INTEGRATE II: randomised phase III controlled trials of regorafenib containing regimens versus standard of care in refractory Advanced Gastro-Oesophageal Cancer (AGOC): a study by the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG).

BACKGROUND: Advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer (AGOC) carries a poor prognosis. No standard of care treatment options are available after first and second-line therapies. Regorafenib is an oral multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting angiogenic, stromal, and oncogenic receptor tyrosine kinases. Regorafenib 160 mg daily prolonged progression free survival compared to placebo (INTEGRATE, phase 2). Regorafenib 80 mg daily in combination with nivolumab 3 mg/kg showed promising objective response rates (REGONIVO). METHODS/DESIGN: INTEGRATE II (INTEGRATE IIa and IIb) platform comprises two international phase III randomised controlled trials (RCT) with 2:1 randomisation in favor of experimental intervention. INTEGRATE IIa (double-blind) compares regorafenib 160 mg daily on days 1 to 21 of each 28-day cycle to placebo. INTEGRATE IIb (open label) compares REGONIVO, regorafenib 90 mg days 1 to 21 in combination with intravenous nivolumab 240 mg days 1 and 15 each 28-day cycle with investigator's choice of chemotherapy (control). Treatment continues until disease progression or intolerable adverse events as per protocol. Eligible participants include adults with AGOC who have failed two or more lines of treatment. Stratification is by location of tumour (INTEGRATE IIa only), geographic region, prior VEGF inhibitor and prior immunotherapy use (INTEGRATE IIb only). Primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints are progression free survival, objective response rate, quality of life, and safety. Tertiary/correlative objectives include biomarker and pharmacokinetic evaluation. DISCUSSION: INTEGRATE II provides a platform to evaluate the clinical utility of regorafenib alone, as well as regorafenib in combination with nivolumab in treatment of participants with refractory AGOC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: INTEGRATE IIa prospectively registered 1 April 2016 Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12616000420448 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02773524). INTEGRATE IIb prospectively registered 10 May 2021 ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04879368.

Patient-Reported Bowel, Urinary, and Sexual Outcomes After Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection or Open Resection for Rectal Cancer: The Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Randomized Clinical Trial (ALaCart).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported urinary, bowel, and sexual functioning of ALaCaRT Trial participants randomized to open or laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The primary endpoint, noninferiority of laparoscopic surgical resection adequacy, was not established. METHODS: Participants completed QLQ-CR29 at baseline, 3, and 12 months post-surgery. Additionally, women completed Rosen's Female Sexual Functioning Index (FSFI). Men completed the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and QLQ-PR25. We compared the proportions of participants in each group who experienced moderate/severe symptoms/dysfunction at each time-point and compared mean difference scores from baseline to 12 months between groups. All analyses were intention-to-treat. Sexual functioning analyses included only the participants who expressed sexual interest at baseline. RESULTS: Baseline PRO compliance of 475 randomized participants was 88%. At 12 months, a lower proportion of open surgery participants experienced moderate-severe fecal incontinence and sore skin, compared to Laparoscopic participants, and a lower proportion of men randomized to open surgery experienced moderate-severe urinary symptoms. There were no differences at 3 months for bowel or urinary symptoms. Sexual functioning among sexually interested participants was similar between groups at 3 and 12 months; however, a lower proportion of women reported moderate to severe sexual dissatisfaction at 3 months in the open as compared to the laparoscopic group, (Rebecca.mercieca@sydney.edu.au., 95% CI 0.03-0.39). DISCUSSION: Despite the slightly lower proportions of open surgery participants self-reporting moderate-severe symptoms for 3 of 16 urinary/bowel domains, and lack of differences in sexual domains, it remains difficult to recommend one surgical approach over another for rectal resection.

Value of central review of RECIST v1.1 outcomes in the AGITG INTEGRATE randomised phase 2 international trial for advanced oesophago-gastric cancer.

PURPOSE: Activity estimates should be accurately evaluated in phase 2 clinical trials to ensure appropriate decisions about proceeding to phase 3 trials. RECIST v1.1. progression-free survival (PFS) is a common endpoint in oncology; however, it can be influenced by assessment criteria and trial design. We assessed the value of central adjudication of investigator-assessed PFS times of participants in a double-blind, randomised phase 2 trial evaluating regorafenib versus placebo in advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer (AGITG INTEGRATE) to inform plans for central review in future trials. METHODS: We calculated the proportion of participants with a disagreement between the site investigator assessment and blinded independent central review and in whom central review resulted in a change, then evaluated the effect of central review on study conclusions by comparing hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS based on site review versus central review. Post-progression unblinding was assessed with similar methods. Simulation studies explored the effect of differential and non-differential measurement error on treatment effect estimation and study power. RESULTS: Disagreements between site assessments versus central review occurred in 8/147 (5.4%) participants, 5 resulting in amended date of progression (3.4%). PFS HRs (sites vs central review progression dates) were similar (0.39 vs 0.40). RECIST progression occurred in 82/86 (95%) of cases where post-progression unblinding was requested by the site investigator. CONCLUSIONS: Blinded independent central review was feasible and supported the reliability of site assessments, trial results, and conclusions. Modelling showed that when treatment effects were large and outcome assessments blinded, central review was unlikely to affect conclusions.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Metastatic, Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: ENZAMET (ANZUP 1304), an International, Randomized Phase III Trial Led by ANZUP.

PURPOSE: We previously reported that enzalutamide improved overall survival when added to standard of care in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Here, we report its effects on aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQL). METHODS: HRQL was assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality-of-life questionnaire and QLM-PR25 at weeks 0, 4, 12, and then every 12 weeks until progression. Scores from week 4 to 156 were analyzed with repeated measures modeling to calculate group means and differences. Deterioration-free survival was from random assignment until the earliest of death, clinical progression, discontinuation of study treatment, or a worsening of 10 points or more from baseline in fatigue, physical function, cognitive function, or overall health and quality of life (OHQL). HRQL scores range from 0 (lowest possible) to 100 (highest possible). RESULTS: HRQL was assessed in 1,042 of 1,125 participants (93%). Differences in means favored control over enzalutamide for fatigue (5.2, 95% CI, 3.6 to 6.9; P < .001), cognitive function (4.0, 95% CI, 2.5 to 5.5; P < .001), and physical function (2.6, 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.9; P < .001), but not OHQL (1.2, 95% CI, -0.2 to 2.7; P = .1). Deterioration-free survival rates at 3 years, and log-rank P values comparing the whole distributions, favored enzalutamide over control for OHQL (31% v 17%; P < .0001), cognitive function (31% v 20%; P = .001), and physical function (31% v 22%; P < .001), but not fatigue (24% v 18%; P = .16). The effects of enzalutamide on HRQL were independent of baseline characteristics. CONCLUSION: Enzalutamide was associated with worsening of self-reported fatigue, cognitive function, and physical function, but not OHQL. Enzalutamide was associated with improved deterioration-free survival for OHQL, physical function, and cognitive function because delays in disease progression outweighed early deteriorations in these aspects of HRQL.

Healthcare Costs of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer Patients in the First 12 Months: A Secondary Endpoint Analysis of the Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (ALaCaRT).

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer is widely used, however the healthcare costs are thought to be higher than for open resection. This secondary endpoint analysis of a randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate total healthcare costs of laparoscopic-assisted surgery compared with open resection for rectal cancer over a 12-month period. METHODS: Patients in the Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (ALaCaRT) were included in a prospective costing analysis. All healthcare use for the index surgery and hospital admission, readmissions, and follow-up care over 12 months were included. Unit costs were valued in Australian dollars (AUD$) using scheduled Medicare fees and hospital cost weights. The primary outcome was mean per patient cost. Non-parametric bootstrapping with 10,000 replications was undertaken for robustness checks. RESULTS: Data from 468 patients indicated that the laparoscopic-assisted surgical procedure incurred a mean cost of AUD$4542 (standard deviation [SD] AUD$1050)-AUD$521 higher than the open procedure mean cost of AUD$4021 (SD AUD$804) due to longer operative time and involvement of more costly equipment (95% confidence interval [CI] AUD$354-AUD$692). At 12 months, the average cost for the laparoscopic-assisted and open groups was AUD$43,288 (SD AUD$40,883) and AUD$45,384 (SD AUD$38,659), respectively, due to the shorter subsequent hospital stays. No overall significant cost difference between groups was found (95% CI -AUD$9358 to AUD$5003). One-way sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. CONCLUSION: While initially higher, the costs of laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer were similar to open resection at 12 months. Clinicians may choose a surgical approach based on clinical need. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG) was the legal sponsor and trial coordination was performed by the NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre. The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12609000663257).

Overall Survival of Men with Metachronous Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer Treated with Enzalutamide and Androgen Deprivation Therapy.

Men who initially present with localized prostate cancer and later develop metachronous metastases have a better prognosis than men with de novo metastatic disease and often have a low burden of disease on conventional imaging. Some have disease amenable to metastasis-directed therapy for lymph node or bone metastases, a strategy used by some because no documented overall survival (OS) benefit of combination systemic therapy in this setting. We report data for patients prospectively classified as "M0" at initial diagnosis from the interim analysis of the ENZAMET trial, with 34 mo of median follow-up for survivors. A total of 312 (28%) of the 1125 enrolled patients were classified as M0 at diagnosis, and 205 (66%) of the 312 patients had low-volume disease at study entry as per the CHAARTED criteria. The hazard ratio for OS, that is, HR(OS), was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29-1.06) with the addition of enzalutamide for all patients with metachronous metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, and for the low-volume subset the HR(OS) was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.16-0.97). The 3-yr OS was 83% without and 89% with enzalutamide for all patients with metachronous metastases, and 83% and 92%, respectively, for the low-volume subset. Intensification of hormonal therapy should strongly be considered for these men. PATIENT SUMMARY: Many men present with prostate cancer that has spread to distant sites beyond the prostate gland years after their initial diagnosis and treatment, while others have distant spread at the time the cancer is diagnosed. On average, men whose cancer comes back years after the initial diagnosis often survive much longer than men whose cancer has been found to spread to distant sites when it is first diagnosed. In this report, we demonstrate strong evidence for the first time that the survival of men whose cancer comes back years later is improved when drugs such as enzalutamide or apalutamide are added to testosterone suppression in this setting.

Testosterone treatment to prevent or revert type 2 diabetes in men enrolled in a lifestyle programme (T4DM): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-year, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: Men who are overweight or obese frequently have low serum testosterone concentrations, which are associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to determine whether testosterone treatment prevents progression to or reverses early type 2 diabetes, beyond the effects of a community-based lifestyle programme. METHODS: T4DM was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-year, phase 3b trial done at six Australian tertiary care centres. Men aged 50-74 years, with a waist circumference of 95 cm or higher, a serum testosterone concentration of 14·0 nmol/L or lower but without pathological hypogonadism, and impaired glucose tolerance (oral glucose tolerance test [OGTT] 2-h glucose 7·8-11·0 mmol/L) or newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (provided OGTT 2-h glucose ≤15·0 mmol/L) were enrolled in a lifestyle programme and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive an intramuscular injection of testosterone undecanoate (1000 mg) or placebo at baseline, 6 weeks, and then every 3 months for 2 years. Randomisation was done centrally, including stratification by centre, age group, waist circumference, 2-h OGTT glucose, smoking, and first-degree family history of type 2 diabetes. The primary outcomes at 2 years were type 2 diabetes (2-h OGTT glucose ≥11·1 mmol/L) and mean change from baseline in 2-h OGTT glucose, assessed by intention to treat. For safety assessment, we did a masked monitoring of haematocrit and prostate-specific antigen, and analysed prespecified serious adverse events. This study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12612000287831. FINDINGS: Between Feb 5, 2013, and Feb 27, 2017, of 19 022 men who were pre-screened, 1007 (5%) were randomly assigned to the placebo (n=503) and testosterone (n=504) groups. At 2 years, 2-h glucose of 11·1 mmol/L or higher on OGTT was reported in 87 (21%) of 413 participants with available data in the placebo group and 55 (12%) of 443 participants in the testosterone group (relative risk 0·59, 95% CI 0·43 to 0·80; p=0·0007). The mean change from baseline 2-h glucose was -0·95 mmol/L (SD 2·78) in the placebo group and -1·70 mmol/L (SD 2·47) in the testosterone group (mean difference -0·75 mmol/L, -1·10 to -0·40; p<0·0001). The treatment effect was independent of baseline serum testosterone. A safety trigger for haematocrit greater than 54% occurred in six (1%) of 484 participants in the placebo group and 106 (22%) of 491 participants in the testosterone group, and a trigger for an increase of 0·75 µg/mL or more in prostate-specific antigen occurred in 87 (19%) of 468 participants in the placebo group and 109 (23%) of 480 participants in the testosterone group. Prespecified serious adverse events occurred in 37 (7·4%, 95% CI 5·4 to 10·0) of 503 patients in the placebo group and 55 (10·9%, 8·5 to 13·9) of 504 patients in the testosterone group. There were two deaths in each group. INTERPRETATION: Testosterone treatment for 2 years reduced the proportion of participants with type 2 diabetes beyond the effects of a lifestyle programme. Increases in haematocrit might be treatment limiting. Longer-term durability, safety, and cardiovascular effects of the intervention remain to be further investigated. FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Bayer, Eli Lilly, University of Adelaide, and WW (formerly Weight Watchers).

Return to work following laparoscopic-assisted resection or open resection for rectal cancer: Findings from AlaCaRT-Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining employment for adults with cancer is important, however, little is known about the impact of surgery for rectal cancer on an individual's capacity to return to work (RTW). This study aimed to determine the impact of laparoscopic vs. open resection on RTW at 12 months. METHODS: Analyses were undertaken among participants randomized in the Australian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (ALaCaRT), with work status available at baseline (presurgery), and 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics estimated the effect of surgery on RTW in any capacity, or return to preoperative work status at 12 months. RESULTS: About 228 of 449 (51%) surviving trial participants at 12 months completed work status questionnaires; mean age was 62 years, 66% males, 117 of these received laparoscopic resection (51%). Of 228, 120 were employed at baseline (90 full-time, 30 part-time). Overall RTW in 120 participants in paid work at baseline was 78% (84% laparoscopic, 70% open surgery). Those employed full-time were more likely to RTW at 12 months (OR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.02-12.31). Those with distant metastases at baseline were less likely to RTW (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, <0.01-0.83). Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a higher rate of RTW but did not reach statistical significance (OR 2.88; 95% CI, 0.95-8.76). CONCLUSIONS: Full-time work presurgery and the presence of metastatic disease predicts RTW status at 12 months. A laparoscopic-assisted surgical approach to rectal cancer may facilitate more patients to RTW, however, larger sample sizes are likely needed to confirm this result.

SPAR - a randomised, placebo-controlled phase II trial of simvastatin in addition to standard chemotherapy and radiation in preoperative treatment for rectal cancer: an AGITG clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies show improved outcomes in colorectal cancer patients if taking statins, including overall survival, pathological response of rectal cancer to preoperative chemoradