Dose escalation of tolinapant (ASTX660) in combination with standard radical chemoradiotherapy in cervical cancer : a study protocol for a phase 1b TiTE-CRM clinical trial (CRAIN) in UK secondary care centres.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women, with an estimated 342,000 deaths worldwide in 2020. Current standard of care in the UK for locally advanced cervical cancer is concurrent chemoradiotherapy with weekly cisplatin, yet 5-year overall survival rates are only 65% with a distant relapse rate of 50%. Inhibitors of Apoptosis Proteins (IAPs) are often overexpressed in cancer cells and associated with tumour progression and resistance to treatment. Tolinapant, developed by Astex Pharmaceuticals, is an IAP antagonist with an additional mechanism of action via down-regulation of NF-kB, an important regulator in cervical cancer. Preclinical studies performed using tolinapant in combination with cisplatin and radiotherapy showed inhibition of tumour growth and enhanced survival. There is therefore a strong rationale to combine tolinapant with chemoradiotherapy (CRT). METHODS: CRAIN is a phase Ib open-label, dose escalation study to characterise the safety, tolerability and initial evidence for clinical activity of tolinapant when administered in combination with cisplatin based CRT. Up to 42 patients with newly diagnosed cervix cancer will be recruited from six UK secondary care sites. The number of participants and the duration of the trial will depend on toxicities observed and dose escalation decisions, utilising a TiTE-CRM statistical design. Treatment will constist of standard of care CRT with 45 Gy external beam radiotherapy given in 25 daily fractions over 5 weeks with weekly cisplatin 40mg/m2. This is followed by brachytherapy for which common schedules will be 28 Gy in 4 fractions high-dose-rate or 34 Gy in 2 fractions pulsed-dose-rate. Tolinapant will be administered in fixed dose capsules taken orally daily for seven consecutive days as an outpatient on alternate weeks (weeks 1, 3, 5) during chemoradiation. Dose levels for tolinapant which will be assessed are: 60 mg; 90 mg (starting level); 120 mg; 150 mg; 180 mg. Escalation will be guided by emerging safety data and decisions by the Safety Review Committee. DISCUSSION: If this trial determines a recommended phase II dose and shows tolinapant to be safe and effective in combination with CRT, it would warrant future phase trials. Ultimately, we hope to provide a synergistic treatment option for these patients to improve outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: EudraCT Number: 2021-006555-34 (issued 30th November 2021); ISRCTN18574865 (registered 30th August 2022).

CycLing and EducATion (CLEAT): protocol for a single centre randomised controlled trial of a cycling and education intervention versus standard physiotherapy care for the treatment of hip osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic degenerative joint disorder for which there is no known cure. Non-surgical management for people with mild-to-moderate hip OA focuses mainly on alleviating pain and maximising function via the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended combination of education and advice, exercise, and, where appropriate, weight loss. The CHAIN (Cycling against Hip pAIN) intervention is a group cycling and education intervention conceived as a way of implementing the NICE guidance. METHODS: CycLing and EducATion (CLEAT) is a pragmatic, two parallel arm, randomised controlled trial comparing CHAIN with standard physiotherapy care for the treatment of mild-to-moderate hip OA. We will recruit 256 participants referred to the local NHS physiotherapy department over a 24-month recruitment period. Participants diagnosed with hip OA according to NICE guidance and meeting the criteria for GP exercise referral will be eligible to participate. Primary outcome is the difference in Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) function, daily living subscale between those receiving CHAIN and standard physiotherapy care. Secondary outcomes include performance-based functional measures (40 m walking, 30s chair stand and stair climb tests), ability for patient to self-care (patient activation measure) and self-reported health-related resource use including primary and secondary care contacts. The primary economic endpoint is the number of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at 24 weeks follow-up. The study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Research for Patient Benefit PB-PG-0816-20033. DISCUSSION: The literature identifies a lack of high-quality trials which inform on the content and design of education and exercise in the treatment of patients with hip OA and explore cost-effectiveness. CLEAT is a pragmatic trial which seeks to build further evidence of the clinical benefits of the CHAIN intervention compared to standard physiotherapy care within a randomised, controlled trial setting, and examine its cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN19778222. Protocol v4.1, 24th October 2022.

Differential Efficacy From the Addition of Bortezomib to R-CHOP in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma According to the Molecular Subgroup in the REMoDL-B Study With a 5-Year Follow-Up.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.The REMoDL-B phase III adaptive trial compared rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP) versus R-CHOP + bortezomib (RB-CHOP) in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), stratified by molecular subtype. Primary analysis at a median follow-up of 30 months found no effect of bortezomib on progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). Retrospective analysis using a gene expression-based classifier identified a molecular high-grade (MHG) group with worse outcomes. We present an updated analysis for patients successfully classified by the gene expression profile (GEP). Eligible patients were age older than 18 years with untreated DLBCL, fit enough for full-dose chemotherapy, and with adequate biopsies for GEP. Of 1,077 patients registered, 801 were identified with Activated B-Cell (ABC), Germinal Center B-cell, or MHG lymphoma. At a median follow-up of 64 months, there was no overall benefit of bortezomib on PFS or OS (5-year PFS hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; P = .085; OS HR, 0.86; P = .32). However, improved PFS and OS were seen in ABC lymphomas after RB-CHOP: 5-year OS 67% with R-CHOP versus 80% with RB-CHOP (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.95; P = .032). Five-year PFS was higher in MHG lymphomas: 29% versus 55% (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.84). Patients with ABC and MHG DLBCL may benefit from the addition of bortezomib to R-CHOP in initial therapy.

Practical recommendations for implementing a Bayesian adaptive phase I design during a pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Modern designs for dose-finding studies (e.g., model-based designs such as continual reassessment method) have been shown to substantially improve the ability to determine a suitable dose for efficacy testing when compared to traditional designs such as the 3 + 3 design. However, implementing such designs requires time and specialist knowledge. METHODS: We present a practical approach to developing a model-based design to help support uptake of these methods; in particular, we lay out how to derive the necessary parameters and who should input, and when, to these decisions. Designing a model-based, dose-finding trial is demonstrated using a treatment within the AGILE platform trial, a phase I/II adaptive design for novel COVID-19 treatments. RESULTS: We present discussion of the practical delivery of AGILE, covering what information was found to support principled decision making by the Safety Review Committee, and what could be contained within a statistical analysis plan. We also discuss additional challenges we encountered in the study and discuss more generally what (unplanned) adaptations may be acceptable (or not) in studies using model-based designs. CONCLUSIONS: This example demonstrates both how to design and deliver an adaptive dose-finding trial in order to support uptake of these methods.

Phase I Trial of DNA Methyltransferase Inhibitor Guadecitabine Combined with Cisplatin and Gemcitabine for Solid Malignancies Including Urothelial Carcinoma (SPIRE).

PURPOSE: Preclinical data indicate that DNA methyltransferase inhibition will circumvent cisplatin resistance in various cancers. PATIENT AND METHODS: SPIRE comprised a dose-escalation phase for incurable metastatic solid cancers, followed by a randomized dose expansion phase for neoadjuvant treatment of T2-4a N0 M0 bladder urothelial carcinoma. The primary objective was a recommended phase II dose (RP2D) for guadecitabine combined with gemcitabine and cisplatin. Treatment comprised 21-day gemcitabine and cisplatin cycles (cisplatin 70 mg/m2, i.v., day 8 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2, i.v., days 8 + 15). Guadecitabine was injected subcutaneously on days 1-5, within escalation phase cohorts, and to half of 20 patients in the expansion phase. Registration ID: ISRCTN 16332228. RESULTS: Within the escalation phase, dose-limiting toxicities related predominantly to myelosuppression requiring G-CSF prophylaxis from cohort 2 (guadecitabine 20 mg/m2, days 1-5). The most common grade ≥3 adverse events in 17 patients in the dose-escalation phase were neutropenia (76.5%), thrombocytopenia (64.7%), leukopenia (29.4%), and anemia (29.4%). Addition of guadecitabine to gemcitabine and cisplatin in the expansion phase resulted in similar rates of severe hematologic adverse events, similar cisplatin dose intensity, but modestly reduced gemcitabine dose intensity. Radical treatment options after chemotherapy were not compromised. Pharmacodynamics evaluations indicated guadecitabine maximal target effect at the point of cisplatin administration. Pharmacokinetics were consistent with prior data. No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The guadecitabine RP2D was 20 mg/m2, days 1-5, in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin and required GCSF prophylaxis. Gene promoter methylation pharmacodynamics are optimal with this schedule. Addition of guadecitabine to gemcitabine and cisplatin was tolerable, despite some additional myelosuppression, and warrants further investigation to assess efficacy.

