Palliative radiotherapy versus best supportive care in patients with painful hepatic cancer (CCTG HE1): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Palliative treatment options for painful hepatic cancer can be restricted due to patients eventually becoming refractory to standard treatment. The aim of this study was to determine whether radiotherapy improves hepatic pain from cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial (CCTG HE1) done in nine cancer centres across Canada, we included patients aged 18 years or older with hepatocellular carcinoma or liver metastases, who were refractory to standard treatment, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-3, with life expectancy of more than 3 months, and pain or discomfort at its worst in the past 24 hours on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) of at least 4 out of 10, which was stable for up to 7 days before randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via a minimisation method after stratification by centre and type of cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma vs liver metastases), to single-fraction radiotherapy (8 Gy) to the liver with 8 mg ondansetron (or equivalent) orally and 4 mg dexamethasone orally given 1-2 h before radiotherapy plus best supportive care (including non-opioid or opioid analgesia, or dexamethasone, or a combination of these) or best supportive care alone. The primary endpoint was improvement in patient-reported liver cancer pain or discomfort of at least 2 points on worst pain intensity on the BPI at 1 month after randomisation. All patients with both baseline and 1-month assessments were included in the primary endpoint analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients randomly assigned to treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02511522, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between July 25, 2015, and June 2, 2022, 66 patients were screened and randomly assigned to radiotherapy plus best supportive care (n=33) or best supportive care (n=33). Median age was 65 years (IQR 57-72), 37 (56%) of 66 patients were male, 29 (44%) were female, 43 (65%) had liver metastases, and 23 (35%) had hepatocellular carcinoma (data on race and ethnicity were not collected). As of data cutoff (Sept 8, 2022), median follow-up was 3·2 months (95% CI 3·0-3·4). 24 (73%) of 33 in the radiotherapy plus best supportive care group and 18 (55%) of 33 in the best supportive care only group completed baseline and 1-month assessments. An improvement in hepatic pain of at least 2 points in worst pain intensity on the BPI at 1 month was seen in 16 (67%) of 24 patients in the radiotherapy plus best supportive care group versus four (22%) of 18 patients in the best supportive care group (p=0·0042). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events within 1 month after randomisation were abdominal pain (three [9%] of 33 in the radiotherapy group vs one [3%] of 33 in best supportive care group) and ascites (two [6%] vs one [3%]). No serious adverse events or treatment-related deaths were observed. INTERPRETATION: Single-fraction radiotherapy plus best supportive care improved pain compared with best supportive care alone in patients with liver cancer, and could be considered a standard palliative treatment. FUNDING: Canadian Cancer Society.

The association of health-care contact days with physical function and survival in CCTG/AGITG CO.17.

INTRODUCTION: Although contact days-days with health-care contact outside home-are increasingly adopted as a measure of time toxicity and treatment burden, they could also serve as a surrogate of treatment-related harm. We sought to assess the association between contact days and patient-reported outcomes and the prognostic ability of contact days. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of CO.17 that evaluated cetuximab vs supportive care in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. CO.17 collected European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 instrument data. We assessed the association between number of contact days in a window and changes in physical function and global health status and the association between number of contact days in the first 4 weeks with overall survival. RESULTS: There was a negative association between the number of contact days and change in physical function (per each additional contact day: at 4 weeks, 1.50-point decrease; 8 weeks, 1.06-point decrease; P < .0001 for both) but not with global health status. This negative association was seen in patients receiving cetuximab but not supportive care. More contact days in the first 4 weeks was associated with worse overall survival for all participants and patients receiving cetuximab (per each additional contact day: all participants, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05 to 1.10; and cetuximab, adjusted HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.11; P < .0001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis of a clinical trial, more contact days early in the course were associated with declines in physical function and worse survival in all participants and in participants receiving cancer-directed treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00079066.

Evaluating the Time Toxicity of Cancer Treatment in the CCTG CO.17 Trial.

