Randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of the effect of the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) on colorectal cancer recurrence and survival after surgery for resectable liver metastases: EPA for Metastasis Trial 2 (EMT2) study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: There remains an unmet need for safe and cost-effective adjunctive treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). The omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) is safe, well-tolerated and has anti-inflammatory as well as antineoplastic properties. A phase 2 randomised trial of preoperative EPA free fatty acid 2 g daily in patients undergoing surgery for CRC liver metastasis showed no difference in the primary endpoint (histological tumour proliferation index) compared with placebo. However, the trial demonstrated possible benefit for the prespecified exploratory endpoint of postoperative disease-free survival. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that EPA treatment, started before liver resection surgery (and continued postoperatively), improves CRC outcomes in patients with CRC liver metastasis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The EPA for Metastasis Trial 2 trial is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of 4 g EPA ethyl ester (icosapent ethyl (IPE; Vascepa)) daily in patients undergoing liver resection surgery for CRC liver metastasis with curative intent. Trial treatment continues for a minimum of 2 years and maximum of 4 years, with 6 monthly assessments, including quality of life outcomes, as well as annual clinical record review after the trial intervention. The primary endpoint is CRC progression-free survival. Key secondary endpoints are overall survival, as well as the safety and tolerability of IPE. A minimum 388 participants are estimated to provide 247 CRC progression events during minimum 2-year follow-up, allowing detection of an HR of 0.7 in favour of IPE, with a power of 80% at the 5% (two sided) level of significance, assuming drop-out of 15%. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical and health research authority approval was obtained in January 2018. All data will be collected by 2025. Full trial results will be published in 2026. Secondary analyses of health economic data, biomarker studies and other translational work will be published subsequently. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03428477.

Efficacy of Reduced-Intensity Chemotherapy With Oxaliplatin and Capecitabine on Quality of Life and Cancer Control Among Older and Frail Patients With Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer: The GO2 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Older and/or frail patients are underrepresented in landmark cancer trials. Tailored research is needed to address this evidence gap. Objective: The GO2 randomized clinical trial sought to optimize chemotherapy dosing in older and/or frail patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, and explored baseline geriatric assessment (GA) as a tool for treatment decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, noninferiority, open-label randomized trial took place at oncology clinics in the United Kingdom with nurse-led geriatric health assessment. Patients were recruited for whom full-dose combination chemotherapy was considered unsuitable because of advanced age and/or frailty. Interventions: There were 2 randomizations that were performed: CHEMO-INTENSITY compared oxaliplatin/capecitabine at Level A (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-21, on a 21-day cycle), Level B (doses 0.8 times A), or Level C (doses 0.6 times A). Alternatively, if the patient and clinician agreed the indication for chemotherapy was uncertain, the patient could instead enter CHEMO-BSC, comparing Level C vs best supportive care. Main Outcomes and Measures: First, broad noninferiority of the lower doses vs reference (Level A) was assessed using a permissive boundary of 34 days reduction in progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio, HR = 1.34), selected as acceptable by a forum of patients and clinicians. Then, the patient experience was compared using Overall Treatment Utility (OTU), which combines efficacy, toxic effects, quality of life, and patient value/acceptability. For CHEMO-BSC, the main outcome measure was overall survival. Results: A total of 514 patients entered CHEMO-INTENSITY, of whom 385 (75%) were men and 299 (58%) were severely frail, with median age 76 years. Noninferior PFS was confirmed for Levels B vs A (HR = 1.09 [95% CI, 0.89-1.32]) and C vs A (HR = 1.10 [95% CI, 0.90-1.33]). Level C produced less toxic effects and better OTU than A or B. No subgroup benefited from higher doses: Level C produced better OTU even in younger or less frail patients. A total of 45 patients entered the CHEMO-BSC randomization: overall survival was nonsignificantly longer with chemotherapy: median 6.1 vs 3.0 months (HR = 0.69 [95% CI, 0.32-1.48], P = .34). In multivariate analysis in 522 patients with all variables available, baseline frailty, quality of life, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were independently associated with OTU, and can be combined in a model to estimate the probability of different outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: This phase 3 randomized clinical trial found that reduced-intensity chemotherapy provided a better patient experience without significantly compromising cancer control and should be considered for older and/or frail patients. Baseline geriatric assessment can help predict the utility of chemotherapy but did not identify a group benefiting from higher-dose treatment. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN44687907.

