Time From Colorectal Cancer Surgery to Adjuvant Chemotherapy: Post Hoc Analysis of the SCOT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The timing of adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery for colorectal cancer and its association with long-term outcomes have been investigated in national cohort studies, with no consensus on the optimal time from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy. Objective: To analyze the association between the timing of adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery for colorectal cancer and disease-free survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 SCOT randomized clinical trial, from 244 centers in 6 countries, investigating the noninferiority of 3 vs 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with high-risk stage II or stage III nonmetastatic colorectal cancer who underwent curative-intended surgery were randomized to either 3 or 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy consisting of fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin regimens. Those with complete information on the date of surgery, treatment type, and long-term follow-up were investigated for the primary and secondary end points. Data were analyzed from May 2022 to February 2024. Intervention: In the post hoc analysis, patients were grouped according to the start of adjuvant chemotherapy being less than 6 weeks vs greater than 6 weeks after surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was disease-free survival. The secondary end points were adverse events in the total treatment period or the first cycle of adjuvant chemotherapy. Results: A total of 5719 patients (2251 [39.4%] female; mean [SD] age, 63.4 [9.3] years) were included in the primary analysis after data curation; among them, 914 were in the early-start group and 4805 were in the late-start group. Median (IQR) follow-up was 72.0 (47.3-88.1) months, with a median (IQR) of 56 (41-66) days from surgery to chemotherapy. Five-year disease-free survival was 78.0% (95% CI, 75.3%-80.8%) in the early-start group and 73.2% (95% CI, 72.0%-74.5%) in the late-start group. In an adjusted Cox regression analysis, the start of adjuvant chemotherapy greater than 6 weeks after surgery was associated with worse disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.06-1.46; P = .01). In adjusted logistic regression models, there was no association with adverse events in the total treatment period (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65-1.04; P = .09) or adverse events in the first cycle of treatment (odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.56-1.09; P = .13). Conclusions and Relevance: In this international population of patients with high-risk stage II and stage III colorectal cancer, starting adjuvant chemotherapy more than 6 weeks after surgery was associated with worse disease-free survival, with no difference in adverse events between the groups. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN59757862.

[177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE plus long-acting octreotide versus high­dose long-acting octreotide for the treatment of newly diagnosed, advanced grade 2-3, well-differentiated, gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (NETTER-2): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: There are currently no standard first-line treatment options for patients with higher grade 2-3, well-differentiated, advanced, gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of first-line [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE (177Lu-Dotatate) treatment. METHODS: NETTER-2 was an open-label, randomised, parallel-group, superiority, phase 3 trial. We enrolled patients (aged ≥15 years) with newly diagnosed higher grade 2 (Ki67 ≥10% and ≤20%) and grade 3 (Ki67 >20% and ≤55%), somatostatin receptor-positive (in all target lesions), advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours from 45 centres across nine countries in North America, Europe, and Asia. We used interactive response technologies to randomly assign (2:1) patients to receive four cycles (cycle interval was 8 weeks ± 1 week) of intravenous 177Lu-Dotatate plus intramuscular octreotide 30 mg long-acting repeatable (LAR) then octreotide 30 mg LAR every 4 weeks (177Lu-Dotatate group) or high-dose octreotide 60 mg LAR every 4 weeks (control group), stratified by neuroendocrine tumour grade (2 vs 3) and origin (pancreas vs other). Tumour assessments were done at baseline, week 16, and week 24, and then every 12 weeks until disease progression or death. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by blinded, independent, central radiology assessment. We did the primary analysis at 101 progression-free survival events as the final progression-free survival analysis. NETTER-2 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03972488, and is active and not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Jan 22, 2020, and Oct 13, 2022, we screened 261 patients, 35 (13%) of whom were excluded. We randomly assigned 226 (87%) patients (121 [54%] male and 105 [46%] female) to the 177Lu-Dotatate group (n=151 [67%]) and control group (n=75 [33%]). Median progression-free survival was 8·5 months (95% CI 7·7-13·8) in the control group and 22·8 months (19·4-not estimated) in the 177Lu-Dotatate group (stratified hazard ratio 0·276 [0·182-0·418]; p<0·0001). During the treatment period, adverse events (of any grade) occurred in 136 (93%) of 147 treated patients in the 177Lu-Dotatate group and 69 (95%) of 73 treated patients in the control group. There were no study drug-related deaths during the treatment period. INTERPRETATION: First-line 177Lu-Dotatate plus octreotide LAR significantly extended median progression-free survival (by 14 months) in patients with grade 2 or 3 advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. 177Lu-Dotatate should be considered a new standard of care in first-line therapy in this population. FUNDING: Advanced Accelerator Applications, a Novartis Company.

Genetic and immune landscape evolution in MMR-deficient colorectal cancer.

Mismatch repair-deficient (MMRd) colorectal cancers (CRCs) have high mutation burdens, which make these tumours immunogenic and many respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors. The MMRd hypermutator phenotype may also promote intratumour heterogeneity (ITH) and cancer evolution. We applied multiregion sequencing and CD8 and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunostaining to systematically investigate ITH and how genetic and immune landscapes coevolve. All cases had high truncal mutation burdens. Despite pervasive ITH, driver aberrations showed a clear hierarchy. Those in WNT/ß-catenin, mitogen-activated protein kinase, and TGF-ß receptor family genes were almost always truncal. Immune evasion (IE) drivers, such as inactivation of genes involved in antigen presentation or IFN-γ signalling, were predominantly subclonal and showed parallel evolution. These IE drivers have been implicated in immune checkpoint inhibitor resistance or sensitivity. Clonality assessments are therefore important for the development of predictive immunotherapy biomarkers in MMRd CRCs. Phylogenetic analysis identified three distinct patterns of IE driver evolution: pan-tumour evolution, subclonal evolution, and evolutionary stasis. These, but neither mutation burdens nor heterogeneity metrics, significantly correlated with T-cell densities, which were used as a surrogate marker of tumour immunogenicity. Furthermore, this revealed that genetic and T-cell infiltrates coevolve in MMRd CRCs. Low T-cell densities in the subgroup without any known IE drivers may indicate an, as yet unknown, IE mechanism. PD-L1 was expressed in the tumour microenvironment in most samples and correlated with T-cell densities. However, PD-L1 expression in cancer cells was independent of T-cell densities but strongly associated with loss of the intestinal homeobox transcription factor CDX2. This explains infrequent PD-L1 expression by cancer cells and may contribute to a higher recurrence risk of MMRd CRCs with impaired CDX2 expression. © 2023 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Trimodality therapy versus perioperative chemotherapy in the management of locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction (Neo-AEGIS): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimum curative approach to adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction is unknown. We aimed to compare trimodality therapy (preoperative radiotherapy with carboplatin plus paclitaxel [CROSS regimen]) with optimum contemporaneous perioperative chemotherapy regimens (epirubicin plus cisplatin or oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil or capecitabine [a modified MAGIC regimen] before 2018 and fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel [FLOT] subsequently). METHODS: Neo-AEGIS (CTRIAL-IE 10-14) was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 24 centres in Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with clinical tumour stage T2-3, nodal stage N0-3, and M0 adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction were randomly assigned to perioperative chemotherapy (three preoperative and three postoperative 3-week cycles of intravenous 50 mg/m2 epirubicin on day 1 plus intravenous 60 mg/m2 cisplatin or intravenous 130 mg/m2 oxaliplatin on day 1 plus continuous infusion of 200 mg/m2 fluorouracil daily or oral 625 mg/m2 capecitabine twice daily up to 2018, with four preoperative and four postoperative 2-week cycles of 2600 mg/m2 fluorouracil, 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin, 200 mg/m2 leucovorin, and 50 mg/m2 docetaxel intravenously on day 1 as an option from 2018) or trimodality therapy (41·4 Gy in 23 fractions on days 1-5, 8-12, 15-19, 22-26, and 29-31 with intravenous area under the curve 2 mg/mL per min carboplatin plus intravenous 50 mg/m2 paclitaxel on days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29). The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug, regardless of which study drug they received, by intention to treat. Secondary endpoints were disease-free survival, site of treatment failure, operative complications, toxicity, pathological response (complete [ypT0N0] and major [tumour regression grade 1 and 2]), margin-free resection (R0), and health-related quality of life. Toxicity and safety data were analysed in the safety population, defined as patients who took at least one dose of study drug, according to treatment actually received. The initial power calculation was based on superiority of trimodality therapy (n=366 patients); it was adjusted after FLOT became an option to a non-inferiority design with a margin of 5% for perioperative chemotherapy (n=540). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01726452. FINDINGS: Between Jan 24, 2013, and Dec 23, 2020, 377 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 362 were included in the intention-to treat population (327 [90%] male and 360 [99%] White): 184 in the perioperative chemotherapy group and 178 in the trimodality therapy group. The trial closed prematurely in December, 2020, after the second interim futility analysis (143 deaths), on the basis of similar survival metrics and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. At a median follow-up of 38·8 months (IQR 16·3-55·1), median overall survival was 48·0 months (95% CI 33·6-64·8) in the perioperative chemotherapy group and 49·2 months (34·8-74·4) in the trimodality therapy group (3-year overall survival 55% [95% CI 47-62] vs 57% [49-64]; hazard ratio 1·03 [95% CI 0·77-1·38]; log-rank p=0·82). Median disease-free survival was 32·4 months (95% CI 22·8-64·8) in the perioperative chemotherapy group and 24·0 months (18·0-40·8) in the trimodality therapy group [hazard ratio 0·89 [95% CI 0·68-1·17]; log-rank p=0·41). The pattern of recurrence, locoregional or systemic, was not significantly different (odds ratio 1·35 [95% CI 0·63-2·91], p=0·44). Pathological complete response (odds ratio 0·33 [95% CI 0·14-0·81], p=0·012), major pathological response (0·21 [0·12-0·38], p<0·0001), and R0 rates (0·21 [0·08-0·53], p=0·0003) favoured trimodality therapy. The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia (49 [27%] of 183 patients in the perioperative chemotherapy group vs 11 [6%] of 178 patients in the trimodality therapy group), followed by diarrhoea (20 [11%] vs none), and pulmonary embolism (ten [5%] vs nine [5%]). One (1%) patient in the perioperative chemotherapy group and three (2%) patients in the trimodality therapy group died from serious adverse events, two (one in each group) of which were possibly related to treatment. No differences were seen in operative mortality (five [3%] deaths in the perioperative chemotherapy group vs four [2%] in the trimodality therapy group), major morbidity, or in global health status at 1 and 3 years. INTERPRETATION: Although underpowered and incomplete, Neo-AEGIS provides the largest comprehensive randomised dataset for patients with adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and oesophagogastric junction treated with perioperative chemotherapy (predominantly the modified MAGIC regimen), and CROSS trimodality therapy, and reports similar 3-year survival and no major differences in operative and health-related quality of life outcomes. We suggest that these data support continued clinical equipoise. FUNDING: Health Research Board, Cancer Research UK, Irish Cancer Society, Oesophageal Cancer Fund, and French National Cancer Institute.

Efficacy of early PET-CT directed switch to carboplatin and paclitaxel based definitive chemoradiotherapy in patients with oesophageal cancer who have a poor early response to induction cisplatin and capecitabine in the UK: a multi-centre randomised controlled phase II trial.

Background: The utility of early metabolic response assessment to guide selection of the systemic component of definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) for oesophageal cancer is uncertain. Methods: In this multi-centre, randomised, open-label, phase II substudy of the radiotherapy dose-escalation SCOPE2 trial we evaluated the role of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) at day 14 of cycle 1 of three-weekly induction cis/cap (cisplatin (60 mg/m2)/capecitabine (625 mg/m2 days 1-21)) in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) or adenocarcinoma (OAC). Non-responders, who had a less than 35% reduction in maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) from pre-treatment baseline, were randomly assigned to continue cis/cap or switch to car/pac (carboplatin AUC 5/paclitaxel 175 mg/m2) for a further induction cycle, then concurrently with radiotherapy over 25 fractions. Responders continued cis/cap for the duration of treatment. All patients (including responders) were randomised to standard (50Gy) or high (60Gy) dose radiation as part of the main study. Primary endpoint for the substudy was treatment failure-free survival (TFFS) at week 24. The trial was registered with International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number 97125464 and ClinicalTrials.govNCT02741856. Findings: This substudy was closed on 1st August 2021 by the Independent Data Monitoring Committee on the grounds of futility and possible harm. To this point from 22nd November 2016, 103 patients from 16 UK centres had participated in the PET-CT substudy; 63 (61.2%; 52/83 OSCC, 11/20 OAC) of whom were non-responders. Of these, 31 were randomised to car/pac and 32 to remain on cis/cap. All patients were followed up until at least 24 weeks, at which point in OSCC both TFFS (25/27 (92.6%) vs 17/25 (68%); p = 0.028) and overall survival (42.5 vs. 20.4 months, adjusted HR 0.36; p = 0.018) favoured cis/cap over car/pac. There was a trend towards worse survival in OSCC + OAC cis/cap responders (33.6 months; 95%CI 23.1-nr) vs. non-responders (42.5 (95%CI 27.0-nr) months; HR = 1.43; 95%CI 0.67-3.08; p = 0.35). Interpretation: In OSCC, early metabolic response assessment is not prognostic for TFFS or overall survival and should not be used to personalise systemic therapy in patients receiving dCRT. Funding: Cancer Research UK.

Use of a non-endoscopic immunocytological device (Cytosponge™) for post chemoradiotherapy surveillance in patients with oesophageal cancer in the UK (CYTOFLOC): A multicentre feasibility study.

Background: Effective surveillance strategies are required for patients diagnosed with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) or adenocarcinoma (OAC) for whom chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is used as a potentially-curative, organ-sparing, alternative to surgery. In this study, we evaluated the safety, acceptability and tolerability of a non-endoscopic immunocytological device (the Cytosponge™) to assess treatment response following CRT. Methods: This multicentre, single-arm feasibility trial took place in 10 tertiary cancer centres in the UK. Patients aged at least 16 years diagnosed with OSCC or OAC, and who were within 4-16 weeks of completing definitive or neo-adjuvant CRT, were included. Participants were required to have a Mellow-Pinkas dysphagia score of 0-2 and be able to swallow tablets. All patients underwent a single Cytosponge™ assessment in addition to standard of care (which included post-treatment endoscopic evaluation with biopsy for patients undergoing definitive CRT; surgery for those who received neo-adjuvant CRT). The primary outcome was the proportion of consented, evaluable patients who successfully underwent Cytosponge™ assessment. Secondary and tertiary outcomes included safety, study consent rate, acceptance rate, the suitability of obtained samples for biomarker analysis, and the comparative efficacy of Cytosponge™ to standard histology (endoscopy and biopsy or post-resection specimen) in assessing for residual disease. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03529669. Findings: Between 18th April 2018 and 16th January 2020, 41 (42.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 32.7-53.2) of 96 potentially eligible patients consented to participate. Thirty-nine (95.1%, 95% CI 83.5-99.4) successfully carried out the Cytosponge™ procedure. Of these, 37 (95%) would be prepared to repeat the procedure. There were only two grade 1 adverse events attributed to use of the Cytosponge™. Thirty-five (90%) of the completed Cytosponge™ samples were suitable for biomarker analysis; 29 (83%) of these were concordant with endoscopic biopsies, three (9%) had findings suggestive of residual cancer on Cytosponge™ not found on endoscopic biopsies, and three (9%) had residual cancer on endoscopic biopsies not detected by Cytosponge™. Interpretation: Use of the CytospongeTM is safe, tolerable, and acceptable for the assessment of treatment response following CRT in OAC and OSCC. Further evaluation of Cytosponge™ in this setting is warranted. Funding: Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council.

Long-Term Outcomes and Exploratory Analyses of the Randomized Phase III BILCAP Study.

PURPOSE: The BILCAP study described a modest benefit for capecitabine as adjuvant therapy for curatively resected biliary tract cancer (BTC), and capecitabine has become the standard of care. We present the long-term data and novel exploratory subgroup analyses. METHODS: This randomized, controlled, multicenter, phase III study recruited patients age 18 years or older with histologically confirmed cholangiocarcinoma or muscle-invasive gallbladder cancer after resection with curative intent and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of < 2. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral capecitabine (1,250 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14 of a 21-day cycle, for eight cycles) or observation. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). This study is registered with EudraCT 2005-003318-13. RESULTS: Between March 15, 2006, and December 4, 2014, 447 patients were enrolled; 223 patients with BTC resected with curative intent were randomly assigned to the capecitabine group and 224 to the observation group. At the data cutoff of January 21, 2021, the median follow-up for all patients was 106 months (95% CI, 98 to 108). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the median OS was 49.6 months (95% CI, 35.1 to 59.1) in the capecitabine group compared with 36.1 months (95% CI, 29.7 to 44.2) in the observation group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.06). In a protocol-specified sensitivity analysis, adjusting for minimization factors, nodal status, grade, and sex, the OS hazard ratio was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.94). We further describe the prognostic impact of R status, grade, nodal status, and sex. CONCLUSION: This long-term analysis supports the previous analysis, suggesting that capecitabine can improve OS in patients with resected BTC when used as adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery and should be considered as the standard of care.

Capecitabine Versus Active Monitoring in Stable or Responding Metastatic Colorectal Cancer After 16 Weeks of First-Line Therapy: Results of the Randomized FOCUS4-N Trial.

