Investigator choice of standard therapy versus sequential novel therapy arms in the treatment of relapsed follicular lymphoma (REFRACT): study protocol for a multi-centre, open-label, randomised, phase II platform trial.

BACKGROUND: Relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (rrFL) is an incurable disease associated with shorter remissions and survival after each line of standard therapy. Many promising novel, chemotherapy-free therapies are in development, but few are licensed as their role in current treatment pathways is poorly defined. METHODS: The REFRACT trial is an investigator-initiated, UK National Cancer Research Institute, open-label, multi-centre, randomised phase II platform trial aimed at accelerating clinical development of novel therapies by addressing evidence gaps. The first of the three sequential novel therapy arms is epcoritamab plus lenalidomide, to be compared with investigator choice standard therapy (ICT). Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy proven relapsed or refractory CD20 positive, grade 1-3a follicular lymphoma and assessable disease by PET-CT are eligible. The primary outcome is complete metabolic response by PET-CT at 24 weeks using the Deauville 5-point scale and Lugano 2014 criteria. Secondary outcomes include overall metabolic response, progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, and quality of life assessed by EQ-5D-5 L and FACT-Lym. The trial employs an innovative Bayesian design with a target sample size of 284 patients: 95 in the ICT arm and 189 in the novel therapy arms. DISCUSSION: Whilst there are many promising novel drugs in early clinical development for rrFL, understanding the relative efficacy and safety of these agents, and their place in modern treatment pathways, is limited by a lack of randomised trials and dearth of published outcomes for standard regimens to act as historic controls. Therefore, the aim of REFRACT is to provide an efficient platform to evaluate novel agents against standard therapies for rrFL. The adaptive Bayesian power prior methodology design will minimise patient numbers and accelerate trial delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05848765; 08-May-2023. EUDRACT: 2022-000677-75; 10-Feb-2022.

The development of a decision aid to support Hodgkin lymphoma survivors considering lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Decisions aids (DA) can support patients to make informed decisions about screening tests. This study describes the development and initial evaluation of a lung cancer screening (LCS) DA targeted towards survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). METHODS: A prototype decision aid booklet was developed and subsequently reviewed by a steering group who provided feedback. Revisions were made to produce the DA tested in this study. HL survivors were recruited to an online survey and/or focus groups. Lymphoma practitioners were invited to an interview study. In the online survey, decisional conflict scales and knowledge scales were completed before and after accessing the DA. The focus groups and interviews explored acceptability and comprehensibility and the decisional needs of stakeholders. Focus groups and interviews were audio recorded. The framework method was used to analyse qualitative data. RESULTS: 38 HL survivors completed the online survey. Following exposure to the DA, knowledge of LCS and risk factors and decisional conflict scores (total score and subscale scores) improved significantly. 11 HL survivors took part in two focus groups (n = 5 and n = 6) and 11 practitioners were interviewed. Focus group and interview results: The language, format and length were considered acceptable. Both groups felt the DA was balanced and presented a choice. Icon arrays were felt to aid comprehension of absolute risk values and for some survivors, they reduced affective risk perceptions. Among survivors, the impact of radiation risk on decision making varied according to gender and screening interval, whilst practitioners did not anticipate it to be a major concern for patients. Both groups expressed that a screening offer could mitigate anxiety about lung cancer risk. As anticipated by practitioners, survivors expressed a desire to seek advice from their clinical team. Practitioners thought the DA would meet their informational needs regarding LCS  when supporting survivors. CONCLUSIONS: The DA is considered acceptable by HL survivors and practitioners. The DA reduces decisional conflict and improves knowledge in HL survivors, suggesting that it would support HL survivors to make informed decisions when considering LCS in a future clinical trial.