2, and 154 [30%] of 513 in group 3), reduced white blood cell count (22 [4%] in group 1, 80 [16%] in group 2, and 71 [14%] in group 3), and anaemia (26 [5%] in group 1, 66 [13%] in group 2, and 24 [5%] in group 3). No new serious adverse events were reported. Seven treatment-related deaths were reported (two in group 1, four in group 2, and one in group 3). INTERPRETATION: In our cohort of predominantly European women with epithelial ovarian cancer, we found that first-line weekly dose-dense chemotherapy did not improve overall or progression-free survival compared with standard 3-weekly chemotherapy and should not be used as part of standard multimodality front-line therapy in this patient group. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia.

Study of mirtazapine for agitated behaviours in dementia (SYMBAD): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Agitation is common in people with dementia and negatively affects the quality of life of both people with dementia and carers. Non-drug patient-centred care is the first-line treatment, but there is a need for other treatment when this care is not effective. Current evidence is sparse on safer and effective alternatives to antipsychotics. We assessed the efficacy and safety of mirtazapine, an antidepressant prescribed for agitation in dementia. METHODS: This parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial-the Study of Mirtazapine for Agitated Behaviours in Dementia trial (SYMBAD)-was done in 26 UK centres. Participants had probable or possible Alzheimer's disease, agitation unresponsive to non-drug treatment, and a Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score of 45 or more. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either mirtazapine (titrated to 45 mg) or placebo. The primary outcome was reduction in CMAI score at 12 weeks. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03031184, and ISRCTN17411897. FINDINGS: Between Jan 26, 2017, and March 6, 2020, 204 participants were recruited and randomised. Mean CMAI scores at 12 weeks were not significantly different between participants receiving mirtazapine and participants receiving placebo (adjusted mean difference -1·74, 95% CI -7·17 to 3·69; p=0·53). The number of controls with adverse events (65 [64%] of 102 controls) was similar to that in the mirtazapine group (67 [66%] of 102 participants receiving mirtazapine). However, there were more deaths in the mirtazapine group (n=7) by week 16 than in the control group (n=1), with post-hoc analysis suggesting this difference was of marginal statistical significance (p=0·065). INTERPRETATION: This trial found no benefit of mirtazapine compared with placebo, and we observed a potentially higher mortality with use of mirtazapine. The data from this study do not support using mirtazapine as a treatment for agitation in dementia. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Multicentre evaluation of two multiplex PCR platforms for the rapid microbiological investigation of nosocomial pneumonia in UK ICUs: the INHALE WP1 study.

BACKGROUND: Culture-based microbiological investigation of hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP or VAP) is insensitive, with aetiological agents often unidentified. This can lead to excess antimicrobial treatment of patients with susceptible pathogens, while those with resistant bacteria are treated inadequately for prolonged periods. Using PCR to seek pathogens and their resistance genes directly from clinical samples may improve therapy and stewardship. METHODS: Surplus routine lower respiratory tract samples were collected from intensive care unit patients about to receive new or changed antibiotics for hospital-onset lower respiratory tract infections at 15 UK hospitals. Testing was performed using the BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel (bioMérieux) and Unyvero Pneumonia Panel (Curetis). Concordance analysis compared machine and routine microbiology results, while Bayesian latent class (BLC) analysis estimated the sensitivity and specificity of each test, incorporating information from both PCR panels and routine microbiology. FINDINGS: In 652 eligible samples; PCR identified pathogens in considerably more samples compared with routine microbiology: 60.4% and 74.2% for Unyvero and FilmArray respectively vs 44.2% by routine microbiology. PCR tests also detected more pathogens per sample than routine microbiology. For common HAP/VAP pathogens, FilmArray had sensitivity of 91.7%-100.0% and specificity of 87.5%-99.5%; Unyvero had sensitivity of 50.0%-100.0%%, and specificity of 89.4%-99.0%. BLC analysis indicated that, compared with PCR, routine microbiology had low sensitivity, ranging from 27.0% to 69.4%. INTERPRETATION: Conventional and BLC analysis demonstrated that both platforms performed similarly and were considerably more sensitive than routine microbiology, detecting potential pathogens in patient samples reported as culture negative. The increased sensitivity of detection realised by PCR offers potential for improved antimicrobial prescribing.

Cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine for agitated behaviors in dementia: findings from a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the costs and cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine compared to placebo over 12-week follow-up. DESIGN: Economic evaluation in a double-blind randomized controlled trial of mirtazapine vs. placebo. SETTING: Community settings and care homes in 26 UK centers. PARTICIPANTS: People with probable or possible Alzheimer's disease and agitation. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome included incremental cost of participants' health and social care per 6-point difference in CMAI score at 12 weeks. Secondary cost-utility analyses examined participants' and unpaid carers' gain in quality-adjusted life years (derived from EQ-5D-5L, DEMQOL-Proxy-U, and DEMQOL-U) from the health and social care and societal perspectives. RESULTS: One hundred and two participants were allocated to each group; 81 mirtazapine and 90 placebo participants completed a 12-week assessment (87 and 95, respectively, completed a 6-week assessment). Mirtazapine and placebo groups did not differ on mean CMAI scores or health and social care costs over the study period, before or after adjustment for center and living arrangement (independent living/care home). On the primary outcome, neither mirtazapine nor placebo could be considered a cost-effective strategy with a high level of confidence. Groups did not differ in terms of participant self- or proxy-rated or carer self-rated quality of life scores, health and social care or societal costs, before or after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: On cost-effectiveness grounds, the use of mirtazapine cannot be recommended for agitated behaviors in people living with dementia. Effective and cost-effective medications for agitation in dementia remain to be identified in cases where non-pharmacological strategies for managing agitation have been unsuccessful.

