High hospital research participation and improved colorectal cancer survival outcomes: a population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: In 2001, the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network (NCRN) was established, leading to a rapid increase in clinical research activity across the English NHS. Using colorectal cancer (CRC) as an example, we test the hypothesis that high, sustained hospital-level participation in interventional clinical trials improves outcomes for all patients with CRC managed in those research-intensive hospitals. DESIGN: Data for patients diagnosed with CRC in England in 2001-2008 (n=209 968) were linked with data on accrual to NCRN CRC studies (n=30 998). Hospital Trusts were categorised by the proportion of patients accrued to interventional studies annually. Multivariable models investigated the relationship between 30-day postoperative mortality and 5-year survival and the level and duration of study participation. RESULTS: Most of the Trusts achieving high participation were district general hospitals and the effects were not limited to cancer 'centres of excellence', although such centres do make substantial contributions. Patients treated in Trusts with high research participation (≥16%) in their year of diagnosis had lower postoperative mortality (p<0.001) and improved survival (p<0.001) after adjustment for casemix and hospital-level variables. The effects increased with sustained research participation, with a reduction in postoperative mortality of 1.5% (6.5%-5%, p<2.2×10-6) and an improvement in survival (p<10-19; 5-year difference: 3.8% (41.0%-44.8%)) comparing high participation for ≥4 years with 0 years. CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong independent association between survival and participation in interventional clinical studies for all patients with CRC treated in the hospital study participants. Improvement precedes and increases with the level and years of sustained participation.

The cost-effectiveness of different chemotherapy strategies for patients with poor prognosis advanced colorectal cancer (MRC FOCUS).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the value for money of alternative chemotherapy strategies for managing advanced colorectal cancer using irinotecan or oxaliplatin, either in sequence or in combination with fluorouracil. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed using data from the U.K. fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and CPT11 (irinotecan)--use and sequencing (FOCUS) trial. The analysis adopted the perspective of the U.K. National Health Service. Input parameters were derived using a system of risk equations (for probabilities), count data regression models (for resource use), and generalized linear models (for utilities). Parameter estimates were obtained using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods, propagating the simulation values through the state-transition model to characterize appropriately the joint distributions of expected cost, survival and quality-adjusted life years for each treatment strategy. An acceptability frontier was used to represent the probability that the optimal option is cost-effective at different values of the cost-effectiveness threshold. RESULTS: The base-case analysis used drug unit costs provided by a typical English hospital. First-line doublet therapy combination therapy fluorouracil (5FU) plus irinotecan was the most cost-effective strategy at standard thresholds, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £14,877 (pound sterling) compared with first-line 5FU until treatment failure followed by single agent irinotecan. Other strategies were all subject to extended dominance. A sensitivity analysis using published drug (list) prices found the most cost-effective strategy would be first-line fluorouracil until failure followed by 5FU plus irinotecan (ICER: £19,753). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of 5FU and irinotecan (whether used first or second line) appears to be more cost-effective than the single agent sequential therapies used in the FOCUS trial, or 5FU plus oxaliplatin.

Frailty and treatment outcome in advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer: An exploratory analysis of the GO2 trial.

INTRODUCTION: Research into the optimal management of frail patients with cancer is limited and treatment decision-making in this cohort can be difficult. A number of measures have been developed to assess frailty, but few studies explore the correlation between frailty measures and cancer treatment outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study is an exploratory analysis of the GO2 randomised controlled trial. GO2 recruited both older and frail younger patients commencing first-line palliative chemotherapy for advanced gastro-oesophageal (aGO) cancer. This analysis aims to explore the correlation between baseline frailty and treatment outcome. Baseline frailty measures were derived from clinical data and included ECOG Performance Status (PS), the GO2 Frailty Score (GO2FS), Geriatric-8 (G8), Cancer and Aging Research Group (CARG) toxicity score and a 'modified' Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (mCFS). Novel patient-centred composite measure Overall Treatment Utility (OTU) was the primary endpoint. Ordinal logistic regression was undertaken to give odds ratios for poor vs good/intermediate OTU. Secondary endpoints were progression-free and overall survival. Models were adjusted for age, sex, histology, metastases, Trastuzumab and renal/hepatic function. RESULTS: In GO2, 514 patients were randomised between three chemotherapy dose-levels; all of these patients were assessed for OTU and are included in this analysis. Worse GO2FS, mCFS and G8 scores all had a statistically significant association with poor (vs good/intermediate) OTU, progression and death, which persisted after adjustment. Adjusted odds ratios for poor OTU amongst those with the worst GO2FS and mCFS and best G8 scores were as follows: 1.85 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-2.88) for GO2FS ≥3 ('severely frail'), 1.72 (1.19-2.50) for mCFS 5+ ('frail') and 0.57 (0.32-1.00) for G8 > 14 ('normal'). Worse ECOG PS and CARG scores did not have a statistically significant association with poor OTU/progression/death. CONCLUSION: In this study, frailty identified via GO2FS, mCFS and G8 conveyed a statistically significant increased risk of worse treatment outcome in older and frail younger patients with aGO cancer. Frailty assessment provides information over and above PS and should be integrated alongside routine assessments in research and clinical practice. In the absence of prospective data, frailty measures can be derived retrospectively to build the evidence base around optimal care of frailer patients.

