Statistical controversies in clinical research: limitations of open-label studies assessing antiangiogenic therapies with regard to evaluation of vascular adverse drug events-a meta-analysis.

Background: Previous meta-analyses have shown paradoxical increased risk of bleeding and thrombotic events in patients receiving antiangiogenics (AA) that may be simply explained by the studies design included. By a meta-epidemiological approach, we aim to investigate the impact of double-blind (DB) and open-label study designs on the risks of bleeding, venous thrombotic events (VTE) and arterial thrombotic events (ATE) in cancer patients treated with AA. Materials and methods: We searched Medline, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov databases and proceedings of major oncology congresses for clinical trials published from January 2003 to January 2016. Randomized clinical trials that assigned patients with solid cancers to AA or control groups were eligible for inclusion. Combined odds ratios (ORs) for the risks of bleeding events, VTE and ATE were calculated for open and DB trials. Estimation bias of the treatment effect was determined by the ratio of OR, by dividing the OR values obtained in open-label trials by those obtained in DB trials. Results: The literature-based meta-analysis included 166 trials (72 024 patients). For bleeding events, comparison of AA versus control yielded an overall OR of 2.41 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 2.12-2.73; P < 0.001], but this risk was overestimated by 1.68 (95% CI 1.33-2.13) in open-label studies. Concerning VTE, the OR was 1.19 (95% CI 1.04-1.35; P = 0.012) overall with AA, but this effect disappears when considering only DB trials (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83-1.17). The corresponding ratio of OR showed a significant overestimation of 1.53 (95% CI 1.19-1.96) in open-label trials. For ATE, an OR of 1.59 (95% CI 1.30-1.94; P < 0.001) was observed, associated with a significant overestimation of 1.65 (95% CI 1.13-2.43) in open-label trials. Conclusions: Open-label studies overestimated the risk of vascular adverse events with AA by at least 50%. Meta-analyses assessing adverse drug events should therefore be restricted to DB randomized trials.

Navigating the highlights of phase III trials: a watchful eye on evidence-based radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of evidence-based oncology. However, there is no exhaustive review describing the radiotherapy RTCs characteristics. The objective of the present study was to describe features of all phase III RCTs including at least a radiation therapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Requests were performed in the Medline database (via PubMed). The latest update was performed in April 2016, using the following MESH terms: 'clinical trials: phase III as topic', 'radiotherapy', 'brachytherapy', as keywords. RESULTS: A total of 454 phase III RCTs were identified. Studies were mainly based on open (92.1%) multicenter (77.5%) designs, analyzed in intend to treat (67.6%), aiming at proving superiority (91.6%) through overall survival assessment (46.5%). Most frequently studied malignancies were head and neck (21.8%), lung (14.3%) and prostate cancers (9.9%). Patients were mainly recruited with a locally advanced disease (73.7%). Median age was 59 years old. Out of 977 treatment arms, 889 arms experienced radiotherapy, mainly using 3D-conformal radiotherapy (288 arms, 32.4%). Intensity-modulated techniques were tested in 12 arms (1.3%). The intervention was a non-cytotoxic agent addition in 89 studies (19.6%), a radiation dose/fractionation modification in 74 studies (16.3%), a modification of chemotherapy regimen in 63 studies (13.9%), a chemotherapy addition in 63 studies (13.9%) and a radiotherapy addition in 53 trials (11.7%). With a median follow-up of 50 months, acute all-grade and grade 3-5 toxicities were reported in 49.6% and 69.4% of studies, respectively. Radiotherapy technique, follow-up and late toxicities were reported in 60.1%, 74%, and 31.1% of studies, respectively. CONCLUSION: Phase III randomized controlled trials featured severe limitations, since a third did not report radiotherapy technique, follow-up or late toxicities. The fast-paced technological evolution creates a discrepancy between literature and radiotherapy techniques performed in daily-routine, suggesting that phase III methodology needs to be reinvented.

Outcomes and treatments of IB1 cervical cancers with high recurrence risk: A 13 years' experience.

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to identify management strategies and outcomes of patients with stage IB1 cervical cancer with high recurrence risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical files of all consecutive patients treated between 2004 and 2017 with external beam radiotherapy and/or brachytherapy for IB1 cervical cancer, whatever the lymph node status, were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were included, with a median age of 49.8 years old. Median tumour size, estimated with the initial pelvic magnetic resonance imaging, was 26mm (interquartile range [IQR]=19.5-35). Histological types were mainly squamous cell carcinoma (59.5%) and adenocarcinoma (33.3%). Lymphovascular invasion was reported for 38.1% of patients. Pelvic lymph nodes were involved for eight patients (19.0%). Surgery was performed for 39 patients (92.9%). A neoadjuvant treatment was delivered for 20 patients (47.6%), an adjuvant treatment for 19 patients (45.2%) and an exclusive radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy) followed by brachytherapy for three patients (7.1%). Pathologic complete response was achieved in 61.5% of patients. With a median follow-up of 5.8 years (IQR=2.6-9.4), five patients (11.9%) experienced a tumour relapse. The five-year disease-free survival was 79.5% (95% confident interval [CI]=66.9-94.4), the five-year overall survival was 87.8% (95% CI=77.2-99.8), and the five-year disease-specific survival was 94.2% (95% CI=86.7-100). CONCLUSION: In current clinical practice, tailored treatments are delivered, and seems to give correct therapeutic index. However, clinical trials are needed to standardise treatment according to patient characteristics and recurrence risk factors.

Harnessing drug/radiation interaction through daily routine practice: Leverage medical and methodological point of view (MORSE 02-17 study).

BACKGROUND: Safety profile of the interaction between anticancer drugs and radiation is a recurrent question. However, there are little data regarding the non-anticancer treatment (NACT)/radiation combinations. The aim of the present study was to investigate concomitant NACTs in patients undergoing radiotherapy in a French comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted. All cancer patients undergoing a palliative or curative radiotherapy were consecutively screened for six weeks in 2016. Data on NACTs were collected. RESULTS: Out of 214 included patients, a NACT was concomitantly prescribed to 155 patients (72%), with a median number of 5 NACTs per patient (range: 1-12). The most prescribed drugs were anti-hypertensive drugs (101 patients, 47.2%), psychotropic drugs (n = 74, 34.6%), analgesics (n = 78, 36.4%), hypolipidemic drugs (n = 57, 26.6%), proton pump inhibitors (n = 46, 21.5%) and antiplatelet drugs (n = 38, 17.8%). Although 833 different molecules were reported, only 20 possible modifiers of cancer biological pathways (prescribed to 74 patients (34.5%)) were identified. Eight out of the 833 molecules (0.9%), belonging to six drug families, have been investigated in 28 ongoing or published clinical trials in combo with radiotherapy. They were prescribed to 63 patients (29.4%). CONCLUSION: Drug-radiation interaction remains a subject of major interest, not only for conventional anticancer drugs, but also for NACTs. New trial designs are thus required.

[Ototoxicity in head and neck cancers after radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy: From primary prevention to tertiary prevention]. / Ototoxicité radio-induite et chimio-induite dans les cancers ORL : de la prévention primaire à la prévention tertiaire.

Each year, 15,000 head and neck cancer are treated in France. Prognosis is steadily improving. Consequently, limitation of late toxicities becomes essential. Ototoxicity is common, disabling and undervalued. We aimed to inventory primary, secondary and tertiary prevention measures to reduce ototoxicity induced by radiotherapy and chemotherapy, as well as its impact on quality of life of patients treated for head and neck cancer. External radiation therapy induced 30 to 40% of ototoxicity, including irreversible sensorineural hearing loss. Primary prevention of this risk is based on limiting the dose to the cochlea: 40Gy in case of radiotherapy alone, 10Gy during concomitant chemoradiotherapy with cisplatin. Dose gradients allowed by intensity-modulated radiotherapy help respecting these limits. Concurrent chemotherapy with high dose cisplatin (100mg/m2) also causes hearing loss by cochlear damages. Prescription of carboplatin-5-fluorouracil combination or cetuximab should be preferred in case of high risk of ototoxicity. This risk must be precisely evaluated before treatment. Ototoxicity monitoring during treatment allows early management, and lower long-term impact. Radiosensitivity predictive tests and research of genetic factors predisposing to chemo-induced ototoxicity should enable optimization of therapeutic choices and monitoring.

Conflict of interests for radiation oncologists: Harnessing disclosures from policy to reality.

PURPOSE: An increasing attention is being paid to disclosures of conflicts of interests in the field of oncology. The purpose of this study was to examine how radiation oncologists report their conflicts of interests with pharmaceutical or technology industries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected the data of conflicts of interests disclosures in the abstract books from the annual 2012 and 2013 meetings of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) in Miami (FL, USA), and in Atlanta (GA, USA), respectively. Geographic origins of abstracts as well other factors were examined. RESULTS: We identified a total of 4219 abstracts published in the past two years. The total number of involved authors was of 28,283. All of the published abstracts had conflicts of interests disclosures. Amongst them, 563 abstracts (13.4%) reported at least one potential conflict of interests, in which 1264 (4.5%) declared a potential conflict of interests in their disclosures. Geographic distribution of abstracts with financial relationship was as following: 67.9%, 15.5%, 7.7% and 7.7% for USA, Europe, Asia/Pacifica, and Canada, respectively. Abstracts with conflict of interest originated from North America in 75.6% of cases. USA distribution was 70.6% and 29.4% for Eastern and Western, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of physicians declaring financial conflicts of interests remains extremely low, whichever geographic area authors are from. In comparison to the rest of the world, the US proved itself better at declaring potential links. Changes in medical culture and education could represent a significant step to improve the process of revealing conflicts of interest in medical journal as well as in international meetings.

[Carcinomatous meningitis: The radiation therapist's point of view]. / Méningite carcinomateuse: le point de vue de l'oncologue radiothérapeute.

Carcinomatous meningitis complicates 5 to 10% of cancers, essentially with breast cancers, lung cancers and melanomas. The incidence probably increased because of therapeutic advances in oncology. Treatment is based on external beam radiotherapy, systemic treatment, intrathecal chemotherapy and supportive care. The aim of this work was to review data on external radiation therapy and carcinomatous meningitis. There are few evidences on the subject, but it is a major topic of interest. A whole brain radiation therapy is indicated in case of brain metastases or clinical encephalitis. Focal radiation therapy is recommended on symptomatic, bulky or obstructive sites. The dose depends on performance status (20 to 40 Gy in five to 20 fractions), volume to treat and available techniques (classic fractionation or hypofractionation via stereotactic radiosurgery). The objective of radiation therapy is to improve quality of life. Association with systemic therapy improves overall survival. Administration of sequential intrathecal chemotherapy may also improve overall survival, but induces more toxicity. The use of new radiotherapy techniques and development of radiosensitizing molecules in patients with good performance status could improve survival in this frequent complication of cancer.

[Hyperbaric oxygen and radiotherapy: From myth to reality]. / Oxygénothérapie hyperbare et radiothérapie : entre mythe et réalité.

Worldwide, more than a million people receive each year a curative radiotherapy. While local control and overall survival are steadily increasing, 5 to 15% of patients still develop above grade 2 late toxicities. Late toxicities treatments are complex. Hyperbaric oxygenation was shown to induce revascularization and healing of injured tissues, but indications are still debated. Through a literature review, we summarized the hyperbaric oxygenation indications in radiation-induced late toxicities. We also studied the knowledge and practice of French local radiation therapists. It seems that hyperbaric oxygen therapy can be a conservative treatment of haemorrhagic cystitis and radiation-induced pain, in case of drug therapies failure. Often associated with a significant morbidity and mortality, surgery could be avoided. The risk of complications in case of tooth extraction in irradiated tissues is also reduced. However, the role of hyperbaric oxygenation for mandibular osteoradionecrosis, radiation-induced proctitis, enteritis, lymphoedema, brachial plexopathy, skin and neurological sequelae seems more questionable since studies results are conflicting. Future outcomes of phase III studies are expected to clarify the role of hyperbaric oxygenation in the management of radio-induced toxicities, including for head and necks complications.