PURPOSE: Despite extensive randomized evidence supporting the use of treatment breaks in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), they are not universally offered to patients despite improvements in quality of life without detriment to overall survival (OS). FOCUS4-N was set up to explore the impact of oral maintenance therapy in patients who are responding to first-line therapy. METHODS: FOCUS4 was a molecularly stratified trial program that registered patients with newly diagnosed mCRC. The FOCUS4-N trial was offered to patients in whom a targeted subtrial was unavailable or biomarker tests failed. Patients were randomly assigned using a 1:1 ratio between maintenance capecitabine and active monitoring (AM). The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) with secondary outcomes including OS toxicity and tolerability. RESULTS: Between March 2014 and March 2020, 254 patients were randomly assigned (127 to capecitabine and 127 to AM) across 88 UK sites. Baseline characteristics were balanced. There was strong evidence of efficacy for PFS (hazard ratio = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75; P < .0001), but no significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.27; P = .66) was observed. Compliance with treatment was good, and toxicity from capecitabine versus AM was as expected with grade ≥ 2 fatigue (25% v 12%), diarrhea (23% v 13%), and hand-foot syndrome (26% v 3%). Quality of life showed little difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: Despite strong evidence of disease control with maintenance therapy, OS remains unaffected and FOCUS4-N provides additional evidence to support the use of treatment breaks as safe management alternatives for patients who are stable or responding to first-line treatment for mCRC. Capecitabine without bevacizumab may be used to extend PFS in the interval after 16 weeks of first-line therapy.

Oxaliplatin/capecitabine or carboplatin/paclitaxel-based preoperative chemoradiation for resectable oesophageal adenocarcinoma (NeoSCOPE): Long-term results of a randomised controlled trial.

AIM: This is the first randomised study to evaluate toxicity and survival outcomes of two neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) regimens for patients with localised oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) or gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) adenocarcinoma. The initial results showed comparable toxicity between regimens and pathological complete response (pCR) rate favouring CarPacRT. Herein, we report survival, progression patterns, and long-term toxicity after a median follow-up of 40.7 months. METHODS: NeoSCOPE was an open-label, UK multicentre, randomised, phase II trial. Eighty-five patients with resectable OAC or GOJ adenocarcinoma, ≥cT3 and/or ≥cN1 (TNM v7), suitable for neoadjuvant CRT, were recruited between October 2013 and February 2015. Patients were randomised to OxCapRT (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 on Days 1, 15, and 29; capecitabine 625 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days of radiotherapy [RT]) or CarPacRT (carboplatin AUC2; paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29). RT dose was 45 Gy/25 fractions/5 weeks. Both arms received induction chemotherapy (two cycles oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on Day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m2 orally twice daily on Days 1-21) before CRT. Surgery was performed 6-8 weeks after CRT. The primary end-point was pCR. Secondary end-points were toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and patterns of progression. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were recruited from 17 UK centres. The median OS was 41.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.6 to not reached) in the OxCapRT arm and was not reached in the CarPacRT arm (multivariable hazard ratio [HR] = 0.48, 95% CIs: 0.24-0.95, P = 0.035). The median PFS was 32.6 months (95% CIs: 17.1 to not reached) in the OxCapRT arm and was not reached in the CarPacRT arm (multivariable HR = 0.54, 95% CIs: 0.29-1.01, P = 0.053). In both arms, the distant progression was twice as common as locoregional progression. CONCLUSIONS: OS and PFS favoured neoadjuvant CarPacRT over OxCapRT. Distant was more common than locoregional progression; therefore, priority should be given to optimising the systemic treatment component. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: EudraCT Number: 2012-000640-10; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01843829.

Efficacy of Reduced-Intensity Chemotherapy With Oxaliplatin and Capecitabine on Quality of Life and Cancer Control Among Older and Frail Patients With Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer: The GO2 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Older and/or frail patients are underrepresented in landmark cancer trials. Tailored research is needed to address this evidence gap. Objective: The GO2 randomized clinical trial sought to optimize chemotherapy dosing in older and/or frail patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, and explored baseline geriatric assessment (GA) as a tool for treatment decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, noninferiority, open-label randomized trial took place at oncology clinics in the United Kingdom with nurse-led geriatric health assessment. Patients were recruited for whom full-dose combination chemotherapy was considered unsuitable because of advanced age and/or frailty. Interventions: There were 2 randomizations that were performed: CHEMO-INTENSITY compared oxaliplatin/capecitabine at Level A (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-21, on a 21-day cycle), Level B (doses 0.8 times A), or Level C (doses 0.6 times A). Alternatively, if the patient and clinician agreed the indication for chemotherapy was uncertain, the patient could instead enter CHEMO-BSC, comparing Level C vs best supportive care. Main Outcomes and Measures: First, broad noninferiority of the lower doses vs reference (Level A) was assessed using a permissive boundary of 34 days reduction in progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio, HR = 1.34), selected as acceptable by a forum of patients and clinicians. Then, the patient experience was compared using Overall Treatment Utility (OTU), which combines efficacy, toxic effects, quality of life, and patient value/acceptability. For CHEMO-BSC, the main outcome measure was overall survival. Results: A total of 514 patients entered CHEMO-INTENSITY, of whom 385 (75%) were men and 299 (58%) were severely frail, with median age 76 years. Noninferior PFS was confirmed for Levels B vs A (HR = 1.09 [95% CI, 0.89-1.32]) and C vs A (HR = 1.10 [95% CI, 0.90-1.33]). Level C produced less toxic effects and better OTU than A or B. No subgroup benefited from higher doses: Level C produced better OTU even in younger or less frail patients. A total of 45 patients entered the CHEMO-BSC randomization: overall survival was nonsignificantly longer with chemotherapy: median 6.1 vs 3.0 months (HR = 0.69 [95% CI, 0.32-1.48], P = .34). In multivariate analysis in 522 patients with all variables available, baseline frailty, quality of life, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were independently associated with OTU, and can be combined in a model to estimate the probability of different outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: This phase 3 randomized clinical trial found that reduced-intensity chemotherapy provided a better patient experience without significantly compromising cancer control and should be considered for older and/or frail patients. Baseline geriatric assessment can help predict the utility of chemotherapy but did not identify a group benefiting from higher-dose treatment. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN44687907.