PURPOSE: The time spent in pursuing treatments for advanced cancer can be substantial. We have previously proposed a pragmatic and patient-centered metric of these time costs-which we term time toxicity-as any day with physical health care system contact. This includes outpatient visits (eg, bloodwork, scans, etc), emergency department visits, and overnight stays in a health care facility. Herein, we sought to assess time toxicity in a completed randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of the Canadian Cancer Trials Group CO.17 RCT that evaluated weekly cetuximab infusions versus supportive care alone in 572 patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Initial results reported a 6-week improvement in median overall survival (OS) with cetuximab (6.1 v 4.6 months). Subsequent analyses reported that benefit was restricted to patients with K-ras wild-type tumors. We calculated patient-level time toxicity by analyzing trial forms. We considered days without health care contact as home days. We compared medians of time measures across arms and stratified results by K-ras status. RESULTS: In the overall population, median time toxic days were higher in the cetuximab arm (28 v 10, P < .001) although median home days were not statistically different between arms (140 v 121, P = .09). In patients with K-ras-mutated tumors, cetuximab was associated with almost numerically equal home days (114 days v 112 days, P = .571) and higher time toxicity (23 days v 11 days, P < .001). In patients with K-ras wild-type tumors, cetuximab was associated with more home days (186 v 132, P < .001). CONCLUSION: This proof-of-concept feasibility study demonstrates that measures of time toxicity can be extracted through secondary analyses of RCTs. In CO.17, despite an overall OS benefit with cetuximab, home days were statistically similar across arms. Such data can supplement traditional survival end points in RCTs. Further work should refine and validate the measure prospectively.[Media: see text].

INTEGRATE II: randomised phase III controlled trials of regorafenib containing regimens versus standard of care in refractory Advanced Gastro-Oesophageal Cancer (AGOC): a study by the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG).

BACKGROUND: Advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer (AGOC) carries a poor prognosis. No standard of care treatment options are available after first and second-line therapies. Regorafenib is an oral multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting angiogenic, stromal, and oncogenic receptor tyrosine kinases. Regorafenib 160 mg daily prolonged progression free survival compared to placebo (INTEGRATE, phase 2). Regorafenib 80 mg daily in combination with nivolumab 3 mg/kg showed promising objective response rates (REGONIVO). METHODS/DESIGN: INTEGRATE II (INTEGRATE IIa and IIb) platform comprises two international phase III randomised controlled trials (RCT) with 2:1 randomisation in favor of experimental intervention. INTEGRATE IIa (double-blind) compares regorafenib 160 mg daily on days 1 to 21 of each 28-day cycle to placebo. INTEGRATE IIb (open label) compares REGONIVO, regorafenib 90 mg days 1 to 21 in combination with intravenous nivolumab 240 mg days 1 and 15 each 28-day cycle with investigator's choice of chemotherapy (control). Treatment continues until disease progression or intolerable adverse events as per protocol. Eligible participants include adults with AGOC who have failed two or more lines of treatment. Stratification is by location of tumour (INTEGRATE IIa only), geographic region, prior VEGF inhibitor and prior immunotherapy use (INTEGRATE IIb only). Primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints are progression free survival, objective response rate, quality of life, and safety. Tertiary/correlative objectives include biomarker and pharmacokinetic evaluation. DISCUSSION: INTEGRATE II provides a platform to evaluate the clinical utility of regorafenib alone, as well as regorafenib in combination with nivolumab in treatment of participants with refractory AGOC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: INTEGRATE IIa prospectively registered 1 April 2016 Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12616000420448 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02773524). INTEGRATE IIb prospectively registered 10 May 2021 ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04879368.

Complementary Medicine Use Amongst Patients with Metastatic Cancer Enrolled in Phase III Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Complementary medicines (CM) are frequently used by patients with cancer. Controversy exists over the effectiveness and risk that CM may add to conventional cancer therapy. The incidence of CM use among patients enrolled in phase III clinical trials is unknown. METHODS: Medication lists from 6 international phase III clinical trials were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients using CM. Patients had metastatic breast, colorectal, or lung cancers. Quality of life, adverse events, overall survival, and progression-free survival were compared between CM users and non-users. Baseline differences between groups were adjusted with propensity score matching groups. RESULTS: Seven hundred and six of 3446 patients (20.5%) used at least one CM. CM use was highest among patients with breast cancer (35.6%). CM users had more favorable baseline prognostic factors (ECOG 0-1, non-smoking status, younger age, and fewer metastases). CM use was associated with lower rates of adverse events (50% vs. 62%, P = .002) and quality of life was similar between both groups. After adjustment with propensity score matching, CM use was also associated with longer overall survival in patients with lung cancer (adjusted hazard ratio 0.80, 95%CI, 0.68-0.94, P =.0054). However, several key control variables like EGFR status were not available. CONCLUSION: One in 5 patients in phase III clinical trials report using CM. CM was not associated with worse cancer-specific outcomes. However, CM users had more favorable baseline prognostic factors, and likely other confounders that may have contributed to improved outcomes observed in the lung cohort. Physicians should monitor for CM use and potential interactions with clinical trial drugs.

