Pilot study to evaluate the use of remote patient monitoring to guide the timing of valve intervention in patients with severe asymptomatic aortic stenosis (APRAISE-AS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial delivered in two tertiary cardiac centres in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Aortic stenosis (AS) is common affecting >13% of adults over the age of 75 years. In people who develop symptoms, without valve replacement, prognosis is dismal with mortality as high as 50% at 1 year. In asymptomatic patients, the timing of valve intervention is less well defined and a strategy of watchful waiting is recommended. Many, however, may develop symptoms and attribute this to age related decline, rather than worsening AS. Timely intervention in asymptomatic severe AS is critical, since delayed intervention often results in poor outcomes. Proactive surveillance of symptoms, quality of life and functional capacity should enable timely identification of people who will benefit from aortic valve replacement. There are no data however, to support the clinical and cost effectiveness of such an approach in a healthcare setting in the UK. The aim of this pilot trial is to test the feasibility of a full-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine the utility of proactive surveillance in people with asymptomatic severe AS to guide the timing of intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: APRAISE-AS is a multi-centre, non-blinded, two-arm, parallel group randomised controlled trial of up to 66 participants aged >18 years with asymptomatic severe AS. Participants will be randomised to either standard care or standard care supplemented with the APRAISE-AS intervention. Primary outcomes will capture; adherence to and participant acceptability of the intervention, recruitment and retention rates, and completeness of data collection. The findings will be used to inform the sample size and most appropriate outcome measure(s) for a full-scale RCT and health economic evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the Black Country REC, reference: 22/WM/0214. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at local, regional and national meetings where appropriate. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN19413194 registered on 14.07.2023.

Long acting progestogens versus combined oral contraceptive pill for preventing recurrence of endometriosis related pain: the PRE-EMPT pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of long acting progestogens compared with the combined oral contraceptive pill in preventing recurrence of endometriosis related pain. DESIGN: The PRE-EMPT (preventing recurrence of endometriosis) pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 34 UK hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 405 women of reproductive age undergoing conservative surgery for endometriosis. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised in a 1:1 ratio using a secure internet facility to a long acting progestogen (depot medroxyprogesterone acetate or levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system) or the combined oral contraceptive pill. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was pain measured three years after randomisation using the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile 30 (EHP-30) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes (evaluated at six months, one, two, and three years) included the four core and six modular domains of the EHP-30, and treatment failure (further therapeutic surgery or second line medical treatment). RESULTS: 405 women were randomised to receive a long acting progestogen (n=205) or combined oral contraceptive pill (n=200). At three years, there was no difference in pain scores between the groups (adjusted mean difference -0.8, 95% confidence interval -5.7 to 4.2, P=0.76), which had improved by around 40% in both groups compared with preoperative values (an average of 24 and 23 points for long acting progestogen and combined oral contraceptive pill groups, respectively). Most of the other domains of the EHP-30 also showed improvement at all time points compared with preoperative scores, without evidence of any differences between groups. Women randomised to a long acting progestogen underwent fewer surgical procedures or second line treatments compared with those randomised to the combined oral contraceptive pill group (73 v 97; hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative prescription of a long acting progestogen or the combined oral contraceptive pill results in similar levels of improvement in endometriosis related pain at three years, with both groups showing around a 40% improvement compared with preoperative levels. While women can be reassured that both options are effective, the reduced risk of repeat surgery for endometriosis and hysterectomy might make long acting reversible progestogens preferable for some. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN97865475.

