First-line erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer unsuitable for chemotherapy (TOPICAL): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive only active supportive care because of poor performance status or presence of several comorbidities. We investigated whether erlotinib improves clinical outcome in these patients. METHODS: TOPICAL was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, done at 78 centres in the UK. Eligibility criteria were newly diagnosed, pathologically confirmed NSCLC; stage IIIb or IV; chemotherapy naive; no symptomatic brain metastases; deemed unsuitable for chemotherapy because of poor (≥2) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status or presence of several comorbidities, or both; and estimated life expectancy of at least 8 weeks. Patients were randomly assigned (by phone call, in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by disease stage, performance status, smoking history, and centre, block size 10) to receive oral placebo or erlotinib (150 mg per day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Investigators, clinicians, and patients were masked to assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were by intention to treat, and prespecified subgroup analyses included development of a rash due to erlotinib within 28 days of starting treatment. This study is registered, number ISRCTN 77383050. FINDINGS: Between April 14, 2005, and April 1, 2009, we randomly assigned 350 patients to receive erlotinib and 320 to receive placebo. We followed up patients until March 31, 2011. 657 patients died; median overall survival did not differ between groups (erlotinib, 3·7 months, 95% CI 3·2-4·2, vs placebo, 3·6 months, 3·2-3·9; unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·81-1·10, p=0·46). 59% (178 of 302) of patients assigned erlotinib and who were assessable at 1 month developed first-cycle rash, which was the only independent factor associated with overall survival. Patients with first-cycle rash had better overall survival (HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·63-0·92, p=0·0058), compared with placebo. Compared with placebo, overall survival seemed to be worse in the group that did not develop first-cycle rash (1·30, 1·05-1·61, p=0·017). Grade 3 or 4 diarrhoea was more common with erlotinib than placebo (8% [28 of 334] vs 1% [four of 313], p=0·0001), as was high-grade rash (23% [79 of 334] vs 2% [five of 313], p<0·0001); other adverse events were much the same between groups. INTERPRETATION: Patients with NSCLC who are deemed unsuitable for chemotherapy could be given erlotinib. Patients who develop a first-cycle rash should continue to receive erlotinib, whereas those who do not have a rash after 28 days should discontinue erlotinib, because of the possibility of decreased survival. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Roche.

Setting up non-commercial clinical trials takes too long in the UK: findings from a prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the specific components of setting up a simple multicentre clinical study four years after the new UK law on clinical trials was implemented in 2004. DESIGN: Timelines associated with activating a randomized multicentre trial in lung cancer patients using an investigational medicinal product (statins) were prospectively recorded. SETTING: 84 trial centres in the UK. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The time taken to go through the three stages necessary to activate a trial at a centre was examined: that is, the time from when Site Specific Information was electronically transferred to a participating centre until local research ethics committee (LREC) or research and development (R&D) approvals were obtained, and a signed Clinical Trials Site Agreement (CTSA) was received. RESULTS: It took at least six months to obtain LREC approval in 21% of centres and R&D approval in 52% of centres. Twelve centres (14%) took at least 12 months to obtain R&D approval. 31% of centres took at least three months to return a signed CTSA. Although 52% of centres took at least six months to be activated, 13% were able to complete all three stages in two months or less. CONCLUSIONS: While some centres can activate trials relatively quickly, there is considerable variation the time taken to set up a trial, much of which is due to the delay in obtaining R&D approval. This is having a major adverse effect on UK health research. There is a national need to streamline the process for considering multi-centre non-commercial clinical trials, in particular, having fixed timelines for R&D assessment. Without this, the costs of trials will increase because of extended duration, and the time to answer a research question and alter clinical practice will be significantly prolonged.