Biomarker Predictors of Clinical Efficacy of the Anti-IgE Biologic, Omalizumab, in Severe Asthma in Adults: Results of the SoMOSA Study.

BACKGROUND: The anti-IgE monoclonal, omalizumab, is widely used for severe asthma. This study aimed to identify biomarkers that predict clinical improvement during one year of omalizumab treatment. METHODS: 1-year, open-label, Study of Mechanisms of action of Omalizumab in Severe Asthma (SoMOSA) involving 216 severe (GINA step 4/5) uncontrolled atopic asthmatics (≥2 severe exacerbations in previous year) on high-dose inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting ß-agonists, ± mOCS. It had two phases: 0-16 weeks, to assess early clinical improvement by Global Evaluation of Therapeutic Effectiveness (GETE), and 16-52 weeks, to assess late responses by ≥50% reduction in exacerbations or dose of maintenance oral corticosteroids (mOCS). All participants provided samples (exhaled breath, blood, sputum, urine) before and after 16 weeks of omalizumab treatment. RESULTS: 191 patients completed phase 1; 63% had early improvement. Of 173 who completed phase 2, 69% had reduced exacerbations by ≥50%, while 57% (37/65) on mOCS reduced their dose by ≥50%. The primary outcome 2, 3-dinor-11-ß-PGF2α, GETE and standard clinical biomarkers (blood and sputum eosinophils, exhaled nitric oxide, serum IgE) did not predict either clinical response. Five breathomics (GC-MS) and 5 plasma lipid biomarkers strongly predicted the ≥50% reduction in exacerbations (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC): 0.780 and 0.922, respectively) and early responses (AUC:0.835 and 0.949, respectively). In independent cohorts, the GC-MS biomarkers differentiated between severe and mild asthma. Conclusions This is the first discovery of omics biomarkers that predict improvement to a biologic for asthma. Their prospective validation and development for clinical use is justified. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT compared with positron emission tomography CT to characterise solitary pulmonary nodules: the SPUtNIk diagnostic accuracy study and economic modelling.