Using healthcare systems data for outcomes in clinical trials: issues to consider at the design stage.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare system data (HSD) are increasingly used in clinical trials, augmenting or replacing traditional methods of collecting outcome data. This study, PRIMORANT, set out to identify, in the UK context, issues to be considered before the decision to use HSD for outcome data in a clinical trial is finalised, a methodological question prioritised by the clinical trials community. METHODS: The PRIMORANT study had three phases. First, an initial workshop was held to scope the issues faced by trialists when considering whether to use HSDs for trial outcomes. Second, a consultation exercise was undertaken with clinical trials unit (CTU) staff, trialists, methodologists, clinicians, funding panels and data providers. Third, a final discussion workshop was held, at which the results of the consultation were fed back, case studies presented, and issues considered in small breakout groups. RESULTS: Key topics included in the consultation process were the validity of outcome data, timeliness of data capture, internal pilots, data-sharing, practical issues, and decision-making. A majority of consultation respondents (n = 78, 95%) considered the development of guidance for trialists to be feasible. Guidance was developed following the discussion workshop, for the five broad areas of terminology, feasibility, internal pilots, onward data sharing, and data archiving. CONCLUSIONS: We provide guidance to inform decisions about whether or not to use HSDs for outcomes, and if so, to assist trialists in working with registries and other HSD providers to improve the design and delivery of trials.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Assets-based feeding help Before and After birth (ABA-feed) for improving breastfeeding initiation and continuation: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (Version 3.0).

INTRODUCTION: Breastfeeding has health benefits for infants and mothers, yet the UK has low rates with marked social inequalities. The Assets-based feeding help Before and After birth (ABA) feasibility study demonstrated the acceptability of a proactive, assets-based, woman-centred peer support intervention, inclusive of all feeding types, to mothers, peer supporters and maternity services. The ABA-feed study aims to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the ABA-feed intervention compared with usual care in first-time mothers in a full trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation to explore clinical and cost-effectiveness, and embedded process evaluation to explore differences in implementation between sites. We aim to recruit 2730 primiparous women, regardless of feeding intention. Women will be recruited at 17 sites from antenatal clinics and various remote methods including social media and invitations from midwives and health visitors. Women will be randomised at a ratio of 1.43:1 to receive either ABA-feed intervention or usual care. A train the trainer model will be used to train local Infant Feeding Coordinators to train existing peer supporters to become 'infant feeding helpers' in the ABA-feed intervention. Infant feeding outcomes will be collected at 3 days, and 8, 16 and 24 weeks postbirth. The primary outcome will be any breastfeeding at 8 weeks postbirth. Secondary outcomes will include breastfeeding initiation, any and exclusive breastfeeding, formula feeding practices, anxiety, social support and healthcare utilisation. All analyses will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee. Trial results will be available through open-access publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant meetings and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17395671.

Ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for heavy menstrual bleeding (UCON): a randomised controlled phase III trial.

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding affects one in four women and negatively impacts quality of life. Ulipristal acetate is prescribed to treat symptoms associated with uterine fibroids. We compared the effectiveness of ulipristal acetate and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system at reducing the burden of heavy menstrual bleeding, irrespective of the presence of fibroids. Methods: This randomised, open-label, parallel group phase III trial enrolled women over 18 years with heavy menstrual bleeding from 10 UK hospitals. Participants were centrally randomised, in a 1:1 ratio, to either three, 12-week treatment cycles of 5 mg ulipristal acetate daily, separated by 4-week treatment-free intervals, or a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. The primary outcome, analysed by intention-to-treat, was quality of life measured by the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included menstrual bleeding and liver function. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 20426843. Findings: Between June 5th, 2015 and February 26th, 2020, 236 women were randomised, either side of a recruitment suspension due to concerns of ulipristal acetate hepatoxicity. Subsequent withdrawal of ulipristal acetate led to early cessation of recruitment but the trial continued in follow-up. The primary outcome substantially improved in both groups, and was 89, (interquartile range [IQR] 65 to 100, n = 53) and 94, (IQR 70 to 100, n = 50; adjusted odds ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-1.17; p = 0.12) in the ulipristal and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system groups. Rates of amenorrhoea at 12 months were higher in those allocated ulipristal acetate compared to levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (64% versus 25%, adjusted odds ratio 7.12, 95% CI 2.29-22.2). Other outcomes were similar between the two groups and there were no cases of endometrial malignancy or hepatotoxicity due to ulipristal acetate use. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that both treatments improved quality of life. Ulipristal was more effective at inducing amenorrhoea. Ulipristal has been demonstrated to be an effective medical therapeutic option but currently its use has restrictions and requires liver function monitoring. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and National Institute of Health Research EME Programme (12/206/52).