The Association Between Statin Use and Outcomes in Patients Initiating Androgen Deprivation Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Studies have conflicting results regarding the association between statin use and biochemical recurrence for prostate cancer (PCa). A limited number of studies examining statins in advanced stages report positive results, with a few specifically examining statins and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). OBJECTIVE: To perform a post hoc secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of men initiating ADT to examine the association between statin use and outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) >3 ng/ml >1 yr following primary/salvage radiotherapy were enrolled in an RCT of intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) versus continuous ADT (NCT00003653). Baseline and on-study statin use was modelled as a time-dependent covariate. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was overall survival. Models were adjusted for age, time from radiotherapy to ADT, baseline PSA, and prior ADT. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 1364 patients, statin users (585; 43%) were younger (72.7 vs 73.8 yr, p = 0.001) and less likely to have PSA >15 ng/ml (20% vs 25%, p = 0.04). After a median follow-up of 6.9 yr, statin use was associated with reduced overall (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.78, p < 0.001) and PCa-specific (HR: 0.65, 95% CI 0.48-0.87, p = 0.004) mortality. Statin users had 13% longer time to castration resistance, but this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.15). As an exploratory endpoint, in the IAD arm, statin users had longer time off treatment (median: 0.85 vs 0.64 yr, p = 0.06). Limitations include potential for residual confounding between statin users and nonusers, and confounding by indication. CONCLUSIONS: In men treated with ADT following primary or salvage radiotherapy, statin use was associated with improved overall and PCa-specific survival. In patients treated with IAD, statin use was associated with a trend towards longer time off treatment. A prospective trial of statins in men commencing ADT is warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: We found a favourable association between statin use and survival outcomes in patients initiating androgen deprivation therapy.

Intratumoral Transcriptome Heterogeneity Is Associated With Patient Prognosis and Sidedness in Patients With Colorectal Cancer Treated With Anti-EGFR Therapy From the CO.20 Trial.

PURPOSE: Metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRCs) assigned to the transit-amplifying (TA) CRCAssigner subtype are more sensitive to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy. We evaluated the association between the intratumoral presence of TA signature (TA-high/TA-low, dubbed as TA-ness classification) and outcomes in CRCs treated with anti-EGFR therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The TA-ness classes were defined in a discovery cohort (n = 84) and independently validated in a clinical trial (CO.20; cetuximab monotherapy arm; n = 121) and other samples using an established NanoString-based gene expression assay. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and disease control rate (DCR) according to TA-ness classification were assessed by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The TA-ness was measured in 772 samples from 712 patients. Patients (treated with anti-EGFR therapy) with TA-high tumors had significantly longer PFS (discovery hazard ratio [HR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.64; P < .001; validation HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.93; P = .018), longer OS (discovery HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.78; P = .003; validation HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.98; P = .04), and higher DCR (discovery odds ratio [OR]; 14.8; 95% CI, 4.30 to 59.54; P < .001; validation OR, 4.35; 95% CI, 2.00 to 9.09; P < .001). TA-ness classification and its association with anti-EGFR therapy outcomes were further confirmed using publicly available data (n = 80) from metastatic samples (PFS P < .001) and patient-derived xenografts (P = .042). In an exploratory analysis of 55 patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type and left-sided tumors, TA-high class was significantly associated with longer PFS and trend toward higher response rate (PFS HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.00; P = .049; OR, 5.88; 95% CI, 0.71 to 4.55; P = .09; response rate 33% in TA-high and 7.7% in TA-low). CONCLUSION: TA-ness classification is associated with prognosis in patients with mCRC treated with anti-EGFR therapy and may further help understanding the value of sidedness in patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type tumors.

Temozolomide and seizure outcomes in a randomized clinical trial of elderly glioblastoma patients.