BACKGROUND: Current pathways recommend positron emission tomography-computerised tomography for the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules. Dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography may be a more cost-effective approach. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic performances of dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography and positron emission tomography-computerised tomography in the NHS for solitary pulmonary nodules. Systematic reviews and a health economic evaluation contributed to the decision-analytic modelling to assess the likely costs and health outcomes resulting from incorporation of dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography into management strategies. DESIGN: Multicentre comparative accuracy trial. SETTING: Secondary or tertiary outpatient settings at 16 hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with solitary pulmonary nodules of ≥ 8 mm and of ≤ 30 mm in size with no malignancy in the previous 2 years were included. INTERVENTIONS: Baseline positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced computer tomography with 2 years' follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy for positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared management strategies that used dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography with management strategies that did not use dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography. RESULTS: A total of 380 patients were recruited (median age 69 years). Of 312 patients with matched dynamic contrast-enhanced computer tomography and positron emission tomography-computerised tomography examinations, 191 (61%) were cancer patients. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy for positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced computer tomography were 72.8% (95% confidence interval 66.1% to 78.6%), 81.8% (95% confidence interval 74.0% to 87.7%), 76.3% (95% confidence interval 71.3% to 80.7%) and 95.3% (95% confidence interval 91.3% to 97.5%), 29.8% (95% confidence interval 22.3% to 38.4%) and 69.9% (95% confidence interval 64.6% to 74.7%), respectively. Exploratory modelling showed that maximum standardised uptake values had the best diagnostic accuracy, with an area under the curve of 0.87, which increased to 0.90 if combined with dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography peak enhancement. The economic analysis showed that, over 24 months, dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography was less costly (£3305, 95% confidence interval £2952 to £3746) than positron emission tomography-computerised tomography (£4013, 95% confidence interval £3673 to £4498) or a strategy combining the two tests (£4058, 95% confidence interval £3702 to £4547). Positron emission tomography-computerised tomography led to more patients with malignant nodules being correctly managed, 0.44 on average (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.49), compared with 0.40 (95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.45); using both tests further increased this (0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.51). LIMITATIONS: The high prevalence of malignancy in nodules observed in this trial, compared with that observed in nodules identified within screening programmes, limits the generalisation of the current results to nodules identified by screening. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this research indicate that positron emission tomography-computerised tomography is more accurate than dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography for the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules. A combination of maximum standardised uptake value and peak enhancement had the highest accuracy with a small increase in costs. Findings from this research also indicate that a combined positron emission tomography-dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography approach with a slightly higher willingness to pay to avoid missing small cancers or to avoid a 'watch and wait' policy may be an approach to consider. FUTURE WORK: Integration of the dynamic contrast-enhanced component into the positron emission tomography-computerised tomography examination and the feasibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography at lung screening for the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules should be explored, together with a lower radiation dose protocol. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018112215 and CRD42019124299, and the trial is registered as ISRCTN30784948 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02013063. 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. 26, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A nodule found on a lung scan can cause concern as it may be a sign of cancer. Finding lung cancer nodules when they are small (i.e. < 3 cm) is very important. Most nodules are not cancerous. Computerised tomography (cross-sectional images created from multiple X-rays) and positron emission tomography­computerised tomography (a technique that uses a radioactive tracer combined with computerised tomography) are used to see whether or not a nodule is cancerous; although they perform well, improvements are required. This study compared dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography with positron emission tomography­computerised tomography scans to find out which test is best. Dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography involves injection of a special dye into the bloodstream, followed by repeated scans of the nodule over several minutes. We assessed the costs to the NHS of undertaking the different scans, relative to their benefits, to judge which option was the best value for money. We recruited 380 patients from 16 hospitals across England and Scotland, of whom 312 had both dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography and positron emission tomography­computerised tomography scans. We found that current positron emission tomography­computerised tomography is more accurate, providing a correct diagnosis in 76% of cases, than the new dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography, which provides a correct diagnosis in 70% of cases. Although dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography cannot replace positron emission tomography­computerised tomography, it may represent good-value use of NHS resources, especially if it is performed before positron emission tomography­computerised tomography and they are used in combination. Although more research is required, it may be possible in the future to perform dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography at the same time as positron emission tomography­computerised tomography in patients with suspected lung cancer or if a lung nodule is found on a lung screening programme at the time of the computerised tomography examination. This may reduce the need for some people to have positron emission tomography­computerised tomography.

Comparative accuracy and cost-effectiveness of dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and positron emission tomography in the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules.

INTRODUCTION: Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT (DCE-CT) and positron emission tomography/CT (PET/CT) have a high reported accuracy for the diagnosis of malignancy in solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs). The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of these. METHODS: In this prospective multicentre trial, 380 participants with an SPN (8-30 mm) and no recent history of malignancy underwent DCE-CT and PET/CT. All patients underwent either biopsy with histological diagnosis or completed CT follow-up. Primary outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity and overall diagnostic accuracy for PET/CT and DCE-CT. Costs and cost-effectiveness were estimated from a healthcare provider perspective using a decision-model. RESULTS: 312 participants (47% female, 68.1±9.0 years) completed the study, with 61% rate of malignancy at 2 years. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values for DCE-CT were 95.3% (95% CI 91.3 to 97.5), 29.8% (95% CI 22.3 to 38.4), 68.2% (95% CI 62.4% to 73.5%) and 80.0% (95% CI 66.2 to 89.1), respectively, and for PET/CT were 79.1% (95% CI 72.7 to 84.2), 81.8% (95% CI 74.0 to 87.7), 87.3% (95% CI 81.5 to 91.5) and 71.2% (95% CI 63.2 to 78.1). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) for DCE-CT and PET/CT was 0.62 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.67) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.85), respectively (p<0.001). Combined results significantly increased diagnostic accuracy over PET/CT alone (AUROC=0.90 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.93), p<0.001). DCE-CT was preferred when the willingness to pay per incremental cost per correctly treated malignancy was below £9000. Above £15 500 a combined approach was preferred. CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT has a superior diagnostic accuracy to DCE-CT for the diagnosis of SPNs. Combining both techniques improves the diagnostic accuracy over either test alone and could be cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02013063.

