Dynamic methods for ongoing assessment of site-level risk in risk-based monitoring of clinical trials: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: It is increasingly recognised that reliance on frequent site visits for monitoring clinical trials is inefficient. Regulators and trialists have recently encouraged more risk-based monitoring. Risk assessment should take place before a trial begins to define the overarching monitoring strategy. It can also be done on an ongoing basis, to target sites for monitoring activity. Various methods have been proposed for such prioritisation, often using terms like 'central statistical monitoring', 'triggered monitoring' or, as in the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice guidance, 'targeted on-site monitoring'. We conducted a scoping review to identify such methods, to establish if any were supported by adequate evidence to allow wider implementation, and to guide future developments in this field of research. METHODS: We used seven publication databases, two sets of methodological conference abstracts and an Internet search engine to identify methods for using centrally held trial data to assess site conduct during a trial. We included only reports in English, and excluded reports published before 1996 or not directly relevant to our research question. We used reference and citation searches to find additional relevant reports. We extracted data using a predefined template. We contacted authors to request additional information about included reports. RESULTS: We included 30 reports in our final dataset, of which 21 were peer-reviewed publications. In all, 20 reports described central statistical monitoring methods (of which 7 focussed on detection of fraud or misconduct) and 9 described triggered monitoring methods; 21 reports included some assessment of their methods' effectiveness, typically exploring the methods' characteristics using real trial data without known integrity issues. Of the 21 with some effectiveness assessment, most contained limited information about whether or not concerns identified through central monitoring constituted meaningful problems. Several reports demonstrated good classification ability based on more than one classification statistic, but never without caveats of unclear reporting or other classification statistics being low or unavailable. Some reports commented on cost savings from reduced on-site monitoring, but none gave detailed costings for the development and maintenance of central monitoring methods themselves. CONCLUSION: Our review identified various proposed methods, some of which could be combined within the same trial. The apparent emphasis on fraud detection may not be proportionate in all trial settings. Despite some promising evidence and some self-justifying benefits for data cleaning activity, many proposed methods have limitations that may currently prevent their routine use for targeting trial monitoring activity. The implementation costs, or uncertainty about these, may also be a barrier. We make recommendations for how the evidence-base supporting these methods could be improved.

Assessing the potential for prevention or earlier detection of on-site monitoring findings from randomised controlled trials: Further analyses of findings from the prospective TEMPER triggered monitoring study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Clinical trials should be designed and managed to minimise important errors with potential to compromise patient safety or data integrity, employ monitoring practices that detect and correct important errors quickly, and take robust action to prevent repetition. Regulators highlight the use of risk-based monitoring, making greater use of centralised monitoring and reducing reliance on centre visits. The TEMPER study was a prospective evaluation of triggered monitoring (a risk-based monitoring method), whereby centres are prioritised for visits based on central monitoring results. Conducted in three UK-based randomised cancer treatment trials of investigational medicine products with time-to-event outcomes, it found high levels of serious findings at triggered centre visits but also at visits to matched control centres that, based on central monitoring, were not of concern. Here, we report a detailed review of the serious findings from TEMPER centre visits. We sought to identify feasible, centralised processes which might detect or prevent these findings without a centre visit. METHODS: The primary outcome of this study was the proportion of all 'major' and 'critical' TEMPER centre visit findings theoretically detectable or preventable through a feasible, centralised process. To devise processes, we considered a representative example of each finding type through an internal consensus exercise. This involved (a) agreeing the potential, by some described process, for each finding type to be centrally detected or prevented and (b) agreeing a proposed feasibility score for each proposed process. To further assess feasibility, we ran a consultation exercise, whereby the proposed processes were reviewed and rated for feasibility by invited external trialists. RESULTS: In TEMPER, 312 major or critical findings were identified at 94 visits. These findings comprised 120 distinct issues, for which we proposed 56 different centralised processes. Following independent review of the feasibility of the proposed processes by 87 consultation respondents across eight different trial stakeholder groups, we conclude that 306/312 (98%) findings could theoretically be prevented or identified centrally. Of the processes deemed feasible, those relating to informed consent could have the most impact. Of processes not currently deemed feasible, those involving use of electronic health records are among those with the largest potential benefit. CONCLUSIONS: This work presents a best-case scenario, where a large majority of monitoring findings were deemed theoretically preventable or detectable by central processes. Caveats include the cost of applying all necessary methods, and the resource implications of enhanced central monitoring for both centre and trials unit staff. Our results will inform future monitoring plans and emphasise the importance of continued critical review of monitoring processes and outcomes to ensure they remain appropriate.

Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy in first-line epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma treatment (ICON8): primary progression free survival analysis results from a GCIG phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Carboplatin and paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks is standard-of-care first-line chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer. The Japanese JGOG3016 trial showed a significant improvement in progression-free and overall survival with dose-dense weekly paclitaxel and 3-weekly carboplatin. In this study, we aimed to compare efficacy and safety of two dose-dense weekly regimens to standard 3-weekly chemotherapy in a predominantly European population with epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, women with newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IC-IV epithelial ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to group 1 (carboplatin area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6 and 175 mg/m2 paclitaxel every 3 weeks), group 2 (carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 every 3 weeks and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly), or group 3 (carboplatin AUC2 and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly). Written informed consent was provided by all women who entered the trial. The protocol had the appropriate national research ethics committee approval for the countries where the study was conducted. Patients entered the trial after immediate primary surgery, or before neoadjuvant chemotherapy with subsequent planned delayed primary surgery. The trial coprimary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival. Data analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, and were powered to detect a hazard ratio of 0·75 in progression-free survival. The main comparisons were between the control group (group 1) and each of the weekly research groups (groups 2 and 3). FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 women were randomly assigned to treatment. 72% (365), completed six protocol-defined treatment cycles in group 1, 60% (305) in group 2, and 63% (322) in group 3, although 90% (454), 89% (454), and 85% (437) completed six platinum-based chemotherapy cycles, respectively. Paclitaxel dose intensification was achieved with weekly treatment (median total paclitaxel dose 1010 mg/m2 in group 1; 1233 mg/m2 in group 2; 1274 mg/m2 in group 3). By February, 2017, 1018 (65%) patients had experienced disease progression. No significant progression-free survival increase was observed with either weekly regimen (restricted mean survival time 24·4 months [97·5% CI 23·0-26·0] in group 1, 24·9 months [24·0-25·9] in group 2, 25·3 months [23·9-26·9] in group 3; median progression-free survival 17·7 months [IQR 10·6-not reached] in group 1, 20·8 months [11·9-59·0] in group 2, 21·0 months [12·0-54·0] in group 3; log-rank p=0·35 for group 2 vs group 1; group 3 vs 1 p=0·51). Although grade 3 or 4 toxic effects increased with weekly treatment, these effects were predominantly uncomplicated. Febrile neutropenia and sensory neuropathy incidences were similar across groups. INTERPRETATION: Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy can be delivered successfully as first-line treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer but does not significantly improve progression-free survival compared with standard 3-weekly chemotherapy in predominantly European populations. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, Cancer Australia.

Triggered or routine site monitoring visits for randomised controlled trials: results of TEMPER, a prospective, matched-pair study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In multi-site clinical trials, where trial data and conduct are scrutinised centrally with pre-specified triggers for visits to sites, targeted monitoring may be an efficient way to prioritise on-site monitoring. This approach is widely used in academic trials, but has never been formally evaluated. METHODS: TEMPER assessed the ability of targeted monitoring, as used in three ongoing phase III randomised multi-site oncology trials, to distinguish sites at which higher and lower rates of protocol and/or Good Clinical Practice violations would be found during site visits. Using a prospective, matched-pair design, sites that had been prioritised for visits after having activated 'triggers' were matched with a control ('untriggered') site, which would not usually have been visited at that time. The paired sites were visited within 4 weeks of each other, and visit findings are recorded and categorised according to the seriousness of the deviation. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of sites with ≥1 'Major' or 'Critical' finding not previously identified centrally. The study was powered to detect an absolute difference of ≥30% between triggered and untriggered visits. A sensitivity analysis, recommended by the study's blinded endpoint review committee, excluded findings related to re-consent. Additional analyses assessed the prognostic value of individual triggers and data from pre-visit questionnaires completed by site and trials unit staff. RESULTS: In total, 42 matched pairs of visits took place between 2013 and 2016. In the primary analysis, 88.1% of triggered visits had ≥1 new Major/Critical finding, compared to 81.0% of untriggered visits, an absolute difference of 7.1% (95% confidence interval -8.3%, +22.5%; p = 0.365). When re-consent findings were excluded, these figures reduced to 85.7% versus 59.5%, (difference = 26.2%, 95% confidence interval 8.0%, 44.4%; p = 0.007). Individual triggers had modest prognostic value but knowledge of the trial-related activities carried out by site staff may be useful. CONCLUSION: Triggered monitoring approaches, as used in these trials, were not sufficiently discriminatory. The rate of Major and Critical findings was higher than anticipated, but the majority related to consent and re-consent with no indication of systemic problems that would impact trial-wide safety issues or integrity of the results in any of the three trials. Sensitivity analyses suggest triggered monitoring may be of potential use, but needs improvement and investigation of further central monitoring triggers is warranted. TEMPER highlights the need to question and evaluate methods in trial conduct, and should inform further developments in this area.