INTRODUCTION: Tumor-related epilepsy may respond to chemotherapy. In a previously-published multi-centre randomized clinical trial of 562 elderly glioblastoma patients, temozolomide plus short-course radiotherapy conferred a survival benefit over radiotherapy alone. Seizure outcomes were not reported. METHODS: We performed an unplanned secondary analysis of this trial's data. The trial design has been previously reported. Seizures were recorded by clinicians as adverse events and by patients in quality of life questionnaires. A Chi-square test of seizure rates between the two groups (α = 0.05) and a Kaplan-Meier estimator of time-to-first self-reported seizure were planned. RESULTS: Almost all patients were followed until they died. In the radiotherapy alone group, 68 patients (24%) had a documented or self-reported seizure versus 83 patients (30%) in the temozolomide plus radiotherapy group, Chi-square analysis showed no difference (p = 0.15). Patients receiving radiotherapy alone tended to develop seizures earlier than those receiving temozolomide plus radiotherapy (p = 0.054). Patients with seizures had shorter overall survival than those without seizures (hazard ratio 1.24, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This study was not powered to detect differences in seizure outcomes, but temozolomide seemed to have minimal impact on seizure control in elderly patients with glioblastoma. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00482677 2007-06-05.

Can Administrative Data Improve the Performance of Cancer Clinical Trial Economic Analyses?

PURPOSE: Trial economic analyses, such as cost-effectiveness analysis, often rely on trial-collected data, which are burdensome and expensive to collect and may be incomplete. In contrast, administrative databases systematically collect health system encounters. We investigated whether administrative data could improve the performance of cancer trial economic analysis. METHODS: Health administrative data were probabilistically linked to Ontario patient data from the Canadian Cancer Trials Group CO.17 trial (n = 572), which evaluated cetuximab plus best supportive care (75 linked Ontario patients) versus best supportive care alone (73 patients) in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer. Trial-collected resource utilization data and vital status were compared with administrative data. Cost effectiveness in 2007 Canadian dollars was determined with bootstrap incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) CIs. RESULTS: Up to trial date of last contact, administrative data vital status was concordant in more than 96%. Twenty-nine subsequent deaths occurred. Up to trial last contact, there were 50 net additional hospitalizations in administrative data and 33 net additional emergency department visits. Total costs were $3,023,034 for the cetuximab group and $1,191,118 for the control group up to trial last contact. The ICER was $211,128 per life-year gained (90% CI, $101,396 to $694,950) up to trial last contact and $164,378 (90% CI, -$138,260 to $644,555) up to administrative data last contact. ICER estimates were similar to the analysis using trial-collected data. CONCLUSION: Administrative data were more complete than trial data for hospital encounters, a key cost driver in economic analysis. There was a longer follow-up. This demonstrates the potential of administrative data to relieve the burden of collecting key data in cancer trials, which represents a considerable effort and expense.

FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine as Adjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) leads to longer overall survival than gemcitabine therapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen with gemcitabine as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned 493 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to receive a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen (oxaliplatin [85 mg per square meter of body-surface area], irinotecan [180 mg per square meter, reduced to 150 mg per square meter after a protocol-specified safety analysis], leucovorin [400 mg per square meter], and fluorouracil [2400 mg per square meter] every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks. The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival and safety. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, the median disease-free survival was 21.6 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 12.8 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for cancer-related event, second cancer, or death, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.73; P<0.001). The disease-free survival rate at 3 years was 39.7% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 21.4% in the gemcitabine group. The median overall survival was 54.4 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 35.0 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.86; P=0.003). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 63.4% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 48.6% in the gemcitabine group. Adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 75.9% of the patients in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and in 52.9% of those in the gemcitabine group. One patient in the gemcitabine group died from toxic effects (interstitial pneumonitis). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant therapy with a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen led to significantly longer survival than gemcitabine among patients with resected pancreatic cancer, at the expense of a higher incidence of toxic effects. (Funded by R&D Unicancer and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01526135 ; EudraCT number, 2011-002026-52 .).

Comparison of diurnal blood pressure and urine production between people with and without chronic spinal cord injury.