Liver resection surgery compared with thermal ablation in high surgical risk patients with colorectal liver metastases: the LAVA international RCT.

BACKGROUND: Although surgical resection has been considered the only curative option for colorectal liver metastases, thermal ablation has recently been suggested as an alternative curative treatment. There have been no adequately powered trials comparing surgery with thermal ablation. OBJECTIVES: Main objective - to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of thermal ablation versus liver resection surgery in high surgical risk patients who would be eligible for liver resection. Pilot study objectives - to assess the feasibility of recruitment (through qualitative study), to assess the quality of ablations and liver resection surgery to determine acceptable standards for the main trial and to centrally review the reporting of computed tomography scan findings relating to ablation and outcomes and recurrence rate in both arms. DESIGN: A prospective, international (UK and the Netherlands), multicentre, open, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with a 1-year internal pilot study. SETTING: Tertiary liver, pancreatic and gallbladder (hepatopancreatobiliary) centres in the UK and the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with a specialist multidisciplinary team diagnosis of colorectal liver metastases who are at high surgical risk because of their age, comorbidities or tumour burden and who would be suitable for liver resection or thermal ablation. INTERVENTIONS: Thermal ablation conducted as per local policy (but centres were encouraged to recruit within Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe guidelines) versus surgical liver resection performed as per centre protocol. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pilot study - patients' and clinicians' acceptability of the trial to assist in optimisation of recruitment. Primary outcome - disease-free survival at 2 years post randomisation. Secondary outcomes - overall survival, timing and site of recurrence, additional therapy after treatment failure, quality of life, complications, length of hospital stay, costs, trial acceptability, and disease-free survival measured from end of intervention. It was planned that 5-year survival data would be documented through record linkage. Randomisation was performed by minimisation incorporating a random element, and this was a non-blinded study. RESULTS: In the pilot study over 1 year, a total of 366 patients with colorectal liver metastases were screened and 59 were considered eligible. Only nine participants were randomised. The trial was stopped early and none of the planned statistical analyses was performed. The key issues inhibiting recruitment included fewer than anticipated patients eligible for both treatments, misconceptions about the eligibility criteria for the trial, surgeons' preference for one of the treatments ('lack of clinical equipoise' among some of the surgeons in the centre) with unconscious bias towards surgery, patients' preference for one of the treatments, and lack of dedicated research nurses for the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment feasibility was not demonstrated during the pilot stage of the trial; therefore, the trial closed early. In future, comparisons involving two very different treatments may benefit from an initial feasibility study or a longer period of internal pilot study to resolve these difficulties. Sufficient time should be allowed to set up arrangements through National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Networks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52040363. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

In about 50% of people with bowel cancer, cancer spreads to the liver (colorectal liver metastases) within 5 years of detection and treatment. Liver resection (i.e. surgical removal of a portion of the liver) is the standard treatment in people below 70 years of age who are otherwise well, provided that the liver cancer is confined to a limited part of the liver. Such patients are considered 'low-risk' patients. Older patients and those with major medical problems or extensive cancers are considered 'high-risk' patients, as they are at a higher risk of developing complications following liver resection. Thermal ablation destroys the liver cancers using a needle that heats the cancer deposits until they are destroyed. There is significant uncertainty as to whether or not ablation can offer equivalent survival compared with surgery for 'high-risk' patients. We planned and conducted a randomised controlled trial comparing ablation with surgery to resolve this uncertainty. In this trial, some patients received ablation and others received surgery. The treatment was allocated at random with neither patients nor the study organisers choosing the treatment. The trial had an internal pilot (i.e. a smaller version of the full trial to resolve any 'teething problems' and ensure that a sufficient number of participants can be included in the full trial). Only nine patients were recruited in the 1-year internal pilot, compared with the anticipated recruitment of 45 patients. Therefore, the trial closed early as a result of poor recruitment, and the uncertainty about the best treatment for high-risk patients with colorectal liver metastases continues. The main reasons for the poor recruitment included fewer than anticipated eligible participants, clinicians' unconscious bias towards surgery, and patients' preference for one treatment or the other. In the future, comparisons involving two very different treatments may benefit from a feasibility study or a longer period of pilot study to resolve any difficulties.