Implementing supportive exercise interventions in the colorectal cancer care pathway: a process evaluation of the PREPARE-ABC randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A colorectal resection is standard treatment for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the procedure results in significant post-operative mortality and reduced quality of life. Maximising pre-operative cardiopulmonary fitness could improve post-surgical outcomes. PREPARE-ABC is a multi-centre, three-armed, randomised controlled trial investigating the effects of exercise interventions, with motivational support on short and longer-term recovery outcomes in CRC patients undergoing major lower-gastrointestinal surgery. The trial included an internal pilot phase with parallel process evaluation. The aim of the process evaluation was to optimise intervention implementation for the main trial. METHODS: Mixed methods process evaluation conducted in 14 UK hospitals between November 2016 and March 2018. Data included a site profile questionnaire and telephone scoping interview with hospital staff, 34 qualitative observations of standard care and 14 observations of intervention delivery, 13 semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals (HCPs) and 28 semi-structured interviews with patients. Data analysis focused on describing intervention delivery within each arm, assessing fidelity, acceptability and how variation in delivery was linked to contextual characteristics. RESULTS: Standard care exercise advice was typically limited to maintaining current activity levels, and with lead-in time to surgery affecting whether any exercise advice was provided. Variation in HCP capacity affected the ability of colorectal units to deploy staff to deliver the intervention. Patients' exercise history and motivation prior to surgery influenced HCP perceptions and delivery of the motivational components. Observations indicated a high level of fidelity to delivery of the exercise interventions. All but one of the 28 interviewed patients reported increasing exercise levels as a result of receiving the intervention, with most finding them motivational and greatly valuing the enhanced level of social support (versus standard care) provided by staff. CONCLUSION: Hospital-supervised and home-based exercise interventions were highly acceptable for most patients undergoing surgery for CRC. Delivery of pre- and post-operative exercise within the CRC care pathway is feasible but systematic planning of capacity and resources is required to optimise implementation.

Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy in first-line epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma treatment (ICON8): primary progression free survival analysis results from a GCIG phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Carboplatin and paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks is standard-of-care first-line chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer. The Japanese JGOG3016 trial showed a significant improvement in progression-free and overall survival with dose-dense weekly paclitaxel and 3-weekly carboplatin. In this study, we aimed to compare efficacy and safety of two dose-dense weekly regimens to standard 3-weekly chemotherapy in a predominantly European population with epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, women with newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IC-IV epithelial ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to group 1 (carboplatin area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6 and 175 mg/m2 paclitaxel every 3 weeks), group 2 (carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 every 3 weeks and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly), or group 3 (carboplatin AUC2 and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly). Written informed consent was provided by all women who entered the trial. The protocol had the appropriate national research ethics committee approval for the countries where the study was conducted. Patients entered the trial after immediate primary surgery, or before neoadjuvant chemotherapy with subsequent planned delayed primary surgery. The trial coprimary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival. Data analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, and were powered to detect a hazard ratio of 0·75 in progression-free survival. The main comparisons were between the control group (group 1) and each of the weekly research groups (groups 2 and 3). FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 women were randomly assigned to treatment. 72% (365), completed six protocol-defined treatment cycles in group 1, 60% (305) in group 2, and 63% (322) in group 3, although 90% (454), 89% (454), and 85% (437) completed six platinum-based chemotherapy cycles, respectively. Paclitaxel dose intensification was achieved with weekly treatment (median total paclitaxel dose 1010 mg/m2 in group 1; 1233 mg/m2 in group 2; 1274 mg/m2 in group 3). By February, 2017, 1018 (65%) patients had experienced disease progression. No significant progression-free survival increase was observed with either weekly regimen (restricted mean survival time 24·4 months [97·5% CI 23·0-26·0] in group 1, 24·9 months [24·0-25·9] in group 2, 25·3 months [23·9-26·9] in group 3; median progression-free survival 17·7 months [IQR 10·6-not reached] in group 1, 20·8 months [11·9-59·0] in group 2, 21·0 months [12·0-54·0] in group 3; log-rank p=0·35 for group 2 vs group 1; group 3 vs 1 p=0·51). Although grade 3 or 4 toxic effects increased with weekly treatment, these effects were predominantly uncomplicated. Febrile neutropenia and sensory neuropathy incidences were similar across groups. INTERPRETATION: Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy can be delivered successfully as first-line treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer but does not significantly improve progression-free survival compared with standard 3-weekly chemotherapy in predominantly European populations. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, Cancer Australia.