An unusual case of giant cell tumor of soft parts in an American Warmblood horse.

Fine needle aspiration and tissue biopsy samples were taken from a subcutaneous mass in the cranial stifle region of a 10-yr-old horse. Key cytologic features included numerous mildly to moderately pleomorphic histiocytic cells admixed with mononuclear inflammatory cells, occasional fibroblasts, multinucleated cells, and hemosiderin-laden macrophages. Based on these features, cytologic differentials included granulomatous inflammation with reactive fibroplasia, histiocytic sarcoma, giant cell tumor of soft parts (GCTSPs), and giant cell tumor of bone. The tissue biopsy supported a diagnosis of superficial GCTSPs. This neoplasm is of controversial origin but generally considered to be a soft tissue sarcoma and classified in the World Health Organization classification of tumors under fibrous histiocytic tumors as a giant cell tumor of soft tissue with low risk of malignancy. When found in the subcutis, this neoplasm rarely metastasizes in the horse and has a low rate of local reoccurrence. In this case, there was no local recurrence of the tumor after 6 mo, after which the horse was lost to follow-up.

Screening tool for malignant bowel obstruction in relapsed, metastatic ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in women diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Earlier detection of MBO may improve patient outcomes. There are currently no screening tools to assist detection. AIM: We report a screening questionnaire that can be used to detect MBO, and how the severity score for key clinical symptoms correlate with radiological evidence of MBO from ovarian cancer. DESIGN: A case-control study in which patients with relapsed, metastatic ovarian cancer were asked to answer 10 questions related to key clinical symptoms associated with intestinal obstruction. The study group included women with CT-confirmed MBO, whereas the control group had no evidence of MBO. Patients scored each question according to severity from 1 (least severe) to 5 (most severe). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Between 1 June and 31 December 2016, 37 women completed the screening questionnaire. RESULTS: Patients in the study group (n=17) reported significantly higher (ie, more severe) scores for abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and constipation. In contrast, differences in severity scores between groups did not differ significantly in response to questions regarding abdominal swelling, borborygmi, diarrhoea or loss of appetite. All patients in the study group more frequently stated that their symptoms had deteriorated within the 2 months prior to completing the questionnaire. CONCLUSION: Here we report the key clinical symptoms associated with radiologically-confirmed MBO in relapsed, metastatic ovarian cancer. We recommend healthcare practitioners focus on these specific symptoms during patient consultations in order to improve risk stratification of MBO.

Dose-dense cisplatin with gemcitabine for relapsed platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Standard of care treatment for women who develop relapsed ovarian cancer includes sequential platinum- and/or paclitaxel-based chemotherapy, with reducing disease-free intervals. Once platinum resistance develops, treatment options become limited and dose-dense regimens may be offered. We report the efficacy and safety of dose-dense cisplatin with gemcitabine chemotherapy for relapsed platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients with relapsed, platinum-resistant ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer treated with cisplatin 35 mg/m2 of body surface area by intravenous infusion with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 of body surface area by intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8 of every 21-day treatment cycle between 1 January 2009 and 1 June 2017. RESULTS: Ninety-four eligible patients had received a median of three (range one-eight) prior lines of cytotoxic therapy for relapsed ovarian cancer. Sixty patients (64%) had received ≥ 1 prior dose-dense chemotherapy regimen. Dose-dense cisplatin with gemcitabine was associated with a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 4.4 months (95% CI 3.6 to 5.3) and overall survival of 7.6 months (95% CI 5.6 to 9.6). The median PFS for dose-dense cisplatin with gemcitabine as first- (n = 34), second- (n = 42), and third-line or later (n = 18) dose-dense therapy was 4.2 (95% CI 3.2 to 5.2), 5.0 (95% CI 3.5 to 6.5), and 4.2 (95% CI 3.3 to 5.1) months respectively. The RECIST objective response rate for first-, second-, and third-line dose-dense cisplatin with gemcitabine was 23%, 14 %, and 7 % respectively. The most common grade 3 - 4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (20%), anemia (18%), and neutropenia (14%). DISCUSSION: Dose-dense cisplatin with gemcitabine provides modest efficacy whether it is used as a first- or subsequent line of dose-dense chemotherapy to treat relapsed platinum-resistant ovarian cancer and the toxicity is manageable with supportive measures.