Safety and efficacy of co-careldopa as an add-on therapy to occupational and physical therapy in patients after stroke (DARS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dopamine is a key modulator of striatal function and learning and might improve motor recovery after stroke. Previous small trials of dopamine agonists after stroke provide equivocal evidence of effectiveness on improving motor recovery. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of co-careldopa plus routine occupational and physical therapy during early rehabilitation after stroke. METHODS: This double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of co-careldopa versus placebo in addition to routine NHS occupational and physical therapy was done at 51 UK NHS acute inpatient stroke rehabilitation services. We recruited patients with new or recurrent clinically diagnosed ischaemic or haemorrhagic (excluding subarachnoid haemorrhage) stroke 5-42 days before randomisation, who were unable to walk 10 m or more, had a score of less than 7 points on the Rivermead Mobility Index, were expected to need rehabilitation, and were able to access rehabilitation after discharge from hospital. Participants were assigned (1:1) using stratified random blocks to receive 6 weeks of oral co-careldopa or matched placebo in addition to routine NHS physiotherapy and occupational therapy. The initial two doses of co-careldopa were 62·5 mg (50 mg of levodopa and 12·5 mg of carbidopa) and the remaining doses were 125 mg (100 mg of levodopa and 25 mg of carbidopa). Participants were required to take a single oral tablet 45-60 min before physiotherapy or occupational therapy session. The primary outcome was ability to walk independently, defined as a Rivermead Mobility Index score of 7 or more, at 8 weeks. Primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered on the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN99643613. FINDINGS: Between May 30, 2011, and March 28, 2014, of 1574 patients found eligible, 593 (mean age 68·5 years) were randomly assigned to either the co-careldopa group (n=308) or to the placebo group (n=285), on an average 18 days after stroke onset. Primary outcome data were available for all 593 patients. We found no evidence that the ability to walk independently improved with co-careldopa (125 [41%] of 308 patients) compared with placebo (127 [45%] of 285 patients; odds ratio 0·78 [95% CI 0·53-1·15]) at 8 weeks. Mortality at 12 months did not differ between the two groups (22 [7%] vs 17 [6%]). Serious adverse events were largely similar between groups. Vomiting during therapy sessions, after taking the study drug, was the most frequent adverse event and was more frequent in the co-careldopa group than the placebo group (19 [6·2%] vs 9 [3·2%]). INTERPRETATION: Co-careldopa in addition to routine occupational and physical therapy does not seem to improve walking after stroke. Further research might identify subgroups of patients with stroke who could benefit from dopaminergic therapy at different doses or times after stroke with more intensive motor therapy. FUNDING: Medical Research Council.

Effect of rituximab on a salivary gland ultrasound score in primary Sjögren's syndrome: results of the TRACTISS randomised double-blind multicentre substudy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of rituximab versus placebo on salivary gland ultrasound (SGUS) in primary Sjögren's syndrome (PSS) in a multicentre, multiobserver phase III trial substudy. METHODS: Subjects consenting to SGUS were randomised to rituximab or placebo given at weeks 0, 2, 24 and 26, and scanned at baseline and weeks 16 and 48. Sonographers completed a 0-11 total ultrasound score (TUS) comprising domains of echogenicity, homogeneity, glandular definition, glands involved and hypoechoic foci size. Baseline-adjusted TUS values were analysed over time, modelling change from baseline at each time point. For each TUS domain, we fitted a repeated-measures logistic regression model to model the odds of a response in the rituximab arm (≥1-point improvement) as a function of the baseline score, age category, disease duration and time point. RESULTS: 52 patients (n=26 rituximab and n=26 placebo) from nine centres completed baseline and one or more follow-up visits. Estimated between-group differences (rituximab-placebo) in baseline-adjusted TUS were -1.2 (95% CI -2.1 to -0.3; P=0.0099) and -1.2 (95% CI -2.0 to -0.5; P=0.0023) at weeks 16 and 48. Glandular definition improved in the rituximab arm with an OR of 6.8 (95% CI 1.1 to 43.0; P=0.043) at week 16 and 10.3 (95% CI 1.0 to 105.9; P=0.050) at week 48. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated statistically significant improvement in TUS after rituximab compared with placebo. This encourages further research into both B cell depletion therapies in PSS and SGUS as an imaging biomarker. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 65360827, 2010-021430-64; Results.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Rituximab and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Treating Fatigue and Oral Dryness in Primary Sjögren's Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether rituximab, an anti-B cell therapy, improves symptoms of fatigue and oral dryness in patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome (SS). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial that included health economic analysis. Anti-Ro-positive patients with primary SS, symptomatic fatigue, and oral dryness were recruited from 25 UK rheumatology clinics from August 2011 to January 2014. Patients were centrally randomized to receive either intravenous (IV) placebo (250 ml saline) or IV rituximab (1,000 mg in 250 ml saline) in 2 courses at weeks 0, 2, 24, and 26, with pre- and postinfusion medication including corticosteroids. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving a 30% reduction in either fatigue or oral dryness at 48 weeks, as measured by visual analog scale. Other outcome measures included salivary and lacrimal flow rates, quality of life, scores on the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index and EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index, symptoms of ocular and overall dryness, pain, globally assessed disease activity, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: All 133 patients who were randomized to receive placebo (n = 66) or rituximab (n = 67) were included in the primary analysis. Among patients with complete data, 21 of 56 placebo-treated patients and 24 of 61 rituximab-treated patients achieved the primary end point. After multiple imputation of missing outcomes, response rates in the placebo and rituximab groups were 36.8% and 39.8%, respectively (adjusted odds ratio 1.13 [95% confidence interval 0.50, 2.55]). There were no significant improvements in any outcome measure except for unstimulated salivary flow. The mean ± SD costs per patient for rituximab and placebo were £10,752 ± 264.75 and £2,672 ± 241.71, respectively. There were slightly more adverse events (AEs) reported in total for rituximab, but there was no difference in serious AEs (10 in each group). CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that rituximab is neither clinically effective nor cost-effective in this patient population.

