Comparative accuracy and cost-effectiveness of dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and positron emission tomography in the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules.

INTRODUCTION: Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT (DCE-CT) and positron emission tomography/CT (PET/CT) have a high reported accuracy for the diagnosis of malignancy in solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs). The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of these. METHODS: In this prospective multicentre trial, 380 participants with an SPN (8-30 mm) and no recent history of malignancy underwent DCE-CT and PET/CT. All patients underwent either biopsy with histological diagnosis or completed CT follow-up. Primary outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity and overall diagnostic accuracy for PET/CT and DCE-CT. Costs and cost-effectiveness were estimated from a healthcare provider perspective using a decision-model. RESULTS: 312 participants (47% female, 68.1±9.0 years) completed the study, with 61% rate of malignancy at 2 years. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values for DCE-CT were 95.3% (95% CI 91.3 to 97.5), 29.8% (95% CI 22.3 to 38.4), 68.2% (95% CI 62.4% to 73.5%) and 80.0% (95% CI 66.2 to 89.1), respectively, and for PET/CT were 79.1% (95% CI 72.7 to 84.2), 81.8% (95% CI 74.0 to 87.7), 87.3% (95% CI 81.5 to 91.5) and 71.2% (95% CI 63.2 to 78.1). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) for DCE-CT and PET/CT was 0.62 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.67) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.85), respectively (p<0.001). Combined results significantly increased diagnostic accuracy over PET/CT alone (AUROC=0.90 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.93), p<0.001). DCE-CT was preferred when the willingness to pay per incremental cost per correctly treated malignancy was below £9000. Above £15 500 a combined approach was preferred. CONCLUSIONS: PET/CT has a superior diagnostic accuracy to DCE-CT for the diagnosis of SPNs. Combining both techniques improves the diagnostic accuracy over either test alone and could be cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02013063.

ELEVATE - evaluating Temozolomide and Nivolumab in patients with advanced unresectable previously treated oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma with MGMT methylation: study protocol for a single arm phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma, surgery is the only curative option and despite the use of multimodality therapy, which combines it with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, more than 50% of patients will relapse and die. Many UK patients present with advanced disease which is already inoperable or metastatic at diagnosis. For these patients, standard care chemotherapy only offers them survival of less than a year. Nivolumab, a checkpoint blockade inhibitor, has been found to work in some advanced cancers. It is proposed, for those where immunotherapy hasn't worked, that these immunologically evasive tumours need to be sensitized to immunotherapy drugs to allow them to act. METHODS: ELEVATE is a single arm phase II trial testing the overall response to nivolumab following temozolomide treatment in patients with advanced unresectable previously treated adenocarcinoma which is O6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) methylated. 18 patients are being recruited from UK secondary care sites. To be eligible, participants must have been treated with at least 3 months of platinum and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. Participants will receive 50 mg/m2 temozolomide continuously for 3 months. If their disease progresses during the 3 months, they will stop temozolomide and start nivolumab at a dose of 240mg every 2 weeks. If there is no progression after 3 months the participant will continue taking temozolomide in combination with nivolumab. All treatment will stop once the participant progresses on nivolumab. The primary endpoint is the best overall response to nivolumab, using both Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 and immunotherapy modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, overall survival, and quality of life. DISCUSSION: ELEVATE will provide evidence for whether giving nivolumab after temozolomide in patients with previously treated advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma is safe and biologically effective prior to future randomised trials. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: EudraCT Number: 2020-004771-41 (issued 01 October 2020); ISCRTN11398887 (registered 14 July 2021).

Metabolic heterogeneity on baseline 18FDG-PET/CT scan is a predictor of outcome in primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma.

An important unmet need in the management of primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) is to identify the patients for whom first-line therapy will fail to intervene before the lymphoma becomes refractory. High heterogeneity of intratumoral 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18FDG) uptake distribution on positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scans has been suggested as a possible marker of chemoresistance in solid tumors. In the present study, we investigated the prognostic value of metabolic heterogeneity (MH) in 103 patients with PMBCL prospectively enrolled in the International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group (IELSG) 26 study, aimed at clarifying the role of PET in this lymphoma subtype. MH was estimated using the area under curve of cumulative standardized uptake value-volume histogram (AUC-CSH) method. Progression-free survival at 5 years was 94% vs 73% in low- and high-MH groups, respectively (P = .0001). In a Cox model of progression-free survival including dichotomized MH, metabolic tumor volume, total lesion glycolysis (TLG), international prognostic index, and tumor bulk (mediastinal mass > 10 cm), as well as age as a continuous variable, only TLG (P < .001) and MH (P < .001) retained statistical significance. Using these 2 features to construct a simple prognostic model resulted in early and accurate (positive predictive value, 89%; negative predictive value, ≥90%) identification of patients at high risk for progression at a point that would allow the use of risk-adapted treatments. This may provide an important opportunity for the design of future trials aimed at helping the minority of patients who harbor chemorefractory PMBCL. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00944567.

Short duration immunochemotherapy followed by radioimmunotherapy consolidation is effective and well tolerated in relapsed follicular lymphoma: 5-year results from a UK National Cancer Research Institute Lymphoma Group study.

UNLABELLED: We report a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of abbreviated immunochemotherapy followed by (90) Y Ibritumomab tiuxetan ((90) Y-IT) in patients with recurrent follicular lymphoma. Of the 52 patients enrolled, 50 were treated with three cycles of R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone) or R-CVP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisolone), followed by (90) Y-IT regimen (15 MBq/kg, maximum 1200 MBq) preceded by two infusions of 250 mg/m(2) rituximab. The overall response rate was 98% with complete response (CR) 30% and partial response (PR) 68%. 18 patients with a PR following chemotherapy improved to a CR following (90) Y-IT: a conversion rate of 40%. Seven patients with PR following (90) Y-IT subsequently improved to a CR 12-18 months later, leading to an overall CR rate of 44%. With a median follow-up of 5 years, median progression-free survival was 23·1 months and overall survival was 77·5% at 5 years. High trough serum rituximab levels (median 112 µg/ml; range 52-241) were attained after four doses of rituximab, prior to (90) Y-IT; this was not found to influence response rates. The treatment was well tolerated with few (13·5%) grade 3 or 4 infective episodes and manageable haematological toxicity. Abbreviated immunochemotherapy followed by (90) Y-IT is an effective and well-tolerated treatment in recurrent follicular lymphoma patients previously exposed to rituximab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00637832.

Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT compared with positron emission tomography CT to characterise solitary pulmonary nodules: the SPUtNIk diagnostic accuracy study and economic modelling.

BACKGROUND: Current pathways recommend positron emission tomography-computerised tomography for the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules. Dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography may be a more cost-effective approach. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic performances of dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography and positron emission tomography-computerised tomography in the NHS for solitary pulmonary nodules. Systematic reviews and a health economic evaluation contributed to the decision-analytic modelling to assess the likely costs and health outcomes resulting from incorporation of dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography into management strategies. DESIGN: Multicentre comparative accuracy trial. SETTING: Secondary or tertiary outpatient settings at 16 hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with solitary pulmonary nodules of ≥ 8 mm and of ≤ 30 mm in size with no malignancy in the previous 2 years were included. INTERVENTIONS: Baseline positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced computer tomography with 2 years' follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy for positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared management strategies that used dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography with management strategies that did not use dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography. RESULTS: A total of 380 patients were recruited (median age 69 years). Of 312 patients with matched dynamic contrast-enhanced computer tomography and positron emission tomography-computerised tomography examinations, 191 (61%) were cancer patients. The sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy for positron emission tomography-computerised tomography and dynamic contrast-enhanced computer tomography were 72.8% (95% confidence interval 66.1% to 78.6%), 81.8% (95% confidence interval 74.0% to 87.7%), 76.3% (95% confidence interval 71.3% to 80.7%) and 95.3% (95% confidence interval 91.3% to 97.5%), 29.8% (95% confidence interval 22.3% to 38.4%) and 69.9% (95% confidence interval 64.6% to 74.7%), respectively. Exploratory modelling showed that maximum standardised uptake values had the best diagnostic accuracy, with an area under the curve of 0.87, which increased to 0.90 if combined with dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography peak enhancement. The economic analysis showed that, over 24 months, dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography was less costly (£3305, 95% confidence interval £2952 to £3746) than positron emission tomography-computerised tomography (£4013, 95% confidence interval £3673 to £4498) or a strategy combining the two tests (£4058, 95% confidence interval £3702 to £4547). Positron emission tomography-computerised tomography led to more patients with malignant nodules being correctly managed, 0.44 on average (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.49), compared with 0.40 (95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.45); using both tests further increased this (0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.51). LIMITATIONS: The high prevalence of malignancy in nodules observed in this trial, compared with that observed in nodules identified within screening programmes, limits the generalisation of the current results to nodules identified by screening. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this research indicate that positron emission tomography-computerised tomography is more accurate than dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography for the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules. A combination of maximum standardised uptake value and peak enhancement had the highest accuracy with a small increase in costs. Findings from this research also indicate that a combined positron emission tomography-dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography approach with a slightly higher willingness to pay to avoid missing small cancers or to avoid a 'watch and wait' policy may be an approach to consider. FUTURE WORK: Integration of the dynamic contrast-enhanced component into the positron emission tomography-computerised tomography examination and the feasibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography at lung screening for the characterisation of solitary pulmonary nodules should be explored, together with a lower radiation dose protocol. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018112215 and CRD42019124299, and the trial is registered as ISRCTN30784948 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02013063. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A nodule found on a lung scan can cause concern as it may be a sign of cancer. Finding lung cancer nodules when they are small (i.e. < 3 cm) is very important. Most nodules are not cancerous. Computerised tomography (cross-sectional images created from multiple X-rays) and positron emission tomography­computerised tomography (a technique that uses a radioactive tracer combined with computerised tomography) are used to see whether or not a nodule is cancerous; although they perform well, improvements are required. This study compared dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography with positron emission tomography­computerised tomography scans to find out which test is best. Dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography involves injection of a special dye into the bloodstream, followed by repeated scans of the nodule over several minutes. We assessed the costs to the NHS of undertaking the different scans, relative to their benefits, to judge which option was the best value for money. We recruited 380 patients from 16 hospitals across England and Scotland, of whom 312 had both dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography and positron emission tomography­computerised tomography scans. We found that current positron emission tomography­computerised tomography is more accurate, providing a correct diagnosis in 76% of cases, than the new dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography, which provides a correct diagnosis in 70% of cases. Although dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography cannot replace positron emission tomography­computerised tomography, it may represent good-value use of NHS resources, especially if it is performed before positron emission tomography­computerised tomography and they are used in combination. Although more research is required, it may be possible in the future to perform dynamic contrast-enhanced computerised tomography at the same time as positron emission tomography­computerised tomography in patients with suspected lung cancer or if a lung nodule is found on a lung screening programme at the time of the computerised tomography examination. This may reduce the need for some people to have positron emission tomography­computerised tomography.

Long-term efficacy, safety and neurotolerability of MATRix regimen followed by autologous transplant in primary CNS lymphoma: 7-year results of the IELSG32 randomized trial.

219 HIV-negative adults ≤70 years with primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL) were enrolled in the randomized IELSG32 trial. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned to receive methotrexate-cytarabine (arm A), or methotrexate-cytarabine-rituximab (B), or methotrexate-cytarabine-thiotepa-rituximab (MATRix; arm C). A second randomization allocated patients with responsive/stable disease to whole-brain irradiation (WBRT) or carmustine-thiotepa-conditioned autologous transplantation (ASCT). First results, after a median follow-up of 30 months, showed that MATRix significantly improves outcome, with both WBRT and ASCT being similarly effective. However, sound assessment of overall survival (OS), efficacy of salvage therapy, late complications, secondary tumors, and cognitive impairment requires longer follow-up. Herein, we report the results of this trial at a median follow-up of 88 months. As main findings, MATRix was associated with excellent long-lasting outcome, with a 7-year OS of 21%, 37%, and 56% respectively for arms A, B, and C. Notably, patients treated with MATRix and consolidation had a 7-year OS of 70%. The superiority of arm B on arm A suggests a benefit from the addition of rituximab. Comparable efficacy of WBRT and ASCT was confirmed. Salvage therapy was ineffective; benefit was recorded only in patients with late relapse re-treated with methotrexate. Eight (4%) patients developed a second cancer. Importantly, MATRix and ASCT did not result in higher non-relapse mortality or second tumors incidence. Patients who received WBRT experienced impairment in attentiveness and executive functions, whereas patients undergoing ASCT experienced improvement in these functions as well as in memory and quality of life.

MATRix-RICE therapy and autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with secondary CNS involvement (MARIETTA): an international, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Secondary CNS lymphoma is a rare but potentially lethal event in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. We aimed to assess the activity and safety of an intensive, CNS-directed chemoimmunotherapy consolidated by autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with secondary CNS lymphoma. METHODS: This international, single-arm, phase 2 trial was done in 24 hospitals in Italy, the UK, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. Adults (aged 18-70 years) with histologically diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and CNS involvement at the time of primary diagnosis or at relapse and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 3 or less were enrolled and received three courses of MATRix (rituximab 375 mg/m2, intravenous infusion, day 0; methotrexate 3·5 g/m2, the first 0·5 g/m2 in 15 min followed by 3 g/m2 in a 3 h intravenous infusion, day 1; cytarabine 2 g/m2 every 12 h, in 1 h intravenous infusions, days 2 and 3; thiotepa 30 mg/m2, 30 min intravenous infusion, day 4) followed by three courses of RICE (rituximab 375 mg/m2, day 1; etoposide 100 mg/m2 per day in 500-1000 mL over a 60 min intravenous infusion, days 1, 2, and 3; ifosfamide 5 g/m2 in 1000 mL in a 24 h intravenous infusion with mesna support, day 2; carboplatin area under the curve of 5 in 500 mL in a 1 h intravenous infusion, day 2) and carmustine-thiotepa and autologous HSCT (carmustine 400 mg/m2 in 500 mL glucose 5% solution in a 1-2 h infusion, day -6; thiotepa 5 mg/kg in saline solution in a 2 h infusion every 12 h, days -5 and -4). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 1 year. Overall and complete response rates before autologous HSCT, duration of response, overall survival, and safety were the secondary endpoints. Analyses were in the modified intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02329080. The trial ended after accrual completion; the database lock was Dec 31, 2019. FINDINGS: Between March 30, 2015, and Aug 3, 2018, 79 patients were enrolled. 75 patients were assessable. 319 (71%) of the 450 planned courses were delivered. At 1 year from enrolment the primary endpoint was met, 42 patients were progression free (progression-free survival 58%; 95% CI 55-61). 49 patients (65%; 95% CI 54-76) had an objective response after MATRix-RICE, 29 (39%) of whom had a complete response. 37 patients who responded had autologous HSCT. At the end of the programme, 46 patients (61%; 95% CI 51-71) had an objective response, with a median duration of objective response of 26 months (IQR 16-37). At a median follow-up of 29 months (IQR 20-40), 35 patients were progression-free and 33 were alive, with a 2-year overall survival of 46% (95% CI 39-53). Grade 3-4 toxicity was most commonly haematological: neutropenia in 46 (61%) of 75 patients, thrombocytopenia in 45 (60%), and anaemia in 26 (35%). 79 serious adverse events were recorded in 42 (56%) patients; four (5%) of those 79 were lethal due to sepsis caused by Gram-negative bacteria (treatment-related mortality 5%; 95% CI 0·07-9·93). INTERPRETATION: MATRix-RICE plus autologous HSCT was active in this population of patients with very poor prognosis, and had an acceptable toxicity profile. FUNDING: Stand Up To Cancer Campaign for Cancer Research UK, the Swiss Cancer Research foundation, and the Swiss Cancer League.

Salvage Chemotherapy With Gemcitabine, Paclitaxel, Ifosfamide, and Cisplatin for Relapsed Germ Cell Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic germ cell tumors remain potentially curable when treated with salvage chemotherapy at first relapse. In the present phase I/II study, we sought to improve on the response rate and duration of the TIP (paclitaxel, ifosfamide, cisplatin) regimen by adding gemcitabine (Gem-TIP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients were recruited after failure of first-line cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. The primary objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose of gemcitabine when combined with TIP and to establish the dose intensity of the TIP drugs in this combination. The secondary objectives were the response rates, failure-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: The maximum tolerated dose of gemcitabine was 1200 mg/m2. The mean relative dose intensity was 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.2%-99.2%) for gemcitabine, 96% (95% CI, 92.9%-98.7%) for paclitaxel, 92% (95% CI, 84.5%-98.8%) for ifosfamide, and 94% (95% CI, 89.3%-99.0%) for cisplatin. The overall complete response rate was 50%; another 30% of the patients achieved a partial response. The 1-year failure-free survival and overall survival rates were 68% (95% CI, 43%-84%) and 89.5% (95% CI, 64%-97%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine can be added to TIP chemotherapy at the full dose, with manageable toxicity and no detrimental effect on the dose intensity of the TIP drugs. The response rate and duration were improved compared with those reported from the Medical Research Council TIP trial; further evaluation is warranted.

CONFIRM: a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III clinical trial investigating the effect of nivolumab in patients with relapsed mesothelioma: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Mesothelioma is an incurable, apoptosis-resistant cancer caused in most cases by previous exposure to asbestos and is increasing in incidence. It represents a growing health burden but remains under-researched, with limited treatment options. Early promising signals of activity relating to both PD-L1- and PD-1-targeted treatment in mesothelioma implicate a dependency of mesothelioma on this immune checkpoint. There is a need to evaluate checkpoint inhibitors in patients with relapsed mesothelioma where treatment options are limited. METHODS: The addition of 12 months of nivolumab (anti-PD1 antibody) to standard practice will be conducted in the UK using a randomised, placebo-controlled phase III trial (the Cancer Research UK CONFIRM trial). A total of 336 patients with pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma who have received at least two prior lines of therapy will be recruited from UK secondary care sites. Patients will be randomised 2:1 (nivolumab:placebo), stratified according to epithelioid/non-epithelioid, to receive either 240 mg nivolumab monotherapy or saline placebo as a 30-min intravenous infusion. Treatment will be for up to 12 months. We will determine whether the use of nivolumab increases overall survival (the primary efficacy endpoint). Secondary endpoints will include progression-free survival, objective response rate, toxicity, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Analysis will be performed according to the intention-to-treat principle using a Cox regression analysis for the primary endpoint (and for other time-to-event endpoints). DISCUSSION: The outcome of this trial will provide evidence of the potential benefit of the use of nivolumab in the treatment of relapsed mesothelioma. If found to be clinically effective, safe and cost-effective it is likely to become the new standard of care in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number: 2016-003111-35 (entered on 21 July 2016); ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03063450 . Registered on 24 February 2017.