Neoadjuvant cisplatin and fluorouracil versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine followed by resection in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (UK MRC OE05): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery improves survival compared with surgery alone for patients with oesophageal cancer. The OE05 trial assessed whether increasing the duration and intensity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy further improved survival compared with the current standard regimen. METHODS: OE05 was an open-label, phase 3, randomised clinical trial. Patients with surgically resectable oesophageal adenocarcinoma classified as stage cT1N1, cT2N1, cT3N0/N1, or cT4N0/N1 were recruited from 72 UK hospitals. Eligibility criteria included WHO performance status 0 or 1, adequate respiratory, cardiac, and liver function, white blood cell count at least 3 × 109 cells per L, platelet count at least 100 × 109 platelets per L, and a glomerular filtration rate at least 60 mL/min. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) using a computerised minimisation program with a random element and stratified by centre and tumour stage, to receive two cycles of cisplatin and fluorouracil (CF; two 3-weekly cycles of cisplatin [80 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1] and fluorouracil [1 g/m2 per day intravenously on days 1-4]) or four cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX; four 3-weekly cycles of epirubicin [50 mg/m2] and cisplatin [60 mg/m2] intravenously on day 1, and capecitabine [1250 mg/m2] daily throughout the four cycles) before surgery, stratified according to centre and clinical disease stage. Neither patients nor study staff were masked to treatment allocation. Two-phase oesophagectomy with two-field (abdomen and thorax) lymphadenectomy was done within 4-6 weeks of completion of chemotherapy. The primary outcome measure was overall survival, and primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (number 01852072) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00041262), and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2005, and Oct 31, 2011, 897 patients were recruited and 451 were assigned to the CF group and 446 to the ECX group. By Nov 14, 2016, 327 (73%) of 451 patients in the CF group and 302 (68%) of 446 in the ECX group had died. Median survival was 23·4 months (95% CI 20·6-26·3) with CF and 26·1 months (22·5-29·7) with ECX (hazard ratio 0·90 (95% CI 0·77-1·05, p=0·19). No unexpected chemotherapy toxicity was seen, and neutropenia was the most commonly reported event (grade 3 or 4 neutropenia: 74 [17%] of 446 patients in the CF group vs 101 [23%] of 441 people in the ECX group). The proportions of patients with postoperative complications (224 [56%] of 398 people for whom data were available in the CF group and 233 [62%] of 374 in the ECX group; p=0·089) were similar between the two groups. One patient in the ECX group died of suspected treatment-related neutropenic sepsis. INTERPRETATION: Four cycles of neoadjuvant ECX compared with two cycles of CF did not increase survival, and cannot be considered standard of care. Our study involved a large number of centres and detailed protocol with comprehensive prospective assessment of health-related quality of life in a patient population confined to people with adenocarcinomas of the oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal junction (Siewert types 1 and 2). Alternative chemotherapy regimens and neoadjuvant chemoradiation are being investigated to improve outcomes for patients with oesophageal carcinoma. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London.

Peri-operative chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in operable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma (UK Medical Research Council ST03): primary analysis results of a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2-3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Peri-operative chemotherapy and surgery is a standard of care for patients with resectable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against VEGF, improves the proportion of patients responding to treatment in advanced gastric cancer. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of adding bevacizumab to peri-operative chemotherapy in patients with resectable gastric, oesophagogastric junction, or lower oesophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 2-3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with histologically proven, resectable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma from 87 UK hospitals and cancer centres. We randomly assigned patients 1:1 to receive peri-operative epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, in addition to surgery. Patients in the control group (chemotherapy alone) received three pre-operative and three post-operative cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy: 50 mg/m2 epirubicin and 60 mg/m2 cisplatin on day 1 and 1250 mg/m2 oral capecitabine on days 1-21. Patients in the investigational group received the same treatment as the control group plus 7·5 mg/kg intravenous bevacizumab on day 1 of every cycle of chemotherapy and for six further doses once every 21 days following chemotherapy, as maintenance treatment. Randomisation was done by means of a telephone call to the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, where staff used a computer programme that implemented a minimisation algorithm with a random element to establish the allocation for the patient at the point of randomisation. Patients were stratified by chemotherapy centre, site of tumour, and tumour stage. The primary outcome for the phase 3 stage of the trial was overall survival (defined as the time from randomisation until death from any cause), analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Here, we report the primary analysis results of the trial; all patients have completed treatment and the required number of primary outcome events has been reached. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN 46020948, and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00450203. FINDINGS: Between Oct 31, 2007, and March 25, 2014, 1063 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy alone (n=533) or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (n=530). At the time of analysis, 508 deaths were recorded (248 in the chemotherapy alone group and 260 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group). 3-year overall survival was 50·3% (95% CI 45·5-54·9) in the chemotherapy alone group and 48·1% (43·2-52·7) in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·08, 95% CI 0·91-1·29; p=0·36). Apart from neutropenia no other toxic effects were reported at grade 3 or worse severity in more than 10% of patients in either group. Wound healing complications were more prevalent in the bevacizumab group, occurring in 53 (12%) patients in this group compared with 33 (7%) patients in the chemotherapy alone group. In patients who underwent oesophagogastrectomy, post-operative anastomotic leak rates were higher in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group (23 [10%] of 233 in the chemotherapy alone group vs 52 [24%] of 220 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group); therefore, recruitment of patients with lower oesophageal or junctional tumours planned for an oesophagogastric resection was stopped towards the end of the trial. Serious adverse events for all patients included anastomotic leaks (30 events in chemotherapy alone group vs 69 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group), and infections with normal neutrophil count (42 events vs 53). INTERPRETATION: The results of this trial do not provide any evidence for the use of bevacizumab in combination with peri-operative epiribicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy for patients with resectable gastric, oesophagogastric junction, or lower oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Bevacizumab might also be associated with impaired wound healing. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, and F Hoffmann-La Roche Limited.

Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Loss to follow-up from randomised trials can introduce bias and reduce study power, affecting the generalisability, validity and reliability of results. Many strategies are used to reduce loss to follow-up and improve retention but few have been formally evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effect of strategies to improve retention on the proportion of participants retained in randomised trials and to investigate if the effect varied by trial strategy and trial setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, DARE, CINAHL, Campbell Collaboration's Social, Psychological, Educational and Criminological Trials Register, and ERIC. We handsearched conference proceedings and publication reference lists for eligible retention trials. We also surveyed all UK Clinical Trials Units to identify further studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included eligible retention trials of randomised or quasi-randomised evaluations of strategies to increase retention that were embedded in 'host' randomised trials from all disease areas and healthcare settings. We excluded studies aiming to increase treatment compliance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We contacted authors to supplement or confirm data that we had extracted. For retention trials, we recorded data on the method of randomisation, type of strategy evaluated, comparator, primary outcome, planned sample size, numbers randomised and numbers retained. We used risk ratios (RR) to evaluate the effectiveness of the addition of strategies to improve retention. We assessed heterogeneity between trials using the Chi(2) and I(2) statistics. For main trials that hosted retention trials, we extracted data on disease area, intervention, population, healthcare setting, sequence generation and allocation concealment. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 38 eligible retention trials. Included trials evaluated six broad types of strategies to improve retention. These were incentives, communication strategies, new questionnaire format, participant case management, behavioural and methodological interventions. For 34 of the included trials, retention was response to postal and electronic questionnaires with or without medical test kits. For four trials, retention was the number of participants remaining in the trial. Included trials were conducted across a spectrum of disease areas, countries, healthcare and community settings. Strategies that improved trial retention were addition of monetary incentives compared with no incentive for return of trial-related postal questionnaires (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.28, P value < 0.0001), addition of an offer of monetary incentive compared with no offer for return of electronic questionnaires (RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.38, P value < 0.00001) and an offer of a GBP20 voucher compared with GBP10 for return of postal questionnaires and biomedical test kits (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.22, P value < 0.005). The evidence that shorter questionnaires are better than longer questionnaires was unclear (RR 1.04; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08, P value = 0.07) and the evidence for questionnaires relevant to the disease/condition was also unclear (RR 1.07; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14). Although each was based on the results of a single trial, recorded delivery of questionnaires seemed to be more effective than telephone reminders (RR 2.08; 95% CI 1.11 to 3.87, P value = 0.02) and a 'package' of postal communication strategies with reminder letters appeared to be better than standard procedures (RR 1.43; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.67, P value < 0.0001). An open trial design also appeared more effective than a blind trial design for return of questionnaires in one fracture prevention trial (RR 1.37; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.63, P value = 0.0003).There was no good evidence that the addition of a non-monetary incentive, an offer of a non-monetary incentive, 'enhanced' letters, letters delivered by priority post, additional reminders, or questionnaire question order either increased or decreased trial questionnaire response/retention. There was also no evidence that a telephone survey was either more or less effective than a monetary incentive and a questionnaire. As our analyses are based on single trials, the effect on questionnaire response of using offers of charity donations, sending reminders to trial sites and when a questionnaire is sent, may need further evaluation. Case management and behavioural strategies used for trial retention may also warrant further evaluation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most of the retention trials that we identified evaluated questionnaire response. There were few evaluations of ways to improve participants returning to trial sites for trial follow-up. Monetary incentives and offers of monetary incentives increased postal and electronic questionnaire response. Some other strategies evaluated in single trials looked promising but need further evaluation. Application of the findings of this review would depend on trial setting, population, disease area, data collection and follow-up procedures.