Effect of Co-trimoxazole (Trimethoprim-Sulfamethoxazole) vs Placebo on Death, Lung Transplant, or Hospital Admission in Patients With Moderate and Severe Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: The EME-TIPAC Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) has a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Patients with IPF have altered lung microbiota, with bacterial burden within the lungs associated with mortality; previous studies have suggested benefit with co-trimoxazole (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole). Objective: To determine the efficacy of co-trimoxazole in patients with moderate and severe IPF. Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel randomized trial of 342 patients with IPF, breathlessness (Medical Research Council dyspnea scale score >1), and impaired lung function (forced vital capacity ≤75% predicted) conducted in 39 UK specialist interstitial lung disease centers between April 2015 (first patient visit) and April 2019 (last patient follow-up). Interventions: Study participants were randomized to receive 960 mg of oral co-trimoxazole twice daily (n = 170) or matched placebo (n = 172) for between 12 and 42 months. All patients received 5 mg of folic acid orally once daily. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to death (all causes), lung transplant, or first nonelective hospital admission. There were 15 secondary outcomes, including the individual components of the primary end point respiratory-related events, lung function (forced vital capacity and gas transfer), and patient-reported outcomes (Medical Research Council dyspnea scale, 5-level EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire, cough severity, Leicester Cough Questionnaire, and King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease questionnaire scores). Results: Among 342 individuals who were randomized (mean age, 71.3 years; 46 [13%] women), 283 (83%) completed the trial. The median (interquartile range) duration of follow-up was 1.02 (0.35-1.73) years. Events per person-year of follow-up among participants randomized to the co-trimoxazole and placebo groups were 0.45 (84/186) and 0.38 (80/209), respectively, with a hazard ratio of 1.2 ([95% CI, 0.9-1.6]; P = .32). There were no statistically significant differences in other event outcomes, lung function, or patient-reported outcomes. Patients in the co-trimoxazole group had 696 adverse events (nausea [n = 89], diarrhea [n = 52], vomiting [n = 28], and rash [n = 31]) and patients in the placebo group had 640 adverse events (nausea [n = 67], diarrhea [n = 84], vomiting [n = 20], and rash [n = 20]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with moderate or severe IPF, treatment with oral co-trimoxazole did not reduce a composite outcome of time to death, transplant, or nonelective hospitalization compared with placebo. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN17464641.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus debulking surgery in advanced tubo-ovarian cancers: pooled analysis of individual patient data from the EORTC 55971 and CHORUS trials.

BACKGROUND: Individual patient data from two randomised trials comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with upfront debulking surgery in advanced tubo-ovarian cancer were analysed to examine long-term outcomes for patients and to identify any preferable therapeutic approaches for subgroup populations. METHODS: We did a per-protocol pooled analysis of individual patient data from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 55971 trial (NCT00003636) and the Medical Research Council Chemotherapy Or Upfront Surgery (CHORUS) trial (ISRCTN74802813). In the EORTC trial, eligible women had biopsy-proven International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC or IV invasive epithelial tubo-ovarian carcinoma. In the CHORUS trial, inclusion criteria were similar to those of the EORTC trial, and women with apparent FIGO stage IIIA and IIIB disease were also eligible. The main aim of the pooled analysis was to show non-inferiority in overall survival with neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with upfront debulking surgery, using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method. Tests for heterogeneity were based on Cochran's Q heterogeneity statistic. FINDINGS: Data for 1220 women were included in the pooled analysis, 670 from the EORTC trial and 550 from the CHORUS trial. 612 women were randomly allocated to receive upfront debulking surgery and 608 to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 7·6 years (IQR 6·0-9·6; EORTC, 9·2 years [IQR 7·3-10·4]; CHORUS, 5·9 years [IQR 4·3-7·4]). Median age was 63 years (IQR 56-71) and median size of the largest metastatic tumour at diagnosis was 8 cm (IQR 4·8-13·0). 55 (5%) women had FIGO stage II-IIIB disease, 831 (68%) had stage IIIC disease, and 230 (19%) had stage IV disease, with staging data missing for 104 (9%) women. In the entire population, no difference in median overall survival was noted between patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and upfront debulking surgery (27·6 months [IQR 14·1-51·3] and 26·9 months [12·7-50·1], respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·86-1·09; p=0·586). Median overall survival for EORTC and CHORUS patients was significantly different at 30·2 months (IQR 15·7-53·7) and 23·6 months (10·5-46·9), respectively (HR 1·20, 95% CI 1·06-1·36; p=0·004), but was not heterogeneous (Cochran's Q, p=0·17). Women with stage IV disease had significantly better outcomes with neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with upfront debulking surgery (median overall survival 24·3 months [IQR 14·1-47·6] and 21·2 months [10·0-36·4], respectively; HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·58-1·00; p=0·048; median progression-free survival 10·6 months [7·9-15·0] and 9·7 months [5·2-13·2], respectively; HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·59-1·00; p=0·049). INTERPRETATION: Long-term follow-up data substantiate previous results showing that neoadjuvant chemotherapy and upfront debulking surgery result in similar overall survival in advanced tubo-ovarian cancer, with better survival in women with stage IV disease with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This pooled analysis, with long-term follow-up, shows that neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a valuable treatment option for patients with stage IIIC-IV tubo-ovarian cancer, particularly in patients with a high tumour burden at presentation or poor performance status. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute and Vlaamse Liga tegen kanker (Flemish League against Cancer).