Second-line FOLFOX chemotherapy versus active symptom control for advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC-06): a phase 3, open-label, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Advanced biliary tract cancer has a poor prognosis. Cisplatin and gemcitabine is the standard first-line chemotherapy regimen, but no robust evidence is available for second-line chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to determine the benefit derived from second-line FOLFOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer. METHODS: The ABC-06 clinical trial was a phase 3, open-label, randomised trial done in 20 sites with expertise in managing biliary tract cancer across the UK. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had histologically or cytologically verified locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer (including cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder or ampullary carcinoma) with documented radiological disease progression to first-line cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally to active symptom control (ASC) and FOLFOX or ASC alone. FOLFOX chemotherapy was administered intravenously every 2 weeks for a maximum of 12 cycles (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, L-folinic acid 175 mg [or folinic acid 350 mg], fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 [bolus], and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 as a 46-h continuous intravenous infusion). Randomisation was done following a minimisation algorithm using platinum sensitivity, serum albumin concentration, and stage as stratification factors. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was also assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The study is complete and the final results are reported. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01926236, and EudraCT, 2013-001812-30. FINDINGS: Between March 27, 2014, and Jan 4, 2018, 162 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to ASC plus FOLFOX (n=81) or ASC alone (n=81). Median follow-up was 21·7 months (IQR 17·2-30·8). Overall survival was significantly longer in the ASC plus FOLFOX group than in the ASC alone group, with a median overall survival of 6·2 months (95% CI 5·4-7·6) in the ASC plus FOLFOX group versus 5·3 months (4·1-5·8) in the ASC alone group (adjusted hazard ratio 0·69 [95% CI 0·50-0·97]; p=0·031). The overall survival rate in the ASC alone group was 35·5% (95% CI 25·2-46·0) at 6 months and 11·4% (5·6-19·5) at 12 months, compared with 50·6% (39·3-60·9) at 6 months and 25·9% (17·0-35·8) at 12 months in the ASC plus FOLFOX group. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported in 42 (52%) of 81 patients in the ASC alone group and 56 (69%) of 81 patients in the ASC plus FOLFOX group, including three chemotherapy-related deaths (one each due to infection, acute kidney injury, and febrile neutropenia). The most frequently reported grade 3-5 FOLFOX-related adverse events were neutropenia (ten [12%] patients), fatigue or lethargy (nine [11%] patients), and infection (eight [10%] patients). INTERPRETATION: The addition of FOLFOX to ASC improved median overall survival in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer after progression on cisplatin and gemcitabine, with a clinically meaningful increase in 6-month and 12-month overall survival rates. To our knowledge, this trial is the first prospective, randomised study providing reliable, high-quality evidence to allow an informed discussion with patients of the potential benefits and risks from second-line FOLFOX chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer. Based on these findings, FOLFOX should become standard-of-care chemotherapy in second-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer and the reference regimen for further clinical trials. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, StandUpToCancer, AMMF (The UK Cholangiocarcinoma Charity), and The Christie Charity, with additional funding from The Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation and the Conquer Cancer Foundation Young Investigator Award for translational research.

Using digital tools in the recruitment and retention in randomised controlled trials: survey of UK Clinical Trial Units and a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a key determinant of success but is challenging. Trialists and UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) are increasingly exploring the use of digital tools to identify, recruit and retain participants. The aim of this UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) study was to identify what digital tools are currently used by CTUs and understand the performance characteristics required to be judged useful. METHODS: A scoping of searches (and a survey with NIHR funding staff), a survey with all 52 UKCRC CTUs and 16 qualitative interviews were conducted with five stakeholder groups including trialists within CTUs, funders and research participants. A purposive sampling approach was used to conduct the qualitative interviews during March-June 2018. Qualitative data were analysed using a content analysis and inductive approach. RESULTS: Responses from 24 (46%) CTUs identified that database-screening tools were the most widely used digital tool for recruitment, with the majority being considered effective. The reason (and to whom) these tools were considered effective was in identifying potential participants (for both Site staff and CTU staff) and reaching recruitment target (for CTU staff/CI). Fewer retention tools were used, with short message service (SMS) or email reminders to participants being the most reported. The qualitative interviews revealed five themes across all groups: 'security and transparency'; 'inclusivity and engagement'; 'human interaction'; 'obstacles and risks'; and 'potential benefits'. There was a high level of stakeholder acceptance of the use of digital tools to support trials, despite the lack of evidence to support them over more traditional techniques. Certain differences and similarities between stakeholder groups demonstrated the complexity and challenges of using digital tools for recruiting and retaining research participants. CONCLUSIONS: Our studies identified a range of digital tools in use in recruitment and retention of RCTs, despite the lack of high-quality evidence to support their use. Understanding the type of digital tools in use to support recruitment and retention will help to inform funders and the wider research community about their value and relevance for future RCTs. Consideration of further focused digital tool reviews and primary research will help to reduce gaps in the evidence base.

Systemic chemotherapy with or without cetuximab in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis (New EPOC): long-term results of a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The interim analysis of the multicentre New EPOC trial in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis showed a significant reduction in progression-free survival in patients allocated to cetuximab plus chemotherapy compared with those given chemotherapy alone. The focus of the present analysis was to assess the effect on overall survival. METHODS: New EPOC was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with KRAS wild-type (codons 12, 13, and 61) resectable or suboptimally resectable colorectal liver metastases and a WHO performance status of 0-2 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive chemotherapy with or without cetuximab before and after liver resection. Randomisation was done centrally with minimisation factors of surgical centre, poor prognosis cancer, and previous adjuvant treatment with oxaliplatin. Chemotherapy consisted of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 administered intravenously over 2 h, l-folinic acid (175 mg flat dose administered intravenously over 2 h) or d,l-folinic acid (350 mg flat dose administered intravenously over 2 h), and fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m2 administered intravenously over 5 min, followed by a 46 h infusion of fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 repeated every 2 weeks (regimen one), or oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 administered intravenously over 2 h and oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14 repeated every 3 weeks (regimen two). Patients who had received adjuvant oxaliplatin could receive irinotecan 180 mg/m2 intravenously over 30 min with fluorouracil instead of oxaliplatin (regimen three). Cetuximab was given intravenously, 500 mg/m2 every 2 weeks with regimen one and three or a loading dose of 400 mg/m2 followed by a weekly infusion of 250 mg/m2 with regimen two. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was published previously. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, preoperative response, pathological resection status, and safety. Trial recruitment was halted prematurely on the advice of the Trial Steering Committee on Nov 1, 2012. All analyses (except safety) were done on the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all randomly assigned patients. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 22944367. FINDINGS: Between Feb 26, 2007, and Oct 12, 2012, 257 eligible patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy with cetuximab (n=129) or without cetuximab (n=128). This analysis was carried out 5 years after the last patient was recruited, as defined in the protocol, at a median follow-up of 66·7 months (IQR 58·0-77·5). Median progression-free survival was 22·2 months (95% CI 18·3-26·8) in the chemotherapy alone group and 15·5 months (13·8-19·0) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·17, 95% CI 0·87-1·56; p=0·304). Median overall survival was 81·0 months (59·6 to not reached) in the chemotherapy alone group and 55·4 months (43·5-71·5) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group (HR 1·45, 1·02-2·05; p=0·036). There was no significant difference in the secondary outcomes of preoperative response or pathological resection status between groups. Five deaths might have been treatment-related (one in the chemotherapy alone group and four in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events reported were: neutrophil count decreased (26 [19%] of 134 in the chemotherapy alone group vs 21 [15%] of 137 in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group), diarrhoea (13 [10%] vs 14 [10%]), skin rash (one [1%] vs 22 [16%]), thromboembolic events (ten [7%] vs 11 [8%]), lethargy (ten [7%] vs nine [7%]), oral mucositis (three [2%] vs 14 [10%]), vomiting (seven [5%] vs seven [5%]), peripheral neuropathy (eight [6%] vs five [4%]), and pain (six [4%] vs six [4%]). INTERPRETATION: Although the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy improves the overall survival in some studies in patients with advanced, inoperable metastatic disease, its use in the perioperative setting in patients with operable disease confers a significant disadvantage in terms of overall survival. Cetuximab should not be used in this setting. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Dual Erb B Inhibition in Oesophago-gastric Cancer (DEBIOC): A phase I dose escalating safety study and randomised dose expansion of AZD8931 in combination with oxaliplatin and capecitabine chemotherapy in patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: AZD8931 has equipotent activity against epidermal growth factor receptor, erbB2, and erbB3. Primary objectives were to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of AZD8931 + chemotherapy, and subsequently assess safety/preliminary clinical activity in patients with operable oesophagogastric cancer (OGC). METHODS: AZD8931 (20 mg, 40 mg or 60 mg bd) was given with Xelox (oxaliplatin + capecitabine) for eight 21-day cycles, continuously or with intermittent schedule (4 days on/3 off every week; 14 days on/7 off, per cycle) in a rolling-six design. Subsequently, patients with OGC were randomised 2:1 to AZD8931 + Xelox at RP2D or Xelox only for two cycles, followed by radical oesophagogastric surgery. Secondary outcomes were safety, complete resection (R0) rate, six-month progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival. RESULTS: During escalation, four dose-limiting toxicities were observed among 24 patients: skin rash (1) and failure to deliver 100% of Xelox because of treatment-associated grade III-IV adverse events (AEs) (3: diarrhoea and vomiting; vomiting; fatigue). Serious adverse events (SAE) occurred in 15 of 24 (63%) patients. RP2D was 20-mg bd with the 4/3 schedule. In the expansion phase, 2 of 20 (10%) patients in the Xelox + AZD8931 group and 5/10 (50%) patients in the Xelox group had grade III-IV AEs. Six-month PFS was 85% (90% CI: 66%-94%) in Xelox + AZD8931 and 100% in Xelox alone. Seven deaths (35%) occurred with Xelox + AZD8931 and one (10%) with Xelox. R0 rate was 45% (9/20) with Xelox + AZD8931 and 90% (9/10) with Xelox-alone (P = 0.024). CONCLUSION: Xelox + AZD8931 (20 mg bd 4/3 days) has an acceptable safety profile administered as neoadjuvant therapy in operable patients with OGC. (Trial registration: EudraCT 2011-003169-13, ISRCTN-68093791).

3-month versus 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk stage II and III colorectal cancer: 3-year follow-up of the SCOT non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy administered over 6 months is the standard adjuvant regimen for patients with high-risk stage II or III colorectal cancer. However, the regimen is associated with cumulative toxicity, characterised by chronic and often irreversible neuropathy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of 3-month versus 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer and to compare the toxicity, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness of the durations. DESIGN: An international, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, Phase III, parallel-group trial. SETTING: A total of 244 oncology clinics from six countries: UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), Denmark, Spain, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years who had undergone curative resection for high-risk stage II or III adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum. INTERVENTIONS: The adjuvant treatment regimen was either oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil or oxaliplatin and capecitabine, randomised to be administered over 3 or 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was disease-free survival. Overall survival, adverse events, neuropathy and health-related quality of life were also assessed. The main cost categories were chemotherapy treatment and hospitalisation. Cost-effectiveness was assessed through incremental cost comparisons and quality-adjusted life-year gains between the options and was reported as net monetary benefit using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year per patient. RESULTS: Recruitment is closed. In total, 6088 patients were randomised (3044 per group) between 27 March 2008 and 29 November 2013, with 6065 included in the intention-to-treat analyses (3-month analysis, n = 3035; 6-month analysis, n = 3030). Follow-up for the primary analysis is complete. The 3-year disease-free survival rate in the 3-month treatment group was 76.7% (standard error 0.8%) and in the 6-month treatment group was 77.1% (standard error 0.8%), equating to a hazard ratio of 1.006 (95% confidence interval 0.909 to 1.114; p-value for non-inferiority = 0.012), confirming non-inferiority for 3-month adjuvant chemotherapy. Frequent adverse events (alopecia, anaemia, anorexia, diarrhoea, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, mucositis, sensory neuropathy, neutropenia, pain, rash, altered taste, thrombocytopenia and watery eye) showed a significant increase in grade with 6-month duration; the greatest difference was for sensory neuropathy (grade ≥ 3 was 4% for 3-month vs.16% for 6-month duration), for which a higher rate of neuropathy was seen for the 6-month treatment group from month 4 to ≥ 5 years (p < 0.001). Quality-of-life scores were better in the 3-month treatment group over months 4-6. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed 3-month treatment to cost £4881 less over the 8-year analysis period, with an incremental net monetary benefit of £7246 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The study achieved its primary end point, showing that 3-month oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy is non-inferior to 6 months of the same regimen; 3-month treatment showed a better safety profile and cost less. For future work, further follow-up will refine long-term estimates of the duration effect on disease-free survival and overall survival. The health economic analysis will be updated to include long-term extrapolation for subgroups. We expect these analyses to be available in 2019-20. The Short Course Oncology Therapy (SCOT) study translational samples may allow the identification of patients who would benefit from longer treatment based on the molecular characteristics of their disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59757862 and EudraCT 2007-003957-10. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This research was supported by the Medical Research Council (transferred to NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre - Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; grant reference G0601705), the Swedish Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK Core Clinical Trials Unit Funding (funding reference C6716/A9894).