STUDY DESIGN: Observational study. OBJECTIVES: To quantify diurnal blood pressure (BP) patterns and nocturnal hypertension and to measure diurnal urine production in people with chronic spinal cord injury (SCI), compared with controls without SCI. SETTING: Chronic SCI population in the community in Victoria, Australia. METHODS: Participants were recruited by advertisement, and sustained SCI at least a year prior or were healthy able-bodied volunteers. Participants underwent ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), measurement of urine production, and completed questionnaires regarding orthostatic symptoms. Comparisons were made between participants with tetraplegia or paraplegia and able-bodied controls. Participants with night:day systolic BP < 90% were classified as dippers, 90-100% as nondippers, and >100% as reverse dippers. RESULTS: Groups with tetraplegia (n = 51) and paraplegia (n = 33) were older (42.1 ± 15 and 41.1 ± 15 vs. 32.4 ± 13 years, mean ± s.d.) and had a higher prevalence of males (88 and 85% vs. 60%) than controls (n = 52). The average BP was 110.8 ± 1.5/64.4 ± 1.2 mmHg, 119.4 ± 2.1/69.8 ± 1.5 mmHg, and 118.1 ± 1.4/69.8 ± 1.0 mmHg in tetraplegia, paraplegia, and controls, respectively. Of participants with tetraplegia, paraplegia and controls, reverse dipping was observed in 45, 13, and 2% (p < 0.001), while nocturnal hypertension was observed in 13, 23, and 18%, respectively (p = 0.48). A reduction in nocturnal urine flow rate compared with the day was observed in paraplegia and controls, but not tetraplegia. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to the effects of acute SCI, chronic SCI, specifically tetraplegia, also causes isolated nocturnal hypertension, reverse dipping, orthostatic intolerance, and nocturnal polyuria. Cardiovascular risk management and assessment of orthostatic symptoms should include ABPM.

Napabucasin versus placebo in refractory advanced colorectal cancer: a randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Napabucasin is a first-in-class cancer stemness inhibitor that targets STAT3, which is a poor prognostic factor in colorectal cancer. This study aimed to test napabucasin in advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS: This study was a double-blind randomised phase 3 trial done at 68 centres in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Patients with advanced colorectal cancer with a good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0-1) for whom all available standard therapies had failed were eligible for the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive placebo or napabucasin through a web-based system with a permuted block method, after stratification by ECOG performance status, KRAS status, previous VEGF inhibitor treatment, and time from diagnosis of metastatic disease. Napabucasin 480 mg or matching placebo was taken orally every 12 h. All patients received best supportive care. The primary endpoint was overall survival assessed in an intention-to-treat analysis. This is the final analysis of this trial, which is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01830621. FINDINGS: Accrual began on April 15, 2013, and was stopped for futility on May 23, 2014, at which point 282 patients had undergone randomisation (138 assigned to the napabucasin group and 144 to the placebo group). Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups: median overall survival was 4·4 months (95% CI 3·7-4·9) in the napabucasin group and 4·8 months (4·0-5·3) in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·13, 95% CI 0·88-1·46, p=0·34). The safety population included 136 patients in the napabucasin group and 144 patients in the placebo group. More patients who received napabucasin had any grade of treatment-related diarrhoea (108 [79%] of 136 patients), nausea (69 [51%]), and anorexia (52 [38%]) than did patients who received placebo (28 [19%] of 144 patients, 35 [24%], and 23 [16%], respectively). The most common severe (grade 3 or worse) treatment-related adverse events were abdominal pain (five [4%] patients receiving napabucasin vs five [3%] receiving placebo), diarrhoea (21 [15%] vs one [1%]), fatigue (14 [10%] vs eight [6%]), and dehydration (six [4%] vs one [1%]). 251 (89%) patients had data on pSTAT3 expression, of whom 55 (22%) had pSTAT3-positive tumours (29 in the napabucasin group, 26 in the placebo group). In a prespecified biomarker analysis of pSTAT3-positive patients, overall survival was longer in the napabucasin group than in the placebo group (median 5·1 months [95% CI 4·0-7·5] vs 3·0 months [1·7-4·1]; HR 0·41, 0·23-0·73, p=0·0025). INTERPRETATION: Although there was no difference in overall survival between groups in the overall unselected population, STAT3 might be an important target for the treatment of colorectal cancer with elevated pSTAT3 expression. Nevertheless, these results require validation. FUNDING: Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and Boston Biomedical.

Palliative chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for dysphagia in advanced oesophageal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (TROG 03.01).