Quality of life with cediranib in relapsed ovarian cancer: The ICON6 phase 3 randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The ICON6 trial showed that cediranib, an oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3, improved clinical outcomes for patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer when it was used with chemotherapy and was continued as maintenance therapy. This study describes health-related quality of life (QOL) during the first year of treatment. METHODS: Four hundred fifty-six women were randomly allocated to receive standard chemotherapy only, chemotherapy with concurrent cediranib, or chemotherapy with cediranib administered concurrently and continued as maintenance. Patients completed QOL questionnaires until disease progression every 3 weeks during chemotherapy and then every 6 weeks to 1 year. Patients alive with disease progression completed a QOL form 1 year after randomization. The primary QOL endpoint was the global score from the Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer) at 1 year, with the standard chemotherapy group compared with the concurrent-maintenance cediranib group. RESULTS: The rate of questionnaire compliance was 90% at the baseline and 76% at 1 year and was similar across the 3 groups. The mean global QOL score at 1 year was 62.6 points for the standard chemotherapy group and 68.7 points for the concurrent-maintenance group (+4.5; 95% confidence interval, -2.0 to 11.0; P = .18). Sensitivity analyses suggested that this finding was robust to the effect of missing data, and the improvement became statistically significant after adjustments for self-reported diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: The 6th study by the International Collaboration in Ovarian Neoplasm (ICON6) showed a significant improvement in progression-free survival with cediranib as concurrent and maintenance therapy. No QOL detriment with cediranib was found 1 year after treatment was commenced. The maintenance of QOL along with prolonged cancer control suggests that cediranib has a valuable role in the treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer. Cancer 2017;123:2752-61. © 2017 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Cediranib in patients with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (ICON6): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Angiogenesis is a validated clinical target in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Cediranib is an oral antiangiogenic vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1-3 inhibitor that has shown antitumour activity in recurrent ovarian cancer. We assessed efficacy and safety of cediranib in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy and as continued maintenance treatment in patients with first relapse of platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, three-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer at 63 centres in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, and the UK. Participants received up to six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy (once every 3 weeks) then entered a maintenance phase. Participants were randomly allocated (2:3:3), with five stratification factors and in alternating blocks, to receive placebo alongside chemotherapy and then placebo only maintenance (arm A; reference), cediranib 20 mg once-daily alongside chemotherapy then placebo only maintenance (arm B; concurrent), or cediranib 20 mg once-daily alongside chemotherapy then cediranib 20 mg once-daily maintenance (arm C; maintenance). Patients continued treatment to progression or excessive toxic effects. The primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival between arms A and C. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all patients who received the allocated study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00532194; the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN68510403; and ANZ Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN1261000016003. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 486 [corrected] women between Nov 13, 2007, and Dec 23, 2011; results presented are for 456 patients randomly assigned subsequent to the 30mg safety phase. During a median of 19·5 months (IQR 14-26) follow-up, 113 (96%) of 118 women assigned to arm A and 141 (86%) of 164 assigned to arm C had disease progression. Median progression-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 10·4-11·7) in arm C and 8·7 months (7·7-9·4) in arm A (hazard ratio 0·56, 0·44-0·72, p<0·0001). 156 (90%) of 174 patients in arm B had disease progression, and median progression-free survival was 9·9 months (95% CI 9·4-10·5). Diarrhoea, neutropenia, hypertension, and voice changes were significantly more common, during chemotherapy with cediranib, and diarrhoea, hypothyroidism and voice changes were more common during maintenance. Poor compliance with cediranib was noted during maintenance treatment with toxic effects being the most common cause for discontinuation. INTERPRETATION: Cediranib, when given orally with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance, yielded a meaningful improvement [corrected] in progression-free survival in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, albeit with added toxic effects. The positive results in ICON6 could provide women with a new therapeutic option for recurrent ovarian cancer. Assessment of the secondary endpoint of overall survival will need longer follow-up. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Cancer Australia, National Gynecological Cancer Centre, and AstraZeneca.

Primary chemotherapy versus primary surgery for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (CHORUS): an open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The international standard of care for women with suspected advanced ovarian cancer is surgical debulking followed by platinum-based chemotherapy. We aimed to establish whether use of platinum-based primary chemotherapy followed by delayed surgery was an effective and safe alternative treatment regimen. METHODS: In this phase 3, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled trial (CHORUS) undertaken in 87 hospitals in the UK and New Zealand, we enrolled women with suspected stage III or IV ovarian cancer. We randomly assigned women (1:1) either to undergo primary surgery followed by six cycles of chemotherapy, or to three cycles of primary chemotherapy, then surgery, followed by three more cycles of completion chemotherapy. Each 3-week cycle consisted of carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2), or an alternative carboplatin combination regimen, or carboplatin monotherapy. We did the random assignment by use of a minimisation method with a random element, and stratified participants according to the randomising centre, largest radiological tumour size, clinical stage, and prespecified chemotherapy regimen. Patients and investigators were not masked to group assignment. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. To establish non-inferiority, the upper bound of a one-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) had to be less than 1.18. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN74802813, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2004, and Aug 30, 2010, we randomly assigned 552 women to treatment. Of the 550 women who were eligible, 276 were assigned to primary surgery and 274 to primary chemotherapy. All were included in the intention-to-treat analysis; 251 assigned to primary surgery and 253 to primary chemotherapy were included in the per-protocol analysis. As of May 31, 2014, 451 deaths had occurred: 231 in the primary-surgery group versus 220 in the primary-chemotherapy group. Median overall survival was 22.6 months in the primary-surgery group versus 24.1 months in primary chemotherapy. The HR for death was 0.87 in favour of primary chemotherapy, with the upper bound of the one-sided 90% CI 0.98 (95% CI 0.72-1.05). Grade 3 or 4 postoperative adverse events and deaths within 28 days after surgery were more common in the primary-surgery group than in the primary-chemotherapy group (60 [24%] of 252 women vs 30 [14%] of 209, p=0.0007, and 14 women [6%] vs 1 woman [<1%], p=0.001). The most common grade 3 or 4 postoperative adverse event was haemorrhage in both groups (8 women [3%] in the primary-surgery group vs 14 [6%] in the primary-chemotherapy group). 110 (49%) of 225 women receiving primary surgery and 102 (40%) of 253 receiving primary chemotherapy had a grade 3 or 4 chemotherapy related toxic effect (p=0.0654), mostly uncomplicated neutropenia (20% and 16%, respectively). One fatal toxic effect, neutropenic sepsis, occurred in the primary-chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: In women with stage III or IV ovarian cancer, survival with primary chemotherapy is non-inferior to primary surgery. In this study population, giving primary chemotherapy before surgery is an acceptable standard of care for women with advanced ovarian cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

Standard chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer (ICON7): overall survival results of a phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The ICON7 trial previously reported improved progression-free survival in women with ovarian cancer with the addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy, with the greatest effect in patients at high risk of disease progression. We report the final overall survival results of the trial. METHODS: ICON7 was an international, phase 3, open-label, randomised trial undertaken at 263 centres in 11 countries across Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Eligible adult women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer that was either high-risk early-stage disease (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] stage I-IIa, grade 3 or clear cell histology) or more advanced disease (FIGO stage IIb-IV), with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to standard chemotherapy (six 3-weekly cycles of intravenous carboplatin [AUC 5 or 6] and paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) of body surface area) or the same chemotherapy regimen plus bevacizumab 7·5 mg per kg bodyweight intravenously every 3 weeks, given concurrently and continued with up to 12 further 3-weekly cycles of maintenance therapy. Randomisation was done by a minimisation algorithm stratified by FIGO stage, residual disease, interval between surgery and chemotherapy, and Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival; the study was also powered to detect a difference in overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN91273375. FINDINGS: Between Dec 18, 2006, and Feb 16, 2009, 1528 women were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy (n=764) or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (n=764). Median follow-up at the end of the trial on March 31, 2013, was 48·9 months (IQR 26·6-56·2), at which point 714 patients had died (352 in the chemotherapy group and 362 in the bevacizumab group). Our results showed evidence of non-proportional hazards, so we used the difference in restricted mean survival time as the primary estimate of effect. No overall survival benefit of bevacizumab was recorded (restricted mean survival time 44·6 months [95% CI 43·2-45·9] in the standard chemotherapy group vs 45·5 months [44·2-46·7] in the bevacizumab group; log-rank p=0·85). In an exploratory analysis of a predefined subgroup of 502 patients with poor prognosis disease, 332 (66%) died (174 in the standard chemotherapy group and 158 in the bevacizumab group), and a significant difference in overall survival was noted between women who received bevacizumab plus chemotherapy and those who received chemotherapy alone (restricted mean survival time 34·5 months [95% CI 32·0-37·0] with standard chemotherapy vs 39·3 months [37·0-41·7] with bevacizumab; log-rank p=0·03). However, in non-high-risk patients, the restricted mean survival time did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (49·7 months [95% CI 48·3-51·1]) in the standard chemotherapy group vs 48·4 months [47·0-49·9] in the bevacizumab group; p=0·20). An updated analysis of progression-free survival showed no difference between treatment groups. During extended follow-up, one further treatment-related grade 3 event (gastrointestinal fistula in a bevacizumab-treated patient), three grade 2 treatment-related events (cardiac failure, sarcoidosis, and foot fracture, all in bevacizumab-treated patients), and one grade 1 treatment-related event (vaginal haemorrhage, in a patient treated with standard chemotherapy) were reported. INTERPRETATION: Bevacizumab, added to platinum-based chemotherapy, did not increase overall survival in the study population as a whole. However, an overall survival benefit was recorded in poor-prognosis patients, which is concordant with the progression-free survival results from ICON7 and GOG-218, and provides further evidence towards the optimum use of bevacizumab in the treatment of ovarian cancer. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research through the UK National Cancer Research Network, the Medical Research Council, and Roche.

A phase 3 trial of bevacizumab in ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Angiogenesis plays a role in the biology of ovarian cancer. We examined the effect of bevacizumab, the vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor, on survival in women with this disease. METHODS: We randomly assigned women with ovarian cancer to carboplatin (area under the curve, 5 or 6) and paclitaxel (175 mg per square meter of body-surface area), given every 3 weeks for 6 cycles, or to this regimen plus bevacizumab (7.5 mg per kilogram of body weight), given concurrently every 3 weeks for 5 or 6 cycles and continued for 12 additional cycles or until progression of disease. Outcome measures included progression-free survival, first analyzed per protocol and then updated, and interim overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 1528 women from 11 countries were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment regimens. Their median age was 57 years; 90% had epithelial ovarian cancer, 69% had a serous histologic type, 9% had high-risk early-stage disease, 30% were at high risk for progression, and 70% had stage IIIC or IV ovarian cancer. Progression-free survival (restricted mean) at 36 months was 20.3 months with standard therapy, as compared with 21.8 months with standard therapy plus bevacizumab (hazard ratio for progression or death with bevacizumab added, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.70 to 0.94; P=0.004 by the log-rank test). Nonproportional hazards were detected (i.e., the treatment effect was not consistent over time on the hazard function scale) (P<0.001), with a maximum effect at 12 months, coinciding with the end of planned bevacizumab treatment and diminishing by 24 months. Bevacizumab was associated with more toxic effects (most often hypertension of grade 2 or higher) (18%, vs. 2% with chemotherapy alone). In the updated analyses, progression-free survival (restricted mean) at 42 months was 22.4 months without bevacizumab versus 24.1 months with bevacizumab (P=0.04 by log-rank test); in patients at high risk for progression, the benefit was greater with bevacizumab than without it, with progression-free survival (restricted mean) at 42 months of 14.5 months with standard therapy alone and 18.1 months with bevacizumab added, with respective median overall survival of 28.8 and 36.6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Bevacizumab improved progression-free survival in women with ovarian cancer. The benefits with respect to both progression-free and overall survival were greater among those at high risk for disease progression. (Funded by Roche and others; ICON7 Controlled-Trials.com number, ISRCTN91273375.).