Patients diagnosed with bowel cancer are likely to have surgery to remove the tumour. Patients diagnosed with a more advanced stage of the disease are then likely to be offered what is known as adjuvant chemotherapy ­ chemotherapy to kill any cancer cells that have already spread but cannot be seen. Adjuvant chemotherapy is usually given over 6 months using two medicines known as oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine. This chemotherapy has side effects of diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, and it reduces the numbers of cells in the blood. It can also damage nerves, which causes discomfort, numbness and tingling; in some cases, this can go on for years. These side effects are more likely to develop with longer treatment. This study looked at whether or not shortening the time over which patients were given oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy reduced its effectiveness. In this large study of over 6000 patients, half of the patients were allocated by chance to be treated for 3 months and the other half to be treated for 6 months. Reducing the time that patients had chemotherapy from 6 months to 3 months did not make the treatment less effective. When patients treated with chemotherapy over 3 months were compared with those treated over 6 months, 77% of patients in both groups were well with no detectable disease 3 years after surgery. Patients were less likely to get side effects with 3-month chemotherapy. In particular, the chance of persistent long-term nerve damage was lower, resulting in patients with 3-month chemotherapy having better health-related quality of life. Overall, the study showed that 3-month adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with bowel cancer is as effective as 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy and causes fewer side effects.

Aspirin as an adjuvant treatment for cancer: feasibility results from the Add-Aspirin randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical, epidemiological, and randomised data indicate that aspirin might prevent tumour development and metastasis, leading to reduced cancer mortality, particularly for gastro-oesophageal and colorectal cancer. Randomised trials evaluating aspirin use after primary radical therapy are ongoing. We present the pre-planned feasibility analysis of the run-in phase of the Add-Aspirin trial to address concerns about toxicity, particularly bleeding after radical treatment for gastro-oesophageal cancer. METHODS: The Add-Aspirin protocol includes four phase 3 randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of daily aspirin on recurrence and survival after radical cancer therapy in four tumour cohorts: gastro-oesophageal, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer. An open-label run-in phase (aspirin 100 mg daily for 8 weeks) precedes double-blind randomisation (for participants aged under 75 years, aspirin 300 mg, aspirin 100 mg, or matched placebo in a 1:1:1 ratio; for patients aged 75 years or older, aspirin 100 mg or matched placebo in a 2:1 ratio). A preplanned analysis of feasibility, including recruitment rate, adherence, and toxicity was performed. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry (ISRCTN74358648) and remains open to recruitment. FINDINGS: After 2 years of recruitment (October, 2015, to October, 2017), 3494 participants were registered (115 in the gastro-oesophageal cancer cohort, 950 in the colorectal cancer cohort, 1675 in the breast cancer cohort, and 754 in the prostate cancer cohort); 2719 (85%) of 3194 participants who had finished the run-in period proceeded to randomisation, with rates consistent across tumour cohorts. End of run-in data were available for 2253 patients; 2148 (95%) of the participants took six or seven tablets per week. 11 (0·5%) of the 2253 participants reported grade 3 toxicity during the run-in period, with no upper gastrointestinal bleeding (any grade) in the gastro-oesophageal cancer cohort. The most frequent grade 1-2 toxicity overall was dyspepsia (246 [11%] of 2253 participants). INTERPRETATION: Aspirin is well-tolerated after radical cancer therapy. Toxicity has been low and there is no evidence of a difference in adherence, acceptance of randomisation, or toxicity between the different cancer cohorts. Trial recruitment continues to determine whether aspirin could offer a potential low cost and well tolerated therapy to improve cancer outcomes. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme, The MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL.

Patterns of Recurrence After Resection of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Secondary Analysis of the ESPAC-4 Randomized Adjuvant Chemotherapy Trial.

Importance: The patterns of disease recurrence after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with adjuvant chemotherapy remain unclear. Objective: To define patterns of recurrence after adjuvant chemotherapy and the association with survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospectively collected data from the phase 3 European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer 4 adjuvant clinical trial, an international multicenter study. The study included 730 patients who had resection and adjuvant chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer. Data were analyzed between July 2017 and May 2019. Interventions: Randomization to adjuvant gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus capecitabine. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival, recurrence, and sites of recurrence. Results: Of the 730 patients, median age was 65 years (range 37-81 years), 414 were men (57%), and 316 were women (43%). The median follow-up time from randomization was 43.2 months (95% CI, 39.7-45.5 months), with overall survival from time of surgery of 27.9 months (95% CI, 24.8-29.9 months) with gemcitabine and 30.2 months (95% CI, 25.8-33.5 months) with the combination (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.98; P = .03). The 5-year survival estimates were 17.1% (95% CI, 11.6%-23.5%) and 28.0% (22.0%-34.3%), respectively. Recurrence occurred in 479 patients (65.6%); another 78 patients (10.7%) died without recurrence. Local recurrence occurred at a median of 11.63 months (95% CI, 10.05-12.19 months), significantly different from those with distant recurrence with a median of 9.49 months (95% CI, 8.44-10.71 months) (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.45; P = .04). Following recurrence, the median survival was 9.36 months (95% CI, 8.08-10.48 months) for local recurrence and 8.94 months (95% CI, 7.82-11.17 months) with distant recurrence (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.09; P = .27). The median overall survival of patients with distant-only recurrence (23.03 months; 95% CI, 19.55-25.85 months) or local with distant recurrence (23.82 months; 95% CI, 17.48-28.32 months) was not significantly different from those with only local recurrence (24.83 months; 95% CI, 22.96-27.63 months) (P = .85 and P = .35, respectively). Gemcitabine plus capecitabine had a 21% reduction of death following recurrence compared with monotherapy (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: There were no significant differences between the time to recurrence and subsequent and overall survival between local and distant recurrence. Pancreatic cancer behaves as a systemic disease requiring effective systemic therapy after resection. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00058201, EudraCT 2007-004299-38, and ISRCTN 96397434.