BACKGROUND: A short course of radiotherapy is commonly prescribed for palliative relief of malignant dysphagia in patients with incurable oesophageal cancer. We compared chemoradiotherapy with radiotherapy alone for dysphagia relief in the palliative setting. METHODS: This multicentre randomised controlled trial included patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal cancer who were randomly assigned (1:1) through a computer-generated adaptive biased coin design to either palliative chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone for treatment of malignant dysphagia at 22 hospitals in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK. Eligible patients had biopsy-proven oesophageal cancer that was unsuitable for curative treatment, symptomatic dysphagia, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, and adequate haematological and renal function. Patients were stratified by hospital, dysphagia score (Mellow scale 1-4), and presence of metastases. The radiotherapy dose was 35 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks for patients in Australia and New Zealand and 30 Gy in ten fractions over 2 weeks for patients in Canada and the UK. Chemotherapy consisted of one cycle of intravenous cisplatin (either 80 mg/m2 on day 1 or 20 mg/m2 per day on days 1-4 of radiotherapy at clinician's discretion) and intravenous fluorouracil 800 mg/m2 per day on days 1-4 of radiotherapy in week 1. Patients were assessed weekly during treatment. The primary endpoint was dysphagia relief (defined as ≥1 point reduction on the Mellow scale at 9 weeks and maintained 4 weeks later), and key secondary endpoints were dysphagia progression-free survival (defined as a worsening of at least 1 point on the Mellow scale from baseline or best response) and overall survival. These endpoints were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00193882. This trial is closed. FINDINGS: Between July 7, 2003, and March 21, 2012, 111 patients were randomly assigned to chemoradiotherapy and 109 patients to radiotherapy. One patient in the chemoradiotherapy group was omitted from analysis because of ineligibility. 50 (45%, 95% CI 36-55) patients in the chemoradiotherapy group and 38 (35%, 26-44) in the radiotherapy group obtained dysphagia relief (difference 10·6%, 95% CI -2 to 23; p=0·13). Median dysphagia progression-free survival was 4·1 months (95% CI 3·5-4·8) versus 3·4 months (3·1-4·3) in the chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy groups, respectively (p=0·58), and median overall survival was 6·9 months (95% CI 5·1-8·3) versus 6·7 months (4·9-8·0), respectively (p=0·88). Of the 211 patients who commenced radiotherapy, grade 3-4 acute toxicity occurred in 38 (36%) patients in the chemoradiotherapy group and in 17 (16%) patients in the radiotherapy group (p=0·0017). Anaemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, oesophagitis, diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, and mucositis were significantly worse in patients who had chemoradiotherapy than in patients who had radiotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Palliative chemoradiotherapy showed a modest, but not statistically significant, increase in dysphagia relief compared with radiotherapy alone, with minimal improvement in dysphagia progression-free survival and overall survival with chemoradiotherapy but at a cost of increased toxicity. A short course of radiotherapy alone should be considered a safe and well tolerated treatment for malignant dysphagia in the palliative setting. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, and Cancer Australia.

Does left ventricular hypertrophy affect cognition and brain structural integrity in type 2 diabetes? Study design and rationale of the Diabetes and Dementia (D2) study.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is common in type 2 diabetes mellitus, and there is a strong association between type 2 diabetes and Alzheimer's disease. However, we do not know which type 2 diabetes patients will dement or which biomarkers predict cognitive decline. Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is potentially such a marker. LVH is highly prevalent in type 2 diabetes and is a strong, independent predictor of cardiovascular events. To date, no studies have investigated the association between LVH and cognitive decline in type 2 diabetes. The Diabetes and Dementia (D2) study is designed to establish whether patients with type 2 diabetes and LVH have increased rates of brain atrophy and cognitive decline. METHODS: The D2 study is a single centre, observational, longitudinal case control study that will follow 168 adult patients aged >50 years with type 2 diabetes: 50% with LVH (case) and 50% without LVH (control). It will assess change in cardiovascular risk, brain imaging and neuropsychological testing between two time-points, baseline (0 months) and 24 months. The primary outcome is brain volume change at 24 months. The co-primary outcome is the presence of cognitive decline at 24 months. The secondary outcome is change in left ventricular mass associated with brain atrophy and cognitive decline at 24 months. DISCUSSION: The D2 study will test the hypothesis that patients with type 2 diabetes and LVH will exhibit greater brain atrophy than those without LVH. An understanding of whether LVH contributes to cognitive decline, and in which patients, will allow us to identify patients at particular risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12616000546459 ), date registered, 28/04/2016.