The potential for central monitoring techniques to replace on-site monitoring: findings from an international multi-centre clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Compliance with Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines should ensure the safety of trial participants and the reliability of trial results. Over the last decade, increasing emphasis has been placed on the role of costly on-site monitoring and source data verification as processes to demonstrate that GCP is being followed, despite a lack of empirical evidence that these are effective. PURPOSE: To assess whether findings from on-site monitoring of a recent international multi-centre clinical trial could have been identified using central data review and other centralised monitoring techniques. METHODS: Findings documented in a sample of site monitoring reports, and Programme Management Board Executive (PMBe) reports, from the Microbicides Development Programme (MDP) 301 trial - a randomised placebo-controlled trial of a microbicide gel to prevent vaginally acquired HIV infection conducted in four countries in East and Southern Africa - were extracted and individually assessed to determine whether they could have been detected in the trial database or through other central means. RESULTS: Four site visit reports contained 268 monitoring findings from a review of 104 participant files covering 324 study visits. Of the 268 findings, 76 (28.4%) were also identified in the study database. Central checks, had these been in place (such as central receipt and review of back-translated documents, enrolment and testing logs, informed consent, and more complex database queries), could have identified a further 179 (66.8%); 13 (4.9%) other findings (all minor) could have been identified through a review of the participant folder at site. The four PMBe reports reviewed included six major and three critical findings from a review of over 1000 participant files: only two of these (both major) were assessed as unlikely to be identified using central monitoring techniques. LIMITATIONS: The study data used were not collected with this retrospective review in mind. It suggests that prospective work is needed to compare monitoring practices in real time. CONCLUSIONS: While there may be some categories of findings that it is not possible to identify centrally, the very large majority of findings reviewed in this analysis could be identified using central monitoring strategies. These data suggest that with better central and targeted on-site monitoring, it should be possible to identify and address most protocol and procedural compliance issues without performing intensive and costly routine on-site data monitoring.

A systematic search for reports of site monitoring technique comparisons in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: As part of a broader methodological programme of work around clinical trial monitoring, we wanted to evaluate the existing evidence for the effectiveness of different monitoring techniques. PURPOSE: To identify and evaluate prospective studies of the effectiveness of different monitoring strategies. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE from 1950 onwards, using free-text terms to identify relevant published studies. We intended to extract data on details of comparative techniques, monitoring findings identified by different techniques, and recommendations or identification of areas in need of further research made by authors. RESULTS: A total of 1222 published abstracts were identified and reviewed. Of these, nine articles described methods for quality control (QC) of clinical trial activities, and one article was identified that compared the same monitoring technique at two timepoints. None included a direct comparison of different monitoring techniques and findings. LIMITATIONS: The search strategy was limited to MEDLINE. However, MEDLINE includes all the journals that tend to report trial methodological research. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of published empirical data that compare monitoring strategies prospectively. Assessment of the usefulness and cost-effectiveness of monitoring techniques in a variety of clinical trial settings and indications is needed.

Imaging Modality and Frequency in Surveillance of Stage I Seminoma Testicular Cancer: Results From a Randomized, Phase III, Noninferiority Trial (TRISST).

PURPOSE: Survival in stage I seminoma is almost 100%. Computed tomography (CT) surveillance is an international standard of care, avoiding adjuvant therapy. In this young population, minimizing irradiation is vital. The Trial of Imaging and Surveillance in Seminoma Testis (TRISST) assessed whether magnetic resonance images (MRIs) or a reduced scan schedule could be used without an unacceptable increase in advanced relapses. METHODS: A phase III, noninferiority, factorial trial. Eligible participants had undergone orchiectomy for stage I seminoma with no adjuvant therapy planned. Random assignment was to seven CTs (6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months); seven MRIs (same schedule); three CTs (6, 18, and 36 months); or three MRIs. The primary outcome was 6-year incidence of Royal Marsden Hospital stage ≥ IIC relapse (> 5 cm), aiming to exclude increases ≥ 5.7% (from 5.7% to 11.4%) with MRI (v CT) or three scans (v 7); target N = 660, all contributing to both comparisons. Secondary outcomes include relapse ≥ 3 cm, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were performed. RESULTS: Six hundred sixty-nine patients enrolled (35 UK centers, 2008-2014); mean tumor size was 2.9 cm, and 358 (54%) were low risk (< 4 cm, no rete testis invasion). With a median follow-up of 72 months, 82 (12%) relapsed. Stage ≥ IIC relapse was rare (10 events). Although statistically noninferior, more events occurred with three scans (nine, 2.8%) versus seven scans (one, 0.3%): 2.5% absolute increase, 90% CI (1.0 to 4.1). Only 4/9 could have potentially been detected earlier with seven scans. Noninferiority of MRI versus CT was also shown; fewer events occurred with MRI (two [0.6%] v eight [2.6%]), 1.9% decrease (-3.5 to -0.3). Per-protocol analyses confirmed noninferiority. Five-year survival was 99%, with no tumor-related deaths. CONCLUSION: Surveillance is a safe management approach-advanced relapse is rare, salvage treatment successful, and outcomes excellent, regardless of imaging frequency or modality. MRI can be recommended to reduce irradiation; and no adverse impact on long-term outcomes was seen with a reduced schedule.

A prospective clinicopathologic study of dose-modified CODOX-M/IVAC in patients with sporadic Burkitt lymphoma defined using cytogenetic and immunophenotypic criteria (MRC/NCRI LY10 trial).