The DARS (Dopamine Augmented Rehabilitation in Stroke) trial: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of Co-careldopa treatment in addition to routine NHS occupational and physical therapy after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Stroke has a huge impact, leaving more than a third of affected people with lasting disability and rehabilitation remains a cornerstone treatment in the National Health Service (NHS). Recovery of mobility and arm function post-stroke occurs through re-learning to use the affected body parts and/or learning to compensate with the lesser affected side. Promising evidence suggests that the addition of Co-careldopa to physical therapy and occupational therapy may improve the recovery of arm and leg movement and lead to improved function. METHODS/DESIGN: Dopamine Augmented Rehabilitation in Stroke (DARS) is a multi-centre double-blind, randomised, placebo, controlled clinical trial of Co-careldopa in addition to routine NHS occupational therapy and physical therapy as part of early stroke rehabilitation. Participants will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to either Co-careldopa or placebo. The primary objective of the trial is to determine whether the addition of six weeks of Co-careldopa treatment to rehabilitation therapy can improve the proportion of patients who can walk independently eight weeks post-randomisation. DISCUSSION: The DARS trial will provide evidence as to whether Co-careldopa, in addition to routine NHS occupational and physical therapy, leads to a greater recovery of motor function, a reduction in carer dependency and advance rehabilitation treatments for people with stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN99643613 assigned on 4 December 2009.

The TRACTISS protocol: a randomised double blind placebo controlled clinical trial of anti-B-cell therapy in patients with primary Sjögren's Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Primary Sjögren's Syndrome (PSS) mainly affects women (9:1 female:male ratio) and is one of the commonest autoimmune diseases with a prevalence of 0.1 - 0.6% of adult women. For patients with PSS there is currently no effective therapy that can alter the progression of the disease. The aim of the TRACTISS study is to establish whether in patients with PSS, treatment with rituximab improves clinical outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: TRACTISS is a UK multi-centre, double-blind, randomised, controlled, parallel group trial of 110 patients with PSS. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive two courses of either rituximab or placebo infusion in addition to standard therapy, and will be followed up for up to 48 weeks. The primary objective is to assess the extent to which rituximab improves symptoms of fatigue and oral dryness. Secondary outcomes include ocular dryness, salivary flow rates, lacrimal flow, patient quality of life, measures of disease damage and disease activity, serological and peripheral blood biomarkers, and glandular histology and composition. DISCUSSION: The TRACTISS trial will provide direct evidence as to whether rituximab in patients with PSS leads to an improvement in patient symptoms and a reduction in disease damage and activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UKCRN Portfolio ID: 9809 ISRCTN65360827.