Short-Course Radiation plus Temozolomide in Elderly Patients with Glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma is associated with a poor prognosis in the elderly. Survival has been shown to increase among patients 70 years of age or younger when temozolomide chemotherapy is added to standard radiotherapy (60 Gy over a period of 6 weeks). In elderly patients, more convenient shorter courses of radiotherapy are commonly used, but the benefit of adding temozolomide to a shorter course of radiotherapy is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a trial involving patients 65 years of age or older with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either radiotherapy alone (40 Gy in 15 fractions) or radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide. RESULTS: A total of 562 patients underwent randomization, 281 to each group. The median age was 73 years (range, 65 to 90). The median overall survival was longer with radiotherapy plus temozolomide than with radiotherapy alone (9.3 months vs. 7.6 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.80; P<0.001), as was the median progression-free survival (5.3 months vs. 3.9 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.60; P<0.001). Among 165 patients with methylated O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) status, the median overall survival was 13.5 months with radiotherapy plus temozolomide and 7.7 months with radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.73; P<0.001). Among 189 patients with unmethylated MGMT status, the median overall survival was 10.0 months with radiotherapy plus temozolomide and 7.9 months with radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.01; P=0.055; P=0.08 for interaction). Quality of life was similar in the two trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly patients with glioblastoma, the addition of temozolomide to short-course radiotherapy resulted in longer survival than short-course radiotherapy alone. (Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00482677 .).

Regorafenib for the Treatment of Advanced Gastric Cancer (INTEGRATE): A Multinational Placebo-Controlled Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the activity of regorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, in advanced gastric adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted an international (Australia and New Zealand, South Korea, and Canada) randomized phase II trial in which patients were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio and stratified by lines of prior chemotherapy for advanced disease (one v two) and region. Eligible patients received best supportive care plus regorafenib 160 mg or matching placebo orally on days 1 to 21 of each 28-day cycle until disease progression or prohibitive adverse events occurred. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Final analysis included data to December 31, 2014. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients were randomly assigned from November 7, 2012, to February 25, 2014, yielding 147 evaluable patients (regorafenib, n = 97; placebo, n = 50). Baseline characteristics were balanced. Median PFS significantly differed between groups (regorafenib, 2.6 months; 95% CI, 1.8 to 3.1 and placebo, 0.9 months; 95% CI, 0.9 to 0.9; hazard ratio [HR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.59; P < .001). The effect was greater in South Korea than in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada combined (HR, 0.12 v 0.61; interaction P < .001) but consistent across age, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, primary site, lines of chemotherapy, peritoneal metastasis presence, number of metastatic sites, and plasma vascular endothelial growth factor A. A survival trend in favor of regorafenib was seen (median, 5.8 months; 95% CI, 4.4 to 6.8 v 4.5 months; 95% CI, 3.4 to 5.2; HR, 0.74; P = .147). Twenty-nine patients assigned to placebo received open-label regorafenib after disease progression. Regorafenib toxicity was similar to that previously reported. CONCLUSION: In this phase II trial, regorafenib was effective in prolonging PFS in refractory advanced gastric adenocarcinoma. Regional differences were found, but regorafenib was effective in both regional groups. A phase III trial is planned.

Fc-γ Receptor Polymorphisms, Cetuximab Therapy, and Survival in the NCIC CTG CO.17 Trial of Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Two germline Fc-γ receptor (FCGR) polymorphisms, rs1801274 [FCGR2A;His(H)131Arg(R)] and rs396991 [FCGR3A;Phe(F)158Val(V)] produce altered proteins through amino acid substitutions; both are reported to be associated with cetuximab-related outcomes. We performed a validation of these polymorphisms in NCIC CTG CO.17, a randomized trial of cetuximab monotherapy in refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer expressing EGFR. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: DNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue was genotyped. In addition to log-rank tests, Cox proportional hazard models assessed their relationships with overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), adjusting for clinically important prognostic factors, along with a polymorphism-treatment arm interaction term. RESULTS: Somatic KRAS status was wild-type for exon 2 in 153 (52%) of 293 patients, from whom tumor DNA was available. For FCGR2A H/H, a genotype-treatment interaction for KRAS wild-type patients was observed for OS (P = 0.03). In KRAS wild-type patients carrying FCGR2A H/H, cetuximab (vs. no cetuximab) improved survival substantially, with adjusted HRs (aHR) of 0.36 (OS) and 0.19 (PFS) and absolute benefits of 5.5 months (OS; P = 0.003) and 3.7 months (PFS; P = 0.02). In contrast, patients carrying FCGR2A R alleles (H/R or R/R) had aHRs of only 0.78 (OS; 2.8-month benefit) and 0.53 (PFS; 1.6-month benefit). No relationships were found for rs396991 (FCGR3A). CONCLUSIONS: In the CO.17 trial, cetuximab worked best for patients with KRAS wild-type colorectal cancers carrying FCGR2A H/H genotypes. Significantly lower benefits were observed in patients carrying germline FCGR2A R alleles. Clin Cancer Res; 22(10); 2435-44. ©2016 AACR.