Standard chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in advanced ovarian cancer: quality-of-life outcomes from the International Collaboration on Ovarian Neoplasms (ICON7) phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: In the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup International Collaboration on Ovarian Neoplasms 7 (ICON7) trial, bevacizumab improved progression-free survival in patients with ovarian cancer when used in combination with first-line chemotherapy and as a single-drug continuation treatment for 18 cycles. In a preliminary analysis of a high-risk subset of patients, there was also an improvement in overall survival. This study aims to describe the health-related quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes from ICON7. METHODS: ICON7 is a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 3 trial. Between Dec 18, 2006, and Feb 16, 2009, after a surgical procedure aiming to debulk the disease, women with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) high-risk stage I-IV epithelial ovarian cancer were randomly allocated (1:1) by computer program and block randomisation to receive either six cycles of standard chemotherapy (total 18 weeks) with carboplatin (area under the curve 5 or 6) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) alone or with bevacizumab (7·5 mg/kg) given intravenously with chemotherapy and continued as a single drug thereafter (total 54 weeks). The primary QoL endpoint was global QoL from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaire-core 30 at week 54, analysed by ANOVA and adjusted for baseline score. Analyses were by intention to treat. The ICON7 trial has completed recruitment and remains in follow-up. This study is registered, number ISRCTN91273375. FINDINGS: 764 women were randomly assigned to the standard chemotherapy group and 764 to the bevacizumab group. At baseline, 684 (90%) of women in the standard chemotherapy group and 691 (90%) of those in the bevacizumab group had completed QoL questionnaires. At week 54, 502 (66%) women in the bevacizumab group and 388 (51%) women in the standard chemotherapy group provided QoL data. Overall, the mean global QoL score improved during chemotherapy by 7·2 points (SD 24·4) when analysed for all women with data at baseline and week 18. The mean global QoL score at 54 weeks was higher in the standard chemotherapy group than in the bevacizumab group (76·1 [SD 18·2] vs 69·7 [19·1] points; difference 6·4 points, 95% CI 3·7-9·0, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Bevacizumab continuation treatment seems to be associated with a small but clinically significant decrement in QoL compared with standard treatment for women with ovarian cancer. The trade-off between the prolongation of progression-free survival and the quality of that period of time needs to be considered in clinical practice when making treatment decisions. FUNDING: Roche and the National Institute for Health Research through the UK National Cancer Research Network.

Comparison of the Journey II bicruciate stabilised (JII-BCS) and GENESIS II total knee arthroplasty for functional ability and motor impairment: the CAPAbility, blinded, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if a newer design of total knee replacement (TKR) (Journey II BCS) produces superior patient-reported outcomes scores and biomechanical outcomes than the older, more established design (Genesis II). SETTING: Patients were recruited from an NHS University Hospital between July 2018 and October 2019 with surgery at two sites. Biomechanical and functional capacity measurements were at a University Movement and Exercise Laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: 80 participants undergoing single-stage TKR. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to receive either the Journey II BCS (JII-BCS) or Genesis II TKR. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were: OKS Activity and Participation Questionnaire, EQ-5D-5L and UCLA Activity scores, Timed Up and Go Test, 6 min walk test, lower limb kinematics and lower limb muscle activity during walking and balance. RESULTS: This study found no difference in the OKS between groups. The OKS scores for the JII-BCS and Genesis II groups were mean (SD) 42.97 (5.21) and 43.13 (5.20) respectively, adjusted effect size 0.35 (-2.01,2.71) p=0.771In secondary outcome measures, the Genesis II group demonstrated a significantly greater walking range-of-movement (50.62 (7.33) vs 46.07 (7.71) degrees, adjusted effect size, 3.14 (0.61,5.68) p=0.02) and higher peak knee flexion angular velocity during walking (mean (SD) 307.69 (38.96) vs 330.38 (41.40) degrees/second, adjusted effect size was 21.75 (4.54,38.96), p=0.01) and better postural control (smaller resultant centre of path length) during quiet standing than the JII-BCS group (mean (SD) 158.14 (65.40) vs 235.48 (176.94) mm, adjusted effect size, 59.91 (-105.98, -13.85) p=0.01.). CONCLUSIONS: In this study population, the findings do not support the hypothesis that the Journey II BCS produces a better outcome than the Genesis II for the primary outcome of the OKS at 6 months after surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN32315753.

A pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial to assess the safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine and carbamazepine in people with Alzheimer's disease and agitated behaviours: the HTA-SYMBAD trial.