This prospective study aimed to develop reproducible diagnostic criteria for sporadic Burkitt lymphoma (BL), applicable to routine practice, and to evaluate the efficacy of dose-modified (dm) CODOX-M/IVAC in patients diagnosed using these criteria. The study was open to patients with an aggressive B-cell lymphoma with an MKI67 fraction approaching 100%. Immunophenotype and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) were used to separate BL from other aggressive B-cell lymphomas. BL was characterized by the presence of a cMYC rearrangement as a sole cytogenetic abnormality occurring in patients with a germinal center phenotype with absence of BCL-2 expression and abnormal TP53 expression. A total of 128 patients were eligible for the study, of whom 58 were considered to have BL and 70 to have diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). There were 110 clinically fit patients who received dmCODOX-M (methotrexate, dose 3 g/m(2)) with or without IVAC according to risk group. The 2-year progression-free survival was 64% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51%-77%) for BL, 55% (95% CI 42%-66%) for DLBCL, 85% (95% CI 73%-97%) for low risk, and 49% (95% CI 38%-60%) for high-risk patients. The observed differences in outcome and other clinical features validate the proposed diagnostic criteria. Compared with the previous trial LY06 with full-dose methotrexate (6.7 g/m(2)), there was a reduction in toxicity with comparable outcomes. This study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00040690.

Long-term outcomes with intensive induction chemotherapy (carboplatin, bleomycin, vincristine and cisplatin/bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin) and standard bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin in poor prognosis germ cell tumours: A randomised phase II trial (ISRCTN53643604).

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of men with poor prognosis, non-seminoma germ cell tumours (GCTs) die with standard BEP (bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin) chemotherapy. An intensive regimen, CBOP/BEP (carboplatin, bleomycin, vincristine and cisplatin/BEP), met response targets in a randomised, phase II trial (74% complete response or partial response marker negative, 90% confidence interval (CI) 61%-85%). AIM: To assess long-term outcomes and late toxicity associated with CBOP/BEP. METHODS: Patients with poor prognosis extracranial GCT were randomised to 4xBEP or CBOP/BEP (2xCBOP, 2xBO, 3xBEP with 15,000iu of bleomycin). Low-dose, stabilising chemotherapy before entry was permitted. Response rates (primary outcome) were reported previously. Here, we report secondary outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and late toxicity. Prognostic factors and the impact of marker decline are assessed in exploratory analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients (43 CBOP/BEP) were randomised. After median 63 months follow-up, 3-year PFS is 55.7% (95% CI: 39.7%, 69.0%) for CBOP/BEP and 38.7% (95% CI: 24.7%, 52.4%) for BEP (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.59 (0.33, 1.06), p = 0.079). Three-year OS is 65.0% (48.8%, 77.2%) and 58.5% (43.0%, 71.2%), respectively (HR: 0.79 (0.41, 1.52), p = 0.49). Twelve-month toxicity was affected by subsequent treatments, with no clear differences between arms. Stabilising chemotherapy was associated with poorer PFS (HR: 2.09 (1.14, 3.81), p = 0.017), whereas unfavourable marker decline, in 60 (70%) patients, was not. CONCLUSION: Although not powered for PFS, results for CBOP/BEP are promising. Impact on OS was less clear (and will be affected by subsequent therapy). Further study in an international phase III trial is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 53643604.

Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable gastroesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: A regimen of epirubicin, cisplatin, and infused fluorouracil (ECF) improves survival among patients with incurable locally advanced or metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma. We assessed whether the addition of a perioperative regimen of ECF to surgery improves outcomes among patients with potentially curable gastric cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the stomach, esophagogastric junction, or lower esophagus to either perioperative chemotherapy and surgery (250 patients) or surgery alone (253 patients). Chemotherapy consisted of three preoperative and three postoperative cycles of intravenous epirubicin (50 mg per square meter of body-surface area) and cisplatin (60 mg per square meter) on day 1, and a continuous intravenous infusion of fluorouracil (200 mg per square meter per day) for 21 days. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: ECF-related adverse effects were similar to those previously reported among patients with advanced gastric cancer. Rates of postoperative complications were similar in the perioperative-chemotherapy group and the surgery group (46 percent and 45 percent, respectively), as were the numbers of deaths within 30 days after surgery. The resected tumors were significantly smaller and less advanced in the perioperative-chemotherapy group. With a median follow-up of four years, 149 patients in the perioperative-chemotherapy group and 170 in the surgery group had died. As compared with the surgery group, the perioperative-chemotherapy group had a higher likelihood of overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 0.75; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.93; P=0.009; five-year survival rate, 36 percent vs. 23 percent) and of progression-free survival (hazard ratio for progression, 0.66; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.81; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with operable gastric or lower esophageal adenocarcinomas, a perioperative regimen of ECF decreased tumor size and stage and significantly improved progression-free and overall survival. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN93793971 [controlled-trials.com].).

Implementing monitoring triggers and matching of triggered and control sites in the TEMPER study: a description and evaluation of a triggered monitoring management system.