Effects of a Structured Exercise Program on Physical Activity and Fitness in Colon Cancer Survivors: One Year Feasibility Results from the CHALLENGE Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is strong interest in testing lifestyle interventions to improve cancer outcomes; however, the optimal methods for achieving behavior change in large-scale pragmatic trials are unknown. Here, we report the 1-year feasibility results for exercise behavior change in the Canadian Cancer Trials Group CO.21 (CHALLENGE) Trial. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2014, 273 high-risk stage II and III colon cancer survivors from 42 centers in Canada and Australia were randomized to a structured exercise program (SEP; n = 136) or health education materials (HEM; n = 137). The primary feasibility outcome in a prespecified interim analysis was a difference between randomized groups of ≥5 metabolic equivalent task (MET)-hours/week in self-reported recreational physical activity (PA) after at least 250 participants reached the 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included health-related fitness. RESULTS: The SEP group reported an increase in recreational PA of 15.6 MET-hours/week compared with 5.1 MET-hours/week in the HEM group [mean difference = +10.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) = +3.1-+17.9; P = 0.002]. The SEP group also improved relative to the HEM group in predicted VO2max (P = 0.068), 6-minute walk (P < 0.001), 30-second chair stand (P < 0.001), 8-foot up-and-go (P = 0.004), and sit-and-reach (P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: The behavior change intervention in the CHALLENGE Trial produced a substantial increase in self-reported recreational PA that met the feasibility criterion for trial continuation, resulted in objective fitness improvements, and is consistent with the amount of PA associated with improved colon cancer outcomes in observational studies. IMPACT: The CHALLENGE Trial is poised to determine the causal effects of PA on colon cancer outcomes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(6); 969-77. ©2016 AACR.

Pooled Analysis of the Prognostic and Predictive Value of KRAS Mutation Status and Mutation Subtype in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors.

OBJECTIVES: This pooled analysis of four trials of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKIs) versus placebo was conducted to clarify the prognostic and predictive roles of Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) mutations (MUTs) and to explore the importance of MUT subtype. METHODS: Data were pooled from four trials of EGFR TKIs versus placebo (National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group [NCIC CTG] trial BR.21, TOPICAL, NCIC CTG trial BR.26, and NCIC CTG trial BR.19). Analyses of the combined data were performed to determine relationships of MUT status/subtype to response and survival end points. RESULTS: KRAS status was known for 1362 of 2624 patients (785 receiving EGFR TKIs and 577 receiving placebo); 275 (20%) had KRAS MUTs (248 at codon 12; 15 at codon 13; 12 at other codons). In the placebo arms there was no difference in overall survival (OS) for patients with KRAS MUTs or wild-type tumors (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.04, confidence interval [CI]: 0.81-1.33 for univariable analysis and HR = 1.09, CI: 0.85-1.41 for multivariable analysis). Patients with guanine-to-thymidine transversion MUTs had longer OS than did those with guanine-to-adenine transition MUTs or guanine-to-cytosine transversion MUTs (median OS 6.3, 1.8, and 3.9 months, respectively, p = 0.01). Patients with KRAS MUT tumors derived no benefit from EGFR TKIs (OS HR = 1.13, CI: 0.85-1.51; progression-free survival HR = 1.02, CI: 0.76-1.36). The interaction between KRAS status and EGFR TKI effect was significant for progression-free survival (p = 0.04) but not for OS (p = 0.17). For patients with G12V MUTs, EGFR TKI treatment was harmful (OS HR = 1.96, CI: 1.03-3.70, p = 0.04), whereas guanine-to-adenine transition MUTs were associated with an OS benefit from EGFR TKIs (HR = 0.49, CI: 0.24-1.00, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, KRAS MUT is neither prognostic nor predictive of benefit from EGFR TKIs. However, it appears that KRAS MUT subtypes are not homogeneous in terms of their prognostic and predictive effects. These observations require prospective validation.