Background: Agitation is common and impacts negatively on people with dementia and carers. Non-drug patient-centred care is first-line treatment, but we need other treatment when this fails. Current evidence is sparse on safer and effective alternatives to antipsychotics. Objectives: To assess clinical and cost-effectiveness and safety of mirtazapine and carbamazepine in treating agitation in dementia. Design: Pragmatic, phase III, multicentre, double-blind, superiority, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness of mirtazapine over 12 weeks (carbamazepine arm discontinued). Setting: Twenty-six UK secondary care centres. Participants: Eligibility: probable or possible Alzheimer's disease, agitation unresponsive to non-drug treatment, Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score ≥ 45. Interventions: Mirtazapine (target 45 mg), carbamazepine (target 300 mg) and placebo. Outcome measures: Primary: Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score 12 weeks post randomisation. Main economic outcome evaluation: incremental cost per six-point difference in Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score at 12 weeks, from health and social care system perspective. Data from participants and informants at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks. Long-term follow-up Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory data collected by telephone from informants at 6 and 12 months. Randomisation and blinding: Participants allocated 1 : 1 : 1 ratio (to discontinuation of the carbamazepine arm, 1 : 1 thereafter) to receive placebo or carbamazepine or mirtazapine, with treatment as usual. Random allocation was block stratified by centre and residence type with random block lengths of three or six (after discontinuation of carbamazepine, two or four). Double-blind, with drug and placebo identically encapsulated. Referring clinicians, participants, trial management team and research workers who did assessments were masked to group allocation. Results: Two hundred and forty-four participants recruited and randomised (102 mirtazapine, 102 placebo, 40 carbamazepine). The carbamazepine arm was discontinued due to slow overall recruitment; carbamazepine/placebo analyses are therefore statistically underpowered and not detailed in the abstract. Mean difference placebo-mirtazapine (-1.74, 95% confidence interval -7.17 to 3.69; p = 0.53). Harms: The number of controls with adverse events (65/102, 64%) was similar to the mirtazapine group (67/102, 66%). However, there were more deaths in the mirtazapine group (n = 7) by week 16 than in the control group (n = 1). Post hoc analysis suggests this was of marginal statistical significance (p = 0.065); this difference did not persist at 6- and 12-month assessments. At 12 weeks, the costs of unpaid care by the dyadic carer were significantly higher in the mirtazapine than placebo group [difference: £1120 (95% confidence interval £56 to £2184)]. In the cost-effectiveness analyses, mean raw and adjusted outcome scores and costs of the complete cases samples showed no differences between groups. Limitations: Our study has four important potential limitations: (1) we dropped the proposed carbamazepine group; (2) the trial was not powered to investigate a mortality difference between the groups; (3) recruitment beyond February 2020, was constrained by the COVID-19 pandemic; and (4) generalisability is limited by recruitment of participants from old-age psychiatry services and care homes. Conclusions: The data suggest mirtazapine is not clinically or cost-effective (compared to placebo) for agitation in dementia. There is little reason to recommend mirtazapine for people with dementia with agitation. Future work: Effective and cost-effective management strategies for agitation in dementia are needed where non-pharmacological approaches are unsuccessful. Study registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN17411897/NCT03031184. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

It is common for people with Alzheimer's disease to experience agitation, for example feeling restless or unsettled. If left untreated, agitation can lead to poorer quality of life and increased hospitalisation and strain for family carers. Often these symptoms are treated with medications that are usually used to manage psychosis (antipsychotic drugs), but such medication has limited effectiveness and can cause serious adverse effects to patients, including risk of increased death. Two medications that are already commonly prescribed for other health issues, mirtazapine (an antidepressant) and carbamazepine (a drug used to treat epilepsy), had been identified as a possible alternative way of treating agitation in Alzheimer's disease that might not have the harms associated with antipsychotic medication. In this study, we compared the effects of giving mirtazapine or carbamazepine with a dummy drug (placebo) in people with Alzheimer's disease who were experiencing agitation. The results of the study showed that neither medication was any more effective than the placebo in reducing agitation over 12 weeks in terms of improving symptoms, or in economic terms. Mirtazapine may lead to additional carer costs as compared to placebo. The study findings are stronger for mirtazapine than carbamazepine because the carbamazepine arm was stopped when it had recruited less than half the numbers needed. That was done because the study was not recruiting quickly enough to support both the mirtazapine and the carbamazepine arms. The findings from this study show that mirtazapine should not be recommended to treat agitation in Alzheimer's disease. More work is needed to formulate effective ways and to test new drug and non-drug treatments for agitation in dementia.

Treating common mental disorder including psychotic experiences in the primary care improving access to psychological therapies programme (the TYPPEX study): protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial with nested economic and process evaluation of a training package for therapists.