Use of procalcitonin for antibiotic stewardship in patients with COVID-19: A quality improvement project in a district general hospital.

Antibiotic stewardship during the COVID-19 pandemic is an important part of a comprehensive strategy to improve patient outcomes and reduce long-term adverse effects secondary to rising antibiotic resistance. This report describes a quality improvement project which incorporates the use of procalcitonin (PCT) testing to rationalise antibiotic prescribing in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 at Chesterfield Royal Hospital. Data were collected from 118 patients with a total of 127 PCT levels checked over a period of 20 days. Each PCT level was correlated with the subsequent antibiotic outcome as well as the result of the COVID-19 PCR swab. Results indicate that antibiotics were either never started or were stopped within 48 hours in 72% of COVID-confirmed cases with a PCT less than 0.25 µg/L. Our findings suggest that procalcitonin testing, when used in combination with thorough clinical assessment, is a safe, simple and sustainable way of reducing antibiotic use in COVID-19.

A comparison of the clinical effectiveness and cost of specialised individually delivered parent training for preschool attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and a generic, group-based programme: a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of the New Forest Parenting Programme versus Incredible Years.

The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and cost of specialised individually delivered parent training (PT) for preschool children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) against generic group-based PT and treatment as usual (TAU). This is a multi-centre three-arm, parallel group randomised controlled trial conducted in National Health Service Trusts. The participants included in this study were preschool children (33-54 months) fulfilling ADHD research diagnostic criteria. New Forest Parenting Programme (NFPP)-12-week individual, home-delivered ADHD PT programme; Incredible Years (IY)-12-week group-based, PT programme initially designed for children with behaviour problems were the interventions. Primary outcome-Parent ratings of child's ADHD symptoms (Swanson, Nolan & Pelham Questionnaire-SNAP-IV). Secondary outcomes-teacher ratings (SNAP-IV) and direct observations of ADHD symptoms and parent/teacher ratings of conduct problems. NFPP, IY and TAU outcomes were measured at baseline (T1) and post treatment (T2). NFPP and IY outcomes only were measured 6 months post treatment (T3). Researchers, but not therapists or parents, were blind to treatment allocation. Analysis employed mixed effect regression models (multiple imputations). Intervention and other costs were estimated using standardized approaches. NFPP and IY did not differ on parent-rated SNAP-IV, ADHD combined symptoms [mean difference - 0.009 95% CI (- 0.191, 0.173), p = 0.921] or any other measure. Small, non-significant, benefits of NFPP over TAU were seen for parent-rated SNAP-IV, ADHD combined symptoms [- 0.189 95% CI (- 0.380, 0.003), p = 0.053]. NFPP significantly reduced parent-rated conduct problems compared to TAU across scales (p values < 0.05). No significant benefits of IY over TAU were seen for parent-rated SNAP, ADHD symptoms [- 0.16 95% CI (- 0.37, 0.04), p = 0.121] or parent-rated conduct problems (p > 0.05). The cost per family of providing NFPP in the trial was significantly lower than IY (£1591 versus £2103). Although, there were no differences between NFPP and IY with regards clinical effectiveness, individually delivered NFPP cost less. However, this difference may be reduced when implemented in routine clinical practice. Clinical decisions should take into account parental preferences between delivery approaches.

Timing of surgical intervention for developmental dysplasia of the hip: a randomised controlled trial (Hip 'Op).

BACKGROUND: Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is a very common congenital disorder, and late-presenting cases often require surgical treatment. Surgical reduction of the hip may be complicated by avascular necrosis (AVN), which occurs as a result of interruption to the femoral head blood supply during treatment and can result in long-term problems. Some surgeons delay surgical treatment until the ossific nucleus (ON) has developed, whereas others believe that the earlier the reduction is performed, the better the result. Currently there is no definitive evidence to support either strategy. OBJECTIVES: To determine, in children aged 12 weeks to 13 months, whether or not delayed surgical treatment of a congenitally dislocated hip reduces the incidence of AVN at 5 years of age. The main clinical outcome measures were incidence of AVN and the need for a secondary surgical procedure during 5 years' follow-up. In addition, to perform (1) a qualitative evaluation of the adopted strategy and (2) a health economic analysis based on NHS and societal costs. DESIGN: Phase III, unmasked, randomised controlled trial with qualitative and health economics analyses. Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to undergo either early or delayed surgery. SETTING: Paediatric orthopaedic surgical centres in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 12 weeks to 13 months with DDH, either newly diagnosed or following failed splintage, and who required surgery. We had a target recruitment of 636 children. INTERVENTIONS: Surgical reduction of the hip performed as per the timing allocated at randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome - incidence of AVN at 5 years of age (according to the Kalamchi and MacEwen classification). Secondary outcomes - need for secondary surgery, presence or absence of the ON at the time of primary treatment, quality of life for the main carer and child, and a health economics and qualitative analysis. RESULTS: The trial closed early after reaching < 5% of the recruitment target. Fourteen patients were randomised to early treatment and 15 to delayed treatment. Implementation of rescue strategies did not improve recruitment. No primary outcome data were collected, and no meaningful conclusions could be made from the small number of non-qualitative secondary outcome data. The qualitative work generated rich data around three key themes: (1) access to, and experiences of, primary and secondary care; (2) the impact of surgery on family life; and (3) participants' experiences of being in the trial. LIMITATIONS: Overoptimistic estimates of numbers of eligible patients seen at recruiting centres during the planning of the trial, as well as an overestimation of the recruitment rate, may have also contributed to unrealistic expectations on achievable patient numbers. FUTURE WORK: There may be scope for investigation using routinely available data. CONCLUSIONS: Hip 'Op has highlighted the importance of accurate advance information on numbers of available eligible patients, as well as support from all participating investigators when conducting surgical research. Despite substantial consultation with parents of children in the planning stage, the level of non-participation experienced during recruitment was much higher than anticipated. The qualitative work has emphasised the need for appropriate advice and robust support for parents regarding the 'real-life' aspects of managing children with DDH. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76958754. 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. 21, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A randomised controlled trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of intensive versus no scheduled follow-up in patients who have undergone resection for colorectal cancer with curative intent.

