Standard Versus Modified Ipilimumab, in Combination With Nivolumab, in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase II Trial (PRISM).

PURPOSE: Ipilimumab (IPI), in combination with nivolumab (NIVO), is an approved frontline treatment option for patients with intermediate- or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We conducted a randomized phase II trial to evaluate whether administering IPI once every 12 weeks (modified), instead of once every 3 weeks (standard), in combination with NIVO, is associated with a favorable toxicity profile. METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients with clear-cell aRCC were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive four doses of modified or standard IPI, 1 mg/kg, in combination with NIVO (3 mg/kg). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse event (trAE) among those who received at least one dose of therapy. The key secondary end point was 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) in the modified arm compared with historical sunitinib control. The study was not designed to formally compare arms for efficacy. RESULTS: Between March 2018 and January 2020, 192 patients (69.8% intermediate/poor-risk) were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug. The incidence of grade 3-5 trAEs was significantly lower among participants receiving modified versus standard IPI (32.8% v 53.1%; odds ratio, 0.43 [90% CI, 0.25 to 0.72]; P = .0075). The 12-month PFS (90% CI) using modified IPI was 46.1% (38.6 to 53.2). At a median follow-up of 21 months, the overall response rate was 45.3% versus 35.9% and the median PFS was 10.8 months versus 9.8 months in the modified and standard IPI groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Rates of grade 3-5 trAEs were significantly lower in patients receiving modified versus standard IPI. Although 12-month PFS did not meet the prespecified efficacy threshold compared with historical control, informal comparison of treatment groups did not suggest any reduction in efficacy with the modified schedule.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of PCF versus ACD in the treatment of cervical brachialgia (FORVAD trial).

BACKGROUND: Cervical radiculopathy occurs when a nerve root is compressed in the spine, if symptoms fail to resolve after 6 weeks surgery may be indicated. Anterior Cervical Discectomy (ACD) is the commonest procedure, Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy (PCF) is an alternative that avoids the risk of damage to anterior neck structures. This prospective, Phase III, UK multicentre, open, individually randomised controlled trial was performed to determine whether PCF is superior to ACD in terms of improving clinical outcome as measured by the Neck Disability Index (NDI) 52 weeks post-surgery. METHOD: Following consent to participate and collection of baseline data, subjects with cervical brachialgia were randomised to ACD or PCF in a 1:1 ratio on the day of surgery. Clinical outcomes were assessed on day 1 and patient reported outcomes on day 1 and weeks 6, 12, 26, 39 and 52 post-operation. A total of 252 participants were planned to be randomised. Statistical analysis was limited to descriptive statistics. Health economic outcomes were also described. RESULTS: The trial was closed early (n = 23). Compared to baseline, the median (interquartile range (IQR)) NDI score at 52 weeks reduced from 44.0 (36.0, 62.0) to 25.3 (20.0, 42.0) in the PCF group and increased from 35.6 (34.0, 44.0) to 45.0 (20.0, 57.0) in the ACD group. ACD may be associated with more swallowing, voice and other complications and was more expensive; neck and arm pain scores were similar. CONCLUSIONS: The trial was closed early, therefore no definitive conclusions on clinical or cost-effectiveness could be made.

Posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy for Cervical Brachialgia: the FORVAD RCT.

Background: Posterior cervical foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy are routinely used operations to treat cervical brachialgia, although definitive evidence supporting superiority of either is lacking. Objective: The primary objective was to investigate whether or not posterior cervical foraminotomy is superior to anterior cervical discectomy in improving clinical outcome. Design: This was a Phase III, unblinded, prospective, United Kingdom multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled superiority trial comparing posterior cervical foraminotomy with anterior cervical discectomy. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during the close-down phase, involving remote semistructured interviews with trial participants and health-care professionals. Setting: National Health Service trusts. Participants: Patients with symptomatic unilateral cervical brachialgia for at least 6 weeks. Interventions: Participants were randomised to receive posterior cervical foraminotomy or anterior cervical discectomy. Allocation was not blinded to participants, medical staff or trial staff. Health-care use from providing the initial surgical intervention to hospital discharge was measured and valued using national cost data. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was clinical outcome, as measured by patient-reported Neck Disability Index score 52 weeks post operation. Secondary outcome measures included complications, reoperations and restricted American Spinal Injury Association score over 6 weeks post operation, and patient-reported Eating Assessment Tool-10 items, Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale, Voice Handicap Index-10 items, PainDETECT and Numerical Rating Scales for neck and upper-limb pain over 52 weeks post operation. Results: The target recruitment was 252 participants. Owing to slow accrual, the trial closed after randomising 23 participants from 11 hospitals. The qualitative substudy found that there was support and enthusiasm for the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial and randomised clinical trials in this area. However, clinical equipoise appears to have been an issue for sites and individual surgeons. Randomisation on the day of surgery and processes for screening and approaching participants were also crucial factors in some centres. The median Neck Disability Index scores at baseline (pre surgery) and at 52 weeks was 44.0 (interquartile range 36.0-62.0 weeks) and 25.3 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-42.0 weeks), respectively, in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group (n = 14), and 35.6 weeks (interquartile range 34.0-44.0 weeks) and 45.0 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-57.0 weeks), respectively, in the anterior cervical discectomy group (n = 9). Scores appeared to reduce (i.e. improve) in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group, but not in the anterior cervical discectomy group. The median Eating Assessment Tool-10 items score for swallowing was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (13.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (0) on day 1, but not at other time points, whereas the median Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale score for globus was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (15, 7, 6, 6, 2, 2.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (3, 0, 0, 0.5, 0, 0) at all postoperative time points. Five postoperative complications occurred within 6 weeks of surgery, all after anterior cervical discectomy. Neck pain was more severe on day 1 following posterior cervical foraminotomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 8.5) than at the same time point after anterior cervical discectomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 7.0). The median health-care costs of providing initial surgical intervention were £2610 for posterior cervical foraminotomy and £4411 for anterior cervical discectomy. Conclusions: The data suggest that posterior cervical foraminotomy is associated with better outcomes, fewer complications and lower costs, but the trial recruited slowly and closed early. Consequently, the trial is underpowered and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Recruitment was impaired by lack of individual equipoise and by concern about randomising on the day of surgery. A large prospective multicentre trial comparing anterior cervical discectomy and posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia is still required. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN10133661. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cervical brachialgia is pain that starts in the neck and passes down into the arm. Although most people with cervical brachialgia recover quickly, in some patients pain persists, and in 15% of patients pain is so severe that they are unable to work. In the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial, we investigated two neck surgeries used to treat this problem: posterior cervical foraminotomy (surgery from the back of the neck) and anterior cervical discectomy (surgery from the front of the neck). This trial aimed to find out if one of them is better than the other at relieving pain and more cost-effective for the National Health Service. We assessed patients' quality of life 1 year after their surgery and how their pain changed over the course of the year. We also measured the number of complications patients had in the first 6 weeks after their operation. Recruitment was slow and so the trial was stopped early, after only 23 patients from 11 hospitals had been randomly allocated to the two surgery groups. We had planned to recruit 252 participants to the trial; the number of participants we were able to recruit in practice was too small to enable us to determine which surgery is better at relieving pain. To find out why the trial had struggled to recruit, we asked hospital staff and participants about their experiences. We found that hospital staff sometimes struggled to organise everything needed to randomise patients on the day of surgery. Some staff also found it difficult to randomise patients as they had an opinion on which surgery they thought the patient should receive. The data collected in the trial will still be useful to help design future research. Finding out which surgery is better at relieving pain remains important, and the data we have collected will support answering this question in future.

The Role of Pretherapy Quantitative Imaging and Dosimetry in Radioiodine Therapy for Advanced Thyroid Cancer.

Radioactive iodine is well established as a successful treatment for differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), although around 15% of patients have local recurrence or develop distant metastases and may become refractory to radioactive iodine (RAI). A personalized approach to treatment, based on the absorbed radiation doses delivered and using treatments to enhance RAI uptake, has not yet been developed. Methods: We performed a multicenter clinical trial to investigate the role of selumetinib, which modulates the expression of the sodium iodide symporter, and hence iodine uptake, in the treatment of RAI-refractory DTC. The iodine uptake before and after selumetinib was quantified to assess the effect of selumetinib. The range of absorbed doses delivered to metastatic disease was calculated from pre- and posttherapy imaging, and the predictive accuracy of a theranostic approach to enable personalized treatment planning was investigated. Results: Significant inter- and intrapatient variability was observed with respect to the uptake of RAI and the effect of selumetinib. The absorbed doses delivered to metastatic lesions ranged from less than 1 Gy to 1,170 Gy. A strong positive correlation was found between the absorbed doses predicted from pretherapy imaging and those measured after therapy (r = 0.93, P < 0.001). Conclusion: The variation in outcomes from RAI therapy of DTC may be explained, among other factors, by the range of absorbed doses delivered. The ability to assess the effect of treatments that modulate RAI uptake, and to estimate the absorbed doses at therapy, introduces the potential for patient stratification using a theranostic approach. Patient-specific absorbed dose planning might be the key to more successful treatment of advanced DTC.

Effect of AZD4017, a Selective 11ß-HSD1 Inhibitor, on Bone Turnover Markers in Postmenopausal Osteopenia.

CONTEXT: The causative link between circulating glucocorticoid excess and osteoporosis is well-established. The enzyme 11ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 (11ß-HSD1), which increases local cortisol production, is expressed in human osteoblasts and its activity increases with age. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that local 11ß-HSD1 might mediate an age-related decrease in bone formation and that selective 11ß-HSD1 inhibition may enhance bone formation. METHODS: A dual-center, phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 90 days' treatment with AZD4017 (a selective 11ß-HSD1 inhibitor) was conducted in 55 postmenopausal women with osteopenia. Participants received 400 mg oral AZD4017 twice daily vs matched placebo over 90 days. The primary outcome measure was the impact on the bone formation marker osteocalcin. Secondary objectives included correlation with 11ß-HSD1 activity. RESULTS: At 90 days, osteocalcin levels did not differ between treatment groups: active (mean 22.3 [SD 8.6] ng/mL, n = 22) and placebo (21.7 [SD 9.2] ng/mL, n = 24), with a baseline-adjusted treatment effect of 0.95 (95% CI: -2.69, 4.60). The results from the urinary [THF + alloTHF]/THE ratio (index of 11ß-HSD1 activity) and the urinary cortisol/cortisone ratio (index of 11ß-HSD2 activity) confirmed a > 90% inhibition of 11ß-HSD1 but no change in activity of 11ß-HSD2. CONCLUSION: This trial demonstrates that AZD4017 selectively inhibits 11ß-HSD1 activity in vivo in a safe and reversible manner. Following 90 days of treatment, there is no effect on bone formation, indicating that the relative impairment of bone mineral density in postmenopausal women is not mediated by local intracellular production of cortisol under normal physiological concentrations.

PRISM protocol: a randomised phase II trial of nivolumab in combination with alternatively scheduled ipilimumab in first-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of nivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD-1) targeted monoclonal antibody, with the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) targeted antibody, ipilimumab, represents a new standard of care in the first-line setting for patients with intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on recent phase III data. Combining ipilimumab with nivolumab increases rates of grade 3 and 4 toxicity compared with nivolumab alone, and the optimal scheduling of these agents when used together remains unknown. The aim of the PRISM study is to assess whether less frequent dosing of ipilimumab (12-weekly versus 3-weekly), in combination with nivolumab, is associated with a favourable toxicity profile without adversely impacting efficacy. METHODS: The PRISM trial is a UK-based, open label, multi-centre, phase II, randomised controlled trial. The trial population consists of patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC, and aims to recruit 189 participants. Participants will be randomised on a 2:1 basis in favour of a modified schedule of 4 doses of 12-weekly ipilimumab versus a standard schedule of 4 doses of 3-weekly ipilimumab, both in combination with standard nivolumab. The proportion of participants experiencing a grade 3 or 4 adverse reaction within 12 months forms the primary endpoint of the study, but with 12-month progression free survival a key secondary endpoint. The incidence of all adverse events, discontinuation rates, overall response rate, duration of response, overall survival rates and health related quality of life will also be analysed as secondary endpoints. In addition, the potential of circulating and tissue-based biomarkers as predictors of therapy response will be explored. DISCUSSION: The combination of nivolumab with ipilimumab is active in patients with mRCC. Modifying the frequency of ipilimumab dosing may mitigate toxicity rates and positively impact quality of life without compromising efficacy, a hypothesis being explored in other tumour types such as non-small cell lung cancer. The best way to give this combination to patients with mRCC must be similarly established. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PRISM is registered with ISRCTN (reference ISRCTN95351638, 19/12/2017). TRIAL STATUS: At the time of submission, PRISM is open to recruitment and data collection is ongoing.