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Outcomes by Age Among ARCAD First- and Second-Line Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the time to progression (TTP) and survival outcomes of second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer among adults aged 70 years and older compared with younger adults following progression on first-line clinical trials. METHODS: Associations between clinical and disease characteristics, time to initial progression, and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. TTP and overall survival (OS) were compared between older and younger adults in first- and second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, number of metastatic sites and presence of metastasis in the lung, liver, or peritoneum. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Older adults comprised 16.4% of patients on first-line trials (870 total older adults aged >70 years; 4419 total younger adults aged ≤70 years, on first-line trials). Older adults and those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status >0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than younger adults. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariable analysis (odds ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval = 1.02 to 1.21, P = .01). Older and younger adults enrolled in second-line trials experienced similar median TTP and median OS (median TTP = 5.1 vs 5.2 months, respectively; median OS = 11.6 vs 12.4 months, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Older adults were less likely to receive second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, though we did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes vs younger adults following second-line therapy. Further study should examine factors affecting decisions to treat older adults with second-line therapy. Inclusion of geriatric assessment may provide better criteria regarding the risks and benefits of second-line therapy.

Evidence-based medicine: the time has come to set standards for staging.

For international communication in cancer, staging systems such as TNM are essential; however, the principles and processes used to decide about changes in every new edition of TNM need to be subject to debate. Changes with major impact for patient treatment are introduced without evidence. We think that TNM should be a continual reactive process, rather than a proactive process. Changes should only occur after extensive discussion within the community, and before the introduction of any changes these should be tested for reproducibility and compared to the currently used gold standard. TNM should not be used to test hypotheses. It should introduce established facts that are beneficial to predicting patient prognosis. TNM should thus be restructured on a basis equivalent to evidence-based guidelines. The strength of the evidence should be explicitly stated and the evidence base given. It is time for the principles of staging to be widely debated and new principles and processes to be introduced to ensure that we are not in the same situation in the future. The disparity between therapeutic decision making and TNM staging is marked and we would appeal for the radical overhaul of TNM staging to make it fit for the twenty-first century. TNM is central to the management of cancer patients and we must protect and enhance its reputation.

International Rare Cancers Initiative Multicenter Randomized Phase II Trial of Cisplatin and Fluorouracil Versus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel in Advanced Anal Cancer: InterAAct.

PURPOSE: To compare cisplatin plus fluorouracil (FU) versus carboplatin plus paclitaxel in chemotherapy-naïve advanced anal cancer to establish the optimal regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who had not received systemic therapy for advanced anal cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to intravenous cisplatin 60 mg/m2 (day 1) plus FU 1,000 mg/m2 (days 1-4) every 21 days or carboplatin (area under the curve, 5; day 1) plus paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, and 15) every 28 days for 24 weeks, until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). Primary and secondary end points were assessed in a hierarchic model to compare the regimens and pick the winner. RESULTS: We conducted an international multicenter randomized phase II study in 60 centers between December 2013 and November 2017. Median follow-up was 28.6 months. A total of 91 patients were randomly assigned: 46 to cisplatin plus FU and 45 to carboplatin plus paclitaxel. ORR was 57% (95% CI, 39.4% to 73.7%) for cisplatin plus FU versus 59% (95% CI, 42.1% to 74.4%) for carboplatin plus paclitaxel. More serious adverse events were noted in the cisplatin plus FU arm (62%) compared with the carboplatin plus paclitaxel arm (36%; P = .016). Median progression-free survival was 5.7 months (95% CI, 3.3 to 9.0 months) for cisplatin plus FU compared with 8.1 months (95% CI, 6.6 to 8.8 months) for carboplatin plus paclitaxel. Median overall survival was 12.3 months for cisplatin plus FU (95% CI, 9.2 to 17.7 months) compared with 20 months (95% CI, 12.7 months to not reached) for carboplatin plus paclitaxel (hazard ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.15 to 3.47; P = .014). CONCLUSION: This is the first international randomized trial to our knowledge conducted in chemotherapy-naïve advanced anal cancer. Although there was no difference in ORR, the association with clinically relevant reduced toxicity and a trend toward longer survival suggest that carboplatin plus paclitaxel should be considered as a new standard of care.

Inhibition of EGFR, HER2, and HER3 signalling in patients with colorectal cancer wild-type for BRAF, PIK3CA, KRAS, and NRAS (FOCUS4-D): a phase 2-3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: A substantial change in trial methodology for solid tumours has taken place, in response to increased understanding of cancer biology. FOCUS4 is a phase 2-3 trial programme testing targeted agents in patients with advanced colorectal cancer in molecularly stratified cohorts. Here, we aimed to test the hypothesis that combined inhibition of EGFR, HER2, and HER3 signalling with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor AZD8931 will control growth of all wild-type tumours. METHODS: In FOCUS4-D, we included patients from 18 hospitals in the UK with newly diagnosed advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer whose tumour was wild-type for BRAF, PIK3CA, KRAS, and NRAS. After 16 weeks of first-line therapy, patients with stable or responding tumours were randomised to oral AZD8931 (40 mg twice a day) or placebo. Randomisation was done by minimisation with a random element of 20%, minimisation by hospital site, site of primary tumour, WHO performance status, 16-week CT scan result, number of metastatic sites, and first-line chemotherapy regimen. The primary outcome was progression-free-survival. CT scans were assessed by local radiologists according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1. Preplanned interim analyses were assessed per protocol and were agreed using multiarm multistage (MAMS) trial design methodology triggered by occurrence of progression-free survival events in the placebo group. The final analysis was assessed by intention to treat. This trial is registered at controlled-trials.com, ISRCTN 90061546. FINDINGS: Between July 7, 2014, and March 7, 2016, 32 patients were randomised to study treatment, 16 to AZD8931 and 16 to placebo. At the first preplanned interim analysis (March, 2016), the independent data monitoring committee (IDMC) recommended closure of FOCUS4-D because of a lack of activity. At the final analysis (Aug 1, 2016), 31 patients had had a progression-free survival event (15 with AZD8931 and 16 with placebo). Median progression-free survival was 3·48 months (95% CI 1·51-5·09) in the placebo group and 2·96 months (1·94-5·62) in the AZD8931 group. No progression-free survival benefit of AZD8931 compared with placebo was noted (hazard ratio [HR] 1·10, 95% CI 0·47-3·57; p=0·95). The most common grade 3 adverse event in the AZD8931 group was skin rash (three [20%] of 15 patients with available data vs none of 16 patients in the placebo group), and in the placebo group it was diarrhoea (one [7%] vs one [6%]). No grade 4 adverse events were recorded and no treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: The MAMS trial design for FOCUS4 has shown efficiency and effectiveness in trial outcome delivery, informing the decision to proceed or stop clinical evaluation of a targeted treatment within a molecularly defined cohort of patients. The overarching FOCUS4 trial is now aiming to open a replacement arm in the cohort with all wild-type tumours. FUNDING: Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, Cancer Research UK, NIHR Clinical Trials Research Network, Health and Care Research Wales, and AstraZeneca.

Multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing protracted venous infusion (PVI) fluorouracil (5-FU) with PVI 5-FU plus mitomycin in inoperable pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare protracted venous infusion (PVI) fluorouracil (5-FU) with PVI 5-FU plus mitomycin (MMC) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer in a multicenter, prospectively randomized study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred eight patients were randomized to PVI 5-FU (300 mg/m(2)/d for a maximum of 24 weeks) or PVI 5-FU plus MMC (7 mg/m(2) every 6 weeks for four courses). The major end points were tumor response, survival, toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: The two treatment groups were balanced for baseline demographic factors, and 62% had metastatic disease. The overall response rate was 8.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]) 3.2% to 13.7% for patients treated with PVI 5-FU alone compared with 17.6%; 95% CI 10.3% to 25.1% for PVI 5-FU plus MMC (P =.04). Median failure-free survival was 2.8 months for PVI 5-FU and 3.8 months for PVI 5-FU plus MMC (P =.14). Median survival was 5.1 months for PVI 5-FU and 6.5 months for PVI 5-FU plus MMC (P =.34). Toxicities in both arms were mild. There was an increased incidence of neutropenia in the 5-FU plus MMC arm (P <.01), although no differences in infection were seen. No patients developed hemolytic uremic syndrome. Global QOL improved significantly after 24 weeks of treatment compared with baseline for patients receiving 5-FU plus MMC, although there was no statistically significant difference in QOL between arms. CONCLUSION: PVI 5-FU plus MMC resulted in a superior response rate in comparison with PVI 5-FU alone in advanced pancreatic cancer, but this did not translate into a survival advantage. These results emphasize the importance of chemotherapy in this setting and the continuing value of the fluoropyrimidines in pancreatic cancer.