BACKGROUND: Intensive follow-up after surgery for colorectal cancer is common practice but lacks a firm evidence base. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether or not augmenting symptomatic follow-up in primary care with two intensive methods of follow-up [monitoring of blood carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels and scheduled imaging] is effective and cost-effective in detecting the recurrence of colorectal cancer treatable surgically with curative intent. DESIGN: Randomised controlled open-label trial. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups: (1) minimum follow-up (n = 301), (2) CEA testing only (n = 300), (3) computerised tomography (CT) only (n = 299) or (4) CEA testing and CT (n = 302). Blood CEA was measured every 3 months for 2 years and then every 6 months for 3 years; CT scans of the chest, abdomen and pelvis were performed every 6 months for 2 years and then annually for 3 years. Those in the minimum and CEA testing-only arms had a single CT scan at 12-18 months. The groups were minimised on adjuvant chemotherapy, gender and age group (three strata). SETTING: Thirty-nine NHS hospitals in England with access to high-volume services offering surgical treatment of metastatic recurrence. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1202 participants who had undergone curative treatment for Dukes' stage A to C colorectal cancer with no residual disease. Adjuvant treatment was completed if indicated. There was no evidence of metastatic disease on axial imaging and the post-operative blood CEA level was ≤ 10 µg/l. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome Surgical treatment of recurrence with curative intent. Secondary outcomes Time to detection of recurrence, survival after treatment of recurrence, overall survival and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. RESULTS: Detection of recurrence During 5 years of scheduled follow-up, cancer recurrence was detected in 203 (16.9%) participants. The proportion of participants with recurrence surgically treated with curative intent was 6.3% (76/1202), with little difference according to Dukes' staging (stage A, 5.1%; stage B, 7.4%; stage C, 5.6%; p = 0.56). The proportion was two to three times higher in each of the three more intensive arms (7.5% overall) than in the minimum follow-up arm (2.7%) (difference 4.8%; p = 0.003). Surgical treatment of recurrence with curative intent was 2.7% (8/301) in the minimum follow-up group, 6.3% (19/300) in the CEA testing group, 9.4% (28/299) in the CT group and 7.0% (21/302) in the CEA testing and CT group. Surgical treatment of recurrence with curative intent was two to three times higher in each of the three more intensive follow-up groups than in the minimum follow-up group; adjusted odds ratios (ORs) compared with minimum follow-up were as follows: CEA testing group, OR 2.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 5.65; CT group, OR 3.69, 95% CI 1.63 to 8.38; and CEA testing and CT group, OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.19 to 6.49. Survival A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis confirmed no significant difference between arms (log-rank p = 0.45). The baseline-adjusted Cox proportional hazards ratio comparing the minimum and intensive arms was 0.87 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.15). These CIs suggest a maximum survival benefit from intensive follow-up of 3.8%. Cost-effectiveness The incremental cost per patient treated surgically with curative intent compared with minimum follow-up was £40,131 with CEA testing, £43,392 with CT and £85,151 with CEA testing and CT. The lack of differential impact on survival resulted in little difference in QALYs saved between arms. The additional cost per QALY gained of moving from minimum follow-up to CEA testing was £25,951 and for CT was £246,107. When compared with minimum follow-up, combined CEA testing and CT was more costly and generated fewer QALYs, resulting in a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (-£208,347) and a dominated policy. LIMITATIONS: Although this is the largest trial undertaken at the time of writing, it has insufficient power to assess whether or not the improvement in detecting treatable recurrence achieved by intensive follow-up leads to a reduction in overall mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Rigorous staging to detect residual disease is important before embarking on follow-up. The benefit of intensive follow-up in detecting surgically treatable recurrence is independent of stage. The survival benefit from intensive follow-up is unlikely to exceed 4% in absolute terms and harm cannot be absolutely excluded. A longer time horizon is required to ascertain whether or not intensive follow-up is an efficient use of scarce health-care resources. Translational analyses are under way, utilising tumour tissue collected from Follow-up After Colorectal Surgery trial participants, with the aim of identifying potentially prognostic biomarkers that may guide follow-up in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41458548. 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. 21, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Systemic chemotherapy with or without cetuximab in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis: the New EPOC randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for colorectal liver metastases results in an overall survival of about 40% at 5 years. Progression-free survival is increased with the addition of oxaliplatin and fluorouracil chemotherapy. The addition of cetuximab to these chemotherapy regimens results in an overall survival advantage in patients with advanced disease who have the KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumour genotype. We aimed to assess the benefit of addition of cetuximab to standard chemotherapy in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis. METHODS: Patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type resectable or suboptimally resectable colorectal liver metastases were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive chemotherapy with or without cetuximab before and after liver resection. Randomisation was done using minimisation with factors of surgical centre, poor prognostic tumour (one or more of: ≥ 4 metastases, N2 disease, or poor differentiation of primary tumour), and previous adjuvant treatment with oxaliplatin. Chemotherapy consisted of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) intravenously over 2 h and fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m(2) intravenously over 5 min, followed by a 46 h infusion of fluorouracil 2400 mg/m(2) repeated every 2 weeks (regimen one) or oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) intravenously over 2 h and oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 repeated every 3 weeks (regimen two). Patients who had received adjuvant oxaliplatin could receive irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) intravenously over 30 min with fluorouracil instead of oxaliplatin (regimen three). Cetuximab was given as an intravenous dose of 500 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks with regimen one and three or a loading dose of 400 mg/m(2) followed by a weekly infusion of 250 mg/m(2) with regimen two. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. This is an interim analysis, up to Nov 1, 2012, when the trial was closed, having met protocol-defined futility criteria. This trial is registered, ISRCTN22944367. FINDINGS: 128 KRAS exon 2 wild-type patients were randomised to chemotherapy alone and 129 to chemotherapy with cetuximab between Feb 26, 2007, and Nov 1, 2012. 117 patients in the chemotherapy alone group and 119 in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group were included in the primary analysis. The median follow-up was 21.1 months (95% CI 12.6-33.8) in the chemotherapy alone group and 19.8 months (12.2-28.7) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group. With an overall median follow-up of 20.7 months (95% CI 17.9-25.6) and 123 (58%) of 212 required events observed, progression-free survival was significantly shorter in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group than in the chemotherapy alone group (14.1 months [95% CI 11.8-15.9] vs 20.5 months [95% CI 16.8-26.7], hazard ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.04-2.12, p=0.030). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were low neutrophil count (15 [11%] preoperatively in the chemotherapy alone group vs six [4%] in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group; four [4%] vs eight [8%] postoperatively), embolic events (six [4%] vs eight [6%] preoperatively; two [2%] vs three [3%] postoperatively), peripheral neuropathy (six [4%] vs one [1%] preoperatively; two [2%] vs four [4%] postoperatively), nausea or vomiting (four [3%] vs six [4%] preoperatively; four [4%] vs two [2%] postoperatively), and skin rash (two [1%] vs 21 [15%] preoperatively; 0 vs eight [8%] postoperatively). There were three deaths in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group (one interstitial lung disease and pulmonary embolism, one bronchopneumonia, and one pulmonary embolism) and one in the chemotherapy alone group (heart failure) that might have been treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy and surgery for operable colorectal liver metastases in KRAS exon 2 wild-type patients results in shorter progression-free survival. Translational investigations to explore the molecular basis for this unexpected interaction are needed but at present the use of cetuximab in this setting cannot be recommended.

SABRE 1 (Surgery Against Brachytherapy - a Randomised Evaluation): feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) of brachytherapy vs radical prostatectomy in low-intermediate risk clinically localised prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of a phase III randomised controlled trial of brachytherapy vs radical prostatectomy (RP) in men with low-intermediate risk localised prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This parallel, two-group, multicentre, randomised controlled feasibility trial enrolled men with histologically confirmed localised, low-risk prostate cancer and good performance status from five UK hospitals. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) by remote computer allocation to receive a decision aid (DA) DVD or standard information (control group), followed by a second randomisation (1:1) to brachytherapy or RP. There was no 'blinding' of staff or patients. Primary outcome was feasibility: a recruitment rate of six patients per centre over the last 6 months of recruitment would deem a phase III trial feasible. RESULTS: Between May 2009 and May 2011, 30 patients were randomised (15 in the DA group and 15 in the control group), and four continued to the second treatment randomisation (one from the DA group and three from the control group). One patient was allocated and received brachytherapy and three RP. SABRE 1 closed early due to poor recruitment. All patients were analysed. Screening logbook analysis showed that the main reasons for declining trial entry were a wish to choose treatment or opting for active monitoring. Results from the DA questionnaire (completed by 10 men) showed that four of the men 'felt surgery and radiotherapy had been proven in a high quality trial' and seven felt 'they should make their treatment decision while knowing their doctors opinion'. CONCLUSION: Recruitment to a RP vs brachytherapy trial in localised prostate cancer was not feasible by the use of this two-step randomisation using a DA and previous trials in early prostate cancer have had similar difficulties in recruitment, with only a few achieving their accrual target. The best treatment method for treating low-risk prostate cancer is still unproven in a head-to-head trial and the increasing number of options will make choices correspondingly more difficulty without good quality comparative research. More sophisticated techniques for recruitment may be more successful in future trials in this patient population.