BACKGROUND: Triggered monitoring in clinical trials is a risk-based monitoring approach where triggers (centrally monitored, predefined key risk and performance indicators) drive the extent, timing, and frequency of monitoring visits. The TEMPER study used a prospective, matched-pair design to evaluate the use of a triggered monitoring strategy, comparing findings from triggered monitoring visits with those from matched control sites. To facilitate this study, we developed a bespoke risk-based monitoring system: the TEMPER Management System. METHODS: The TEMPER Management System comprises a web application (the front end), an SQL server database (the back end) to store the data generated for TEMPER, and a reporting function to aid users in study processes such as the selection of triggered sites. Triggers based on current practice were specified for three clinical trials and were implemented in the system. Trigger data were generated in the system using data extracted from the trial databases to inform the selection of triggered sites to visit. Matching of the chosen triggered sites with untriggered control sites was also performed in the system, while data entry screens facilitated the collection and management of the data from findings gathered at monitoring visits. RESULTS: There were 38 triggers specified for the participating trials. Using these, 42 triggered sites were chosen and matched with control sites. Monitoring visits were carried out to all sites, and visit findings were entered into the TEMPER Management System. Finally, data extracted from the system were used for analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The TEMPER Management System made possible the completion of the TEMPER study. It implemented an approach of standardising the automation of current-practice triggers, and the generation of trigger data to inform the selection of triggered sites to visit. It also implemented a matching algorithm informing the selection of matched control sites. We hope that by publishing this paper it encourages other trialists to share their approaches to, and experiences of, triggered monitoring and other risk-based monitoring systems.

Safety and Efficacy of the Addition of Lapatinib to Perioperative Chemotherapy for Resectable HER2-Positive Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized Phase 2 Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Perioperative chemotherapy and surgery are a standard of care for operable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Anti-HER2 therapy improves survival in patients with advanced HER2-positive disease. The safety and feasibility of adding lapatinib to perioperative chemotherapy should be assessed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety of adding lapatinib to epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX) chemotherapy and to establish a recommended dose regimen for a phase 3 trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Phase 2 randomized, open-label trial comparing standard ECX (sECX: 3 preoperative and 3 postoperative cycles of ECX with modified ECX plus lapatinib (mECX+L). This multicenter national trial was conducted in 29 centers in the United Kingdom in patients with histologically proven, HER2-positive, operable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Registration for ERBB/HER2 testing took place from February 25, 2013, to April 19, 2016, and randomization took place between May 24, 2013, and April 21, 2016. Data were analyzed May 10, 2017, to May 25, 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 1:1 open-label to sECX (3 preoperative and 3 postoperative cycles of 50 mg/m2 of intravenous epirubicin on day 1, 60 mg/m2 intravenous cisplatin on day 1, 1250 mg/m2 of oral capecitabine on days 1 through 21) or mECX+L (ECX plus lapatinib days 1 through 21 in each cycle and as 6 maintenance doses). The first 10 patients in the mECX+L arm were treated with 1000 mg/m2 of capecitabine and 1250 mg of lapatinib per day, after which preoperative toxic effects were reviewed according to predefined criteria to determine doses for subsequent patients. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of patients experiencing grade 3 or 4 diarrhea with mECX+L. A rate of 20% or less was considered acceptable. No formal comparison between arms was planned. RESULTS: Between February 2013, and April 2016, 441 patients underwent central HER2 testing and 63 (14%) were classified as HER2 positive. Forty-six patients were randomized; 44 (24 sECX, 20 mECX+L) are included in this analysis. Two of the first 10 patients in the mECX+L arm reported preoperative grade 3 diarrhea; thus, no dose increase was made. The primary endpoint of preoperative grade 3 or 4 diarrhea rates were 0 of 24 in the sECX arm (0%) and 4 of 20 in the mECX+L arm (21%). One of 24 in the sECX arm and 3 of 20 in the mECX+L arm stopped preoperative treatment early, and for 4 of 19 in the mECX+L arm, lapatinib dose was reduced. Postoperative complication rates were similar in each arm. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Administration of 1250 mg of lapatinib per day in combination with ECX chemotherapy was feasible with some increase in toxic effects, which did not compromise operative management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.org identifier: 46020948; clinicaltrialsregister.eu identifier: 2006-000811-12.

Identifying additional studies for a systematic review of retention strategies in randomised controlled trials: making contact with trials units and trial methodologists.