An Outpatient, Dose-Intense, Intravenous Cisplatin and Oral Etoposide Regimen for the Treatment of Advanced, Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Advanced-stage, platinum-resistant, ovarian cancer can be treated with dose-intense chemotherapy; one such regimen includes intravenous cisplatin and oral etoposide. To minimize the toxicity associated with weekly cisplatin, pretreatment and posttreatment hydration is required, often necessitating inpatient, overnight admission. We report a shorter, within-day regimen for delivering weekly cisplatin. METHODS: This was a retrospective study to assess the use of standard (inpatient; treatment time of 12 hours) versus modified (outpatient; treatment time of 4 hours) regimens. The primary outcome included all-grade and grade 3/4 adverse events. Secondary outcomes included clinical benefit response and, median progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: Between January 2012 and December 2014, 66 women with metastatic ovarian cancer received dose-intense weekly cisplatin and oral etoposide (n = 45 standard, n = 21 modified). The commonest all-grade adverse events were anemia (96% vs 90%, standard and modified, respectively), fatigue (73% vs 67%), neutropenia (71% vs 76%), hypocalcemia (51% vs 43%), and thrombocytopenia (49% vs 57%). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence or grades of adverse events. The clinical benefit response was 53% in the standard group and 62% in the modified group (P = 0.9). The median progression-free survival was 4.2 and 6.5 months (incidence rate ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-2.15; P = 0.29), and median overall survival was 6.6 and 8.4 months (incidence rate ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.35; P = 0.03), in favor of the modified regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Our shorter, within-day regimen for delivering dose-intense weekly cisplatin and oral etoposide to treat platinum-resistant metastatic ovarian cancer is safe and efficacious.

Overview of drug therapy for multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma accounts for 10% of all haematologic malignancies worldwide. In Europe, over 10,000 new cases and nearly 8000 deaths were attributed to multiple myeloma in 2000. Unlike other malignancies, in which surgery and radiation are important treatment modalities, myeloma is exclusively treated with stem cell transplantation and drug therapy, requiring pharmacists to stay abreast of new developments. The melphalan-prednisolone and vincristine-doxorubicin-dexamethasone (VAD) regimens, which have been standard treatments for multiple myeloma over the past few decades, have yielded responses without real survival benefits. Transplantation utilizing high-dose chemotherapy has produced the only meaningful survival benefits for patients with multiple myeloma, but many patients are not candidates for this aggressive treatment option. More effective therapies for multiple myeloma are needed. OBJECTIVE: To address the mechanisms of action, safety, and efficacy of novel approaches to the treatment of myeloma involving bortezomib, thalidomide and its analogues, lenalidomide and CC-4047 (Actimid), and arsenic trioxide as single agents or in combination regimens. DATA SOURCES: Published preclinical and primary clinical trial results, as well as scientific or clinical meeting abstracts. The author determined the relevance and subsequent inclusion of the data. CONCLUSIONS: Bortezomib is approved in the US and Europe as single-agent therapy for the treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Thalidomide, its analogues, and arsenic trioxide have demonstrated activity and are under investigation in this disease. Further clinical trials of the efficacy and toxicity of these novel agents are ongoing and will further define optimal combinations and sequencing with conventional therapies.