The clinical role of VeriStrat testing in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer considered unfit for first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: We previously demonstrated that the median survival of patients with poor prognosis non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) considered unfit for first-line platinum chemotherapy was <4 months. We evaluated whether VeriStrat could be used as a prognostic or predictive biomarker in this population. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We conducted a randomised double-blind trial among patients with untreated advanced NSCLC considered unfit for platinum chemotherapy because of poor performance status (PS) or multiple comorbidities. All patients received active supportive care (ASC) and were treated with either oral erlotinib or placebo daily. Five hundred twenty-seven patients had plasma samples for VeriStrat classification: good (VeriStrat Good [VSG]) or poor (VeriStrat Poor [VSP]). Main end-point was overall survival. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent patients had VSG, and 83% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 2-3 at baseline. VeriStrat was strongly associated with survival. Among patients managed with ASC only, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 0.54 (p < 0.001) for VSG versus VSP. The association was consistent across patient factors: HR = 0.25 (p = 0.004) and HR = 0.56 (p < 0.001) for ECOG 0-1 and 2-3, respectively, HR = 0.49 (0070 < 0.001) for age≥75 years and HR = 0.59 (p = 0.007) for stage IV. Several ECOG 2-3 patients had long survival: 2-year survival was 8% for VSG patients who had ASC, compared with 0% for VSP. VeriStrat status did not predict benefit from erlotinib treatment because the HRs for erlotinib versus placebo were similar between VSG and VSP patients. CONCLUSIONS: VeriStrat was not a predictive marker for survival when considering first-line erlotinib for patients with NSCLC who had poor PS and were not recommended for platinum doublet therapies. However, VeriStrat was an independent prognostic marker of survival. It represents an objective measurement that could be considered alongside other patient factors to provide a more refined assessment of prognosis for this particular patient group. VSG patients could be selected for treatment trials because of better survival, while VSP patients can continue to be treated conservatively or offered trials of less toxic agents. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN NUMBER: ISRCTN02370070.

Capecitabine compared with observation in resected biliary tract cancer (BILCAP): a randomised, controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in multidisciplinary management, patients with biliary tract cancer have a poor outcome. Only 20% of patients are eligible for surgical resection with curative intent, with 5-year overall survival of less than 10% for all patients. To our knowledge, no studies have described a benefit of adjuvant therapy. We aimed to determine whether adjuvant capecitabine improved overall survival compared with observation following surgery for biliary tract cancer. METHODS: This randomised, controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study was done across 44 specialist hepatopancreatobiliary centres in the UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed cholangiocarcinoma or muscle-invasive gallbladder cancer who had undergone a macroscopically complete resection (which includes liver resection, pancreatic resection, or, less commonly, both) with curative intent, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of less than 2. Patients who had not completely recovered from previous surgery or who had previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy for biliary tract cancer were also excluded. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14 of a 21-day cycle, for eight cycles) or observation commencing within 16 weeks of surgery. Treatment was not masked, and allocation concealment was achieved with a computerised minimisation algorithm that stratified patients by surgical centre, site of disease, resection status, and performance status. The primary outcome was overall survival. As prespecified, analyses were done by intention to treat and per protocol. This study is registered with EudraCT, number 2005-003318-13. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2006, and Dec 4, 2014, 447 patients were enrolled; 223 patients with biliary tract cancer resected with curative intent were randomly assigned to the capecitabine group and 224 to the observation group. The data cutoff for this analysis was March 6, 2017. The median follow-up for all patients was 60 months (IQR 37-60). In the intention-to-treat analysis, median overall survival was 51·1 months (95% CI 34·6-59·1) in the capecitabine group compared with 36·4 months (29·7-44·5) in the observation group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·63-1·04; p=0·097). In a protocol-specified sensitivity analysis, adjusting for minimisation factors and nodal status, grade, and gender, the overall survival HR was 0·71 (95% CI 0·55-0·92; p=0·010). In the prespecified per-protocol analysis (210 patients in the capecitabine group and 220 in the observation group), median overall survival was 53 months (95% CI 40 to not reached) in the capecitabine group and 36 months (30-44) in the observation group (adjusted HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·58-0·97; p=0·028). In the intention-to-treat analysis, median recurrence-free survival was 24·4 months (95% CI 18·6-35·9) in the capecitabine group and 17·5 months (12·0-23·8) in the observation group. In the per-protocol analysis, median recurrence-free survival was 25·9 months (95% CI 19·8-46·3) in the capecitabine group and 17·4 months (12·0-23·7) in the observation group. Adverse events were measured in the capecitabine group only, and of the 213 patients who received at least one cycle, 94 (44%) had at least one grade 3 toxicity, the most frequent of which were hand-foot syndrome in 43 (20%) patients, diarrhoea in 16 (8%) patients, and fatigue in 16 (8%) patients. One (<1%) patient had grade 4 cardiac ischaemia or infarction. Serious adverse events were observed in 47 (21%) of 223 patients in the capecitabine group and 22 (10%) of 224 patients in the observation group. No deaths were deemed to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Although this study did not meet its primary endpoint of improving overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, the prespecified sensitivity and per-protocol analyses suggest that capecitabine can improve overall survival in patients with resected biliary tract cancer when used as adjuvant chemotherapy following surgery and could be considered as standard of care. Furthermore, the safety profile is manageable, supporting the use of capecitabine in this setting. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and Roche.