INTRODUCTION: At least one in four people treated by the primary care improving access to psychological therapies (IAPT) programme in England experiences distressing psychotic experiences (PE) in addition to common mental disorder (CMD). These individuals are less likely to achieve recovery. IAPT services do not routinely screen for nor offer specific treatments for CMD including PE. The Tailoring evidence-based psychological therapY for People with common mental disorder including Psychotic EXperiences study will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an enhanced training for cognitive behavioural therapists that aims to address this clinical gap. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multisite, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. The setting will be IAPT services within three mental health trusts. The participants will be (1) 56-80 qualified IAPT cognitive behavioural therapists and (2) 600 service users who are triaged as appropriate for cognitive behavioural therapy in an IAPT service and have PE according to the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences-Positive 15-items Scale. IAPT therapists will be grouped into eight study clusters subsequently randomised to the control-intervention sequence. We will obtain pseudonymous clinical outcome data from IAPT clinical records for eligible service users. We will invite service users to complete health economic measures at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12-month follow-up. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients with common mental disorder psychotic experiences who have recovered by the end of treatment as measured by the official IAPT measure for recovery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received the following approvals: South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee on 28 April 2020 (REC reference 20/SC/0135) and Health Research Authority (HRA) on 23 June 2020. An amendment was approved by the Ethics Committee on 01 October 2020 and HRA on 27 October 2020. Results will be made available to patients and the public, the funders, stakeholders in the IAPT services and other researchers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN93895792.

Early versus delayed treatment of relapsed ovarian cancer (MRC OV05/EORTC 55955): a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Serum CA125 concentration often rises several months before clinical or symptomatic relapse in women with ovarian cancer. In the MRC OV05/EORTC 55955 collaborative trial, we aimed to establish the benefits of early treatment on the basis of increased CA125 concentrations compared with delayed treatment on the basis of clinical recurrence. METHODS: Women with ovarian cancer in complete remission after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and a normal CA125 concentration were registered for this randomised controlled trial. Clinical examination and CA125 measurement were done every 3 months. Patients and investigators were masked to CA125 results, which were monitored by coordinating centres. If CA125 concentration exceeded twice the upper limit of normal, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by minimisation to early or delayed chemotherapy. Patients and clinical sites were informed of allocation to early treatment, and treatment was started as soon as possible within 28 days of the increased CA125 measurement. Patients assigned to delayed treatment continued masked CA125 measurements, with treatment commencing at clinical or symptomatic relapse. All patients were treated according to standard local practice. The primary outcome was overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, ISRCTN87786644. FINDINGS: 1442 patients were registered for the trial, of whom 529 were randomly assigned to treatment groups and were included in our analysis (265 early, 264 delayed). With a median follow-up of 56·9 months (IQR 37·4-81·8) from randomisation and 370 deaths (186 early, 184 delayed), there was no evidence of a difference in overall survival between early and delayed treatment (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·80-1·20, p=0·85). Median survival from randomisation was 25·7 months (95% CI 23·0-27·9) for patients on early treatment and 27·1 months (22·8-30·9) for those on delayed treatment. INTERPRETATION: Our findings showed no evidence of a survival benefit with early treatment of relapse on the basis of a raised CA125 concentration alone, and therefore the value of routine measurement of CA125 in the follow-up of patients with ovarian cancer who attain a complete response after first-line treatment is not proven. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

First-line therapy in ovarian cancer trials.

At the 4th Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) held in Vancouver, Canada, in June 2010, representatives of 23 cooperative research groups studying gynecologic cancers gathered to establish international consensus on issues critical to the conduct of large randomized trials. The process focused on 13 predetermined questions. Group A, 1 of the 3 discussion groups, addressed the first 5 questions, examining first-line therapies in newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients. A1: What are the appropriate end points for different trials (maintenance, upfront chemotherapy trials including molecular drugs)? A2: Are there any subgroups defined by tumor biology who need specific treatment options/trials? A3: Is the 2004 GCIG-recommended standard comparator arm still valid? A4: What is the role of modifying dose, schedule, and delivery of chemotherapy? A5: What role does surgery play today?

Teriparatide and stress fracture healing in young adults (RETURN - Research on Efficacy of Teriparatide Use in the Return of recruits to Normal duty): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Stress fractures are a common and potentially debilitating overuse injury to bone and occur frequently among military recruits and athletes. Recovery from a lower body stress fracture typically requires several weeks of physical rehabilitation. Teriparatide, a recombinant form of the bioactive portion of parathyroid hormone (1-34 amino acids), is used to treat osteoporosis, prevent osteoporotic fractures, and enhance fracture healing due to its net anabolic effect on bone. The study aim is to investigate the effect of teriparatide on stress fracture healing in young, otherwise healthy adults undergoing military training. METHODS: In a two-arm, parallel, prospective, randomised controlled, intention-to-treat trial, Army recruits (n = 136 men and women, 18-40 years) with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnosed lower body stress fracture (pelvic girdle, sacrum, coccyx, or lower limb) will be randomised to receive either usual Army standard care, or teriparatide and usual Army standard care. Teriparatide will be self-administered by subcutaneous injections (20 µg/day) for 16 weeks, continuing to 24 weeks where a fracture remains unhealed at week 16. The primary outcome will be the improvement in radiological healing by two grades or more, or reduction to grade zero, 8 weeks after randomisation, assessed using Fredericson grading of MRI by radiologists blind to the randomisation. Secondary outcomes will be time to radiological healing, assessed by MRI at 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20 and 24 weeks, until healed; time to clinical healing, assessed using a clinical severity score of injury signs and symptoms; time to discharge from Army physical rehabilitation; pain, assessed by visual analogue scale; health-related quality of life, using the Short Form (36) Health Survey; and adverse events. Exploratory outcomes will include blood and urine biochemistry; bone density and morphology assessed using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT), and high-resolution pQCT; physical activity measured using accelerometers; and long-term future fracture rate. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate whether teriparatide, in addition to standard care, is more effective for stress fracture healing than standard care alone in Army recruits who have sustained a lower body stress fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04196855 . Registered on 12 December 2019.