WILL (When to induce labour to limit risk in pregnancy hypertension): Protocol for a multicentre randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: To address optimal timing of birth for women with chronic or gestational hypertension who reach term and remain well. STUDY DESIGN: Pragmatic, non-masked randomised trial. INCLUSION: maternal age ≥16 years, chronic or gestational hypertension, singleton pregnancy, live fetus, 36+0-37+6 weeks' gestation, and able to give documented informed consent. EXCLUSION: contraindication to either trial arm (e.g., pre-eclampsia or another indication for birth at term), blood pressure (BP) ≥ 160/110 mmHg until controlled, major fetal anomaly anticipated to require neonatal care unit admission, or participation in another timing of birth trial. Randomisation (1:1 ratio, minimised for key prognostic variables: site, hypertension type, and prior Caesarean) to 'planned early term birth at 38+0-3 weeks' or 'usual care at term' (revised from 'expectant care until at least 40+0 weeks', Aug 2022). OUTCOMES: Maternal co-primary: composite of 'poor maternal outcome' (severe hypertension, maternal death, or maternal morbidity). Neonatal co-primary: neonatal care unit admission for ≥4 h. Each co-primary is measured until primary hospital discharge or 28 days post-birth (whichever is earlier). Key secondary: Caesarean birth. ANALYSIS: Sample of 1080 participants (540/arm) will detect an 8% reduction in the maternal co-primary (90% power, superiority hypothesis), and give 94% power for a between-group non-inferiority margin of difference of 9% in the neonatal co-primary. Analysis will be by intention-to-treat. Ethics approval has been obtained (NHS Health Research Authority London Fulham Research Ethics Committee, 18/LO/2033). CONCLUSIONS: The study will provide data for women to make informed choices about their care and allow health systems to plan services.

WILL (When to Induce Labour to Limit risk in pregnancy hypertension): a multicentre randomised controlled trial - adaptations to deliver a timing-of-birth trial during the COVID-19 international pandemic.

BACKGROUND: As a pragmatic randomised timing-of-birth trial, WILL adapted its trial procedures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These are reviewed here to inform post-pandemic trial methodology. METHODS: The trial (internal pilot) paused in March 2020, re-opened in July 2020, and is currently recruiting in 37 UK NHS consultant-led maternity units. We evaluated pandemic adaptations made to WILL processes and surveyed sites for their views of these changes (20 sites, videoconference). RESULTS: Despite 88% of sites favouring an electronic investigator site file (ISF), information technology requirements and clinical trial unit (CTU) operating procedures mandated the ongoing use of paper ISFs; site start-up delays resulted from restricted access to the CTU. Site initiation visits (SIVs) were conducted remotely; 50% of sites preferred remote SIVs and 44% felt that it was trial-dependent, while few preferred SIVs in-person as standard procedure. The Central team felt remote SIVs provided scheduling and attendance flexibility (for sites and trial staff), the option of recording discussions for missing or future staff, improved efficiency by having multiple sites attend, and time and cost savings; the negative impact on rapport-building and interaction was partially mitigated over time with more familiarity with technology and new ways-of-working. Two methods of remote consent were developed and used by 30/37 sites and for 54/156 recruits. Most (86%) sites using remote consenting felt it improved recruitment. For remote data monitoring (5 sites), advantages were primarily for the monitor (e.g. flexibility, no time constraints, reduced cost), and disadvantages primarily for the sites (e.g. document and access preparation, attendance at a follow-up meeting), but 81% of sites desired having the option of remote monitoring post-pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: COVID adaptations to WILL trial processes improved the flexibility of trial delivery, for Central and site staff, and participants. Flexibility to use these strategies should be retained post-pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN77258279. Registered on 05 December 2018.

A Study of Pazopanib Safety and Efficacy in Patients With Advanced Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma and ECOG Performance Status 2 (Pazo2): An Open label, Multicentre, Single Arm, Phase II Trial.

AIM: Patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and poor performance status (PS≥2) are often deemed unsuitable for treatment. The Pazo2 trial aimed to assess tolerability and efficacy of pazopanib as first-line treatment in renal cancer patients with ECOG PS2. METHODS: Pazo2 was a prospective, single arm, open label, multicentre, phase II trial, conducted in 26 UK centres. Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years, with advanced or metastatic renal cancer and a clear cell component (aRCC), measurable disease as per RECIST Criteria 1.1, and ECOG PS2. Co-primary outcomes, assessed at 6-months after patients entered the trial, were tolerability, defined as the proportion of patients who did not develop "intolerable" adverse events, and efficacy, defined as the proportion of all patients who were progression-free and alive. RESULTS: Between February 21, 2013 and August 12, 2016, 75 patients were registered. Median age was 68.6 years (IQR 64.6-76.0), 100% ECOG PS2, 62.7% 'poor risk' (International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium). Of the 65 evaluable patients, 70.8% (95% CI: 58.8, 80.4) did not develop "intolerable" adverse events and 56.9% (95% CI: 44.8, 68.2) were still alive and progression-free 6 months after starting pazopanib. Twenty-seven patients developed serious adverse events deemed to be related to pazopanib. CONCLUSION: These data suggests that pazopanib is tolerated and effective in aRCC patients with PS2 and represents a treatment option for patients who cannot receive or tolerate immune checkpoint inhibitors.

A randomized trial of synthetic osmotic cervical dilator for induction of labor vs dinoprostone vaginal insert.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labor is a commonly performed obstetrical intervention. Vaginal prostaglandin E2 (dinoprostone) is a first-choice agent. Mechanical methods of induction are slower in achieving cervical ripening but have a lower risk of adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the efficacy, maternal and neonatal safety, and maternal satisfaction of a synthetic osmotic cervical dilator (Dilapan-S) with those of dinoprostone. STUDY DESIGN: This was an open-label superiority randomized controlled trial in 4 English hospitals. Eligible participants were women ≥16 years of age undergoing induction of labor for a singleton pregnancy at ≥37 weeks' gestation with vertex presentation and intact membranes. The women were randomly assigned to receive either Dilapan-S or dinoprostone using a telephone randomization system minimized by hospital, parity, body mass index, and maternal age. The induction agent was replaced as required until the cervix was assessed as favorable for labor by the Bishop score. The primary outcome was failure to achieve vaginal delivery (ieor a cesarean delivery being performed). The secondary outcome measures included maternal and neonatal adverse events. Analysis was by intention-to-treat, adjusting for design variables where possible. RESULTS: Between December 19, 2017 and January 26, 2021, 674 women were randomized (337 to Dilapan-S, and 337 to dinoprostone). The trial did not reach its planned sample size of 860 participants because of restrictions on research during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary outcome was missing for 2 women in the dinoprostone group. Failure to achieve vaginal delivery (or a cesarean delivery being performed) occurred in 126 women (37.4%) allocated to Dilapan-S and in 115 (34.3%) women allocated to dinoprostone (adjusted risk difference, 0.02; 95% confidence interval, -0.05 to 0.10). There were similar maternal and neonatal adverse events between the groups. CONCLUSION: Women undergoing induction of labor with Dilapan-S have similar rates of cesarean delivery and maternal and neonatal adverse events compared with dinoprostone.

Long-Term Outcomes and Exploratory Analyses of the Randomized Phase III BILCAP Study.

PURPOSE: The BILCAP study described a modest benefit for capecitabine as adjuvant therapy for curatively resected biliary tract cancer (BTC), and capecitabine has become the standard of care. We present the long-term data and novel exploratory subgroup analyses. METHODS: This randomized, controlled, multicenter, phase III study recruited patients age 18 years or older with histologically confirmed cholangiocarcinoma or muscle-invasive gallbladder cancer after resection with curative intent and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of < 2. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral capecitabine (1,250 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14 of a 21-day cycle, for eight cycles) or observation. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). This study is registered with EudraCT 2005-003318-13. RESULTS: Between March 15, 2006, and December 4, 2014, 447 patients were enrolled; 223 patients with BTC resected with curative intent were randomly assigned to the capecitabine group and 224 to the observation group. At the data cutoff of January 21, 2021, the median follow-up for all patients was 106 months (95% CI, 98 to 108). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the median OS was 49.6 months (95% CI, 35.1 to 59.1) in the capecitabine group compared with 36.1 months (95% CI, 29.7 to 44.2) in the observation group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.06). In a protocol-specified sensitivity analysis, adjusting for minimization factors, nodal status, grade, and sex, the OS hazard ratio was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.94). We further describe the prognostic impact of R status, grade, nodal status, and sex. CONCLUSION: This long-term analysis supports the previous analysis, suggesting that capecitabine can improve OS in patients with resected BTC when used as adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery and should be considered as the standard of care.

Capecitabine compared with observation in resected biliary tract cancer (BILCAP): a randomised, controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in multidisciplinary management, patients with biliary tract cancer have a poor outcome. Only 20% of patients are eligible for surgical resection with curative intent, with 5-year overall survival of less than 10% for all patients. To our knowledge, no studies have described a benefit of adjuvant therapy. We aimed to determine whether adjuvant capecitabine improved overall survival compared with observation following surgery for biliary tract cancer. METHODS: This randomised, controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study was done across 44 specialist hepatopancreatobiliary centres in the UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed cholangiocarcinoma or muscle-invasive gallbladder cancer who had undergone a macroscopically complete resection (which includes liver resection, pancreatic resection, or, less commonly, both) with curative intent, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of less than 2. Patients who had not completely recovered from previous surgery or who had previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy for biliary tract cancer were also excluded. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14 of a 21-day cycle, for eight cycles) or observation commencing within 16 weeks of surgery. Treatment was not masked, and allocation concealment was achieved with a computerised minimisation algorithm that stratified patients by surgical centre, site of disease, resection status, and performance status. The primary outcome was overall survival. As prespecified, analyses were done by intention to treat and per protocol. This study is registered with EudraCT, number 2005-003318-13. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2006, and Dec 4, 2014, 447 patients were enrolled; 223 patients with biliary tract cancer resected with curative intent were randomly assigned to the capecitabine group and 224 to the observation group. The data cutoff for this analysis was March 6, 2017. The median follow-up for all patients was 60 months (IQR 37-60). In the intention-to-treat analysis, median overall survival was 51·1 months (95% CI 34·6-59·1) in the capecitabine group compared with 36·4 months (29·7-44·5) in the observation group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·63-1·04; p=0·097). In a protocol-specified sensitivity analysis, adjusting for minimisation factors and nodal status, grade, and gender, the overall survival HR was 0·71 (95% CI 0·55-0·92; p=0·010). In the prespecified per-protocol analysis (210 patients in the capecitabine group and 220 in the observation group), median overall survival was 53 months (95% CI 40 to not reached) in the capecitabine group and 36 months (30-44) in the observation group (adjusted HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·58-0·97; p=0·028). In the intention-to-treat analysis, median recurrence-free survival was 24·4 months (95% CI 18·6-35·9) in the capecitabine group and 17·5 months (12·0-23·8) in the observation group. In the per-protocol analysis, median recurrence-free survival was 25·9 months (95% CI 19·8-46·3) in the capecitabine group and 17·4 months (12·0-23·7) in the observation group. Adverse events were measured in the capecitabine group only, and of the 213 patients who received at least one cycle, 94 (44%) had at least one grade 3 toxicity, the most frequent of which were hand-foot syndrome in 43 (20%) patients, diarrhoea in 16 (8%) patients, and fatigue in 16 (8%) patients. One (<1%) patient had grade 4 cardiac ischaemia or infarction. Serious adverse events were observed in 47 (21%) of 223 patients in the capecitabine group and 22 (10%) of 224 patients in the observation group. No deaths were deemed to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Although this study did not meet its primary endpoint of improving overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, the prespecified sensitivity and per-protocol analyses suggest that capecitabine can improve overall survival in patients with resected biliary tract cancer when used as adjuvant chemotherapy following surgery and could be considered as standard of care. Furthermore, the safety profile is manageable, supporting the use of capecitabine in this setting. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and Roche.

Sorafenib in combination with transarterial chemoembolisation in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (TACE 2): a randomised placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) is the standard of care for patients with intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma, while the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib improves survival in patients with advanced disease. We aimed to determine whether TACE with sorafenib improves progression-free survival versus TACE with placebo. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (TACE 2) in 20 hospitals in the UK for patients with unresectable, liver-confined hepatocellular carcinoma. Patients were eligible if they were at least aged 18 years, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, and had Child-Pugh A liver disease. Patients were randomised 1:1 by computerised minimisation algorithm to continuous oral sorafenib (400 mg twice-daily) or matching placebo combined with TACE using drug-eluting beads (DEB-TACE), which was given via the hepatic artery 2-5 weeks after randomisation and according to radiological response and patient tolerance thereafter. Patients were stratified according to randomising centre and serum α-fetoprotein concentration (<400 ng/mL and ≥400 ng/mL). Only the trial coordinator was unmasked to treatment allocation before patient progression during the study. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival defined as the interval between randomisation and progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) or death due to any cause, and was analysed by intention-to-treat. Safety was analysed by intention-to-treat. The trial has been completed and the final results are reported. The trial is registered at EudraCT, number 2008-005073-36, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN93375053. FINDINGS: Between Nov 4, 2010, and Dec 7, 2015, the trial enrolled 399 patients and was terminated after a planned interim futility analysis. 86 patients failed screening and 313 remaining patients were randomly assigned: 157 to sorafenib and 156 to placebo. The median daily dose was 660 mg (IQR 389·2-800·0) sorafenib versus 800 mg (758·2-800·0) placebo, and median duration of therapy was 120·0 days (IQR 43·0-266·0) for sorafenib versus 162·0 days (70·0-323·5) for placebo. There was no evidence of difference in progression-free survival between the sorafenib group and the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99 [95% CI 0·77-1·27], p=0·94); median progression-free survival was 238·0 days (95% CI 221·0-281·0) in the sorafenib group and 235·0 days (209·0-322·0) in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (29 [18%] of 157 patients in the sorafenib group vs 21 [13%] of 156 patients in the placebo group), abdominal pain (20 [13%] vs 12 [8%]), diarrhoea (16 [10%] vs four [3%]), gastrointestinal disorders (18 [11%] vs 12 [8%]), and hand-foot skin reaction (12 [8%] and none). At least one serious adverse event was reported in 65 (41%) of 157 patients in the sorafenib group and 50 (32%) of 156 in the placebo group, and 181 serious adverse events were reported in total, 95 (52%) in the sorafenib group and 86 (48%) in the placebo group. Three deaths occurred in each group that were attributed to DEB-TACE. Four deaths were attributed to study drug; three in the sorafenib group and one in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of sorafenib to DEB-TACE does not improve progression-free survival in European patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Alternative systemic therapies need to be assessed in combination with TACE to improve patient outcomes. FUNDING: Bayer PLC and BTG PLC.

A Study of Angiogenesis Markers in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma Undergoing Therapy with Sunitinib.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) targeting tumour angiogenesis in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Currently no universally agreed model exists correlating the expression of angiogenesis markers with the success of treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed archival tissue for 59 RCC patients treated with sunitinib. The expression of angiogenesis markers VEGF-A, VEGFR, PDGFßß, PDGFR, CCND1 and CA9 was assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and correlated with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: The median OS and median PFS of the whole group of patients was 24.6 months (17.3-34.2) and 19.5 months (11-27) respectively. VEGFA was positive in 29% of tumors, whereas VEGFR was expressed in only 12% of tumours. PDGFßß and its receptor were detected in a minority of cases. CCND1 and CA9 were positive in 44% and 60% of cases. CONCLUSION: The OS and PFS achieved by our patients reflected previous observations seen with sunitinib, but no correlation was found between expression of angiogenesis markers and clinical outcome.