BACKGROUND: Search strategies for systematic reviews aim to identify all evidence relevant to the research question posed. Reports of methodological research can be difficult to find leading to biased results in systematic reviews of research methodology. Evidence suggests that contact with investigators can help to identify unpublished research. To identify additional eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for a Cochrane systematic review of strategies to improve retention in RCTs, we conducted a survey of UK clinical trials units (CTUs) and made contact with RCT methodologists. METHODS: Key contacts for all UK CTUs were sent a personalised email with a short questionnaire and summary protocol of the Cochrane methodology review. The questionnaire asked whether a RCT evaluating strategies to improve retention embedded in a RCT had ever been conducted by the CTU. Questions about the stage of completion and publication of such RCTs were included. The summary protocol outlined the aims, eligibility criteria, examples of types of retention strategies, and the primary outcome for the systematic review. Personal communication with RCT methodologists and presentations of preliminary results of the review at conferences were also used to identify additional eligible RCTs. We checked the results of our standard searches to see if eligible studies identified through these additional methods were also found using our standard searches. RESULTS: We identified 14 of the 38 RCTs included in the Cochrane methodology review by contacting trials units and methodologists. Eleven of the 14 RCTs identified by these methods were either published in grey literature, in press or unpublished. Three remaining RCTs were fully published at the time. Six of the RCTs identified were not found through any other searches. The RCTs identified represented data for 6 of 14 RCTs of incentive strategies (52% of randomised participants included in the review), and 6 of 14 RCTs of communication strategies (52% of randomised participants included in the Cochrane review). Data were unavailable for two of the RCTs identified. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological evaluations embedded in RCTs may be unpublished, published in the grey literature or where published, poorly indexed in bibliographic databases. To identify such studies and minimise selection bias in systematic reviews of methodological evaluations, reviewers should consider contacting CTUs and trial methodologists.

Best practice guidance for the use of strategies to improve retention in randomized trials developed from two consensus workshops.

OBJECTIVES: To develop best practice guidance for the use of retention strategies in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Consensus development workshops conducted at two UK Clinical Trials Units. Sixty-six statisticians, clinicians, RCT coordinators, research scientists, research assistants, and data managers associated with RCTs participated. The consensus development workshops were based on the consensus development conference method used to develop best practice for treatment of medical conditions. Workshops commenced with a presentation of the evidence for incentives, communication, questionnaire format, behavioral, case management, and methodological retention strategies identified by a Cochrane review and associated qualitative study. Three simultaneous group discussions followed focused on (1) how convinced the workshop participants were by the evidence for retention strategies, (2) barriers to the use of effective retention strategies, (3) types of RCT follow-up that retention strategies could be used for, and (4) strategies for future research. Summaries of each group discussion were fed back to the workshop. Coded content for both workshops was compared for agreement and disagreement. Agreed consensus on best practice guidance for retention was identified. RESULTS: Workshop participants agreed best practice guidance for the use of small financial incentives to improve response to postal questionnaires in RCTs. Use of second-class post was thought to be adequate for postal communication with RCT participants. The most relevant validated questionnaire was considered best practice for collecting RCT data. Barriers identified for the use of effective retention strategies were: the small improvements seen in questionnaire response for the addition of monetary incentives, and perceptions among trialists that some communication strategies are outdated. Furthermore, there was resistance to change existing retention practices thought to be effective. Face-to-face and electronic follow-up technologies were identified as retention strategies for further research. CONCLUSIONS: We developed best practice guidance for the use of retention strategies in RCTs and identified potential barriers to the use of effective strategies. The extent of agreement on best practice is limited by the variability in the currently available evidence. This guidance will need updating as new retention strategies are developed and evaluated.

Mismatch Repair Deficiency, Microsatellite Instability, and Survival: An Exploratory Analysis of the Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency (MMRD) and microsatellite instability (MSI) are prognostic for survival in many cancers and for resistance to fluoropyrimidines in early colon cancer. However, the effect of MMRD and MSI in curatively resected gastric cancer treated with perioperative chemotherapy is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association among MMRD, MSI, and survival in patients with resectable gastroesophageal cancer randomized to surgery alone or perioperative epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil chemotherapy in the Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This secondary post hoc analysis of the MAGIC trial included participants who were treated with surgery alone or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery for operable gastroesophageal cancer from July 1, 1994, through April 30, 2002. Tumor sections were assessed for expression of the MMR proteins mutL homologue 1, mutS homologue 2, mutS homologue 6, and PMS1 homologue 2. The association among MSI, MMRD, and survival was assessed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Interaction between MMRD and MSI status and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of the 503 study participants, MSI results were available for 303 patients (283 with microsatellite stability or low MSI [median age, 62 years; 219 males (77.4%)] and 20 with high MSI [median age, 66 years; 14 males (70.0%)]). A total of 254 patients had MSI and MMR results available. Patients treated with surgery alone who had high MSI or MMRD had a median OS that was not reached (95% CI, 11.5 months to not reached) compared with a median OS among those who had neither high MSI nor MMRD of 20.5 months (95% CI, 16.7-27.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.15-1.15; P = .09). In contrast, patients treated with chemotherapy plus surgery who had either high MSI or MMRD had a median OS of 9.6 months (95% CI, 0.1-22.5 months) compared with a median OS among those who were neither high MSI nor MMRD of 19.5 months (95% CI, 15.4-35.2 months; hazard ratio, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.08-4.42; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the MAGIC trial, MMRD and high MSI were associated with a positive prognostic effect in patients treated with surgery alone and a differentially negative prognostic effect in patients treated with chemotherapy. If independently validated, MSI or MMRD determined by preoperative biopsies could be used to select patients for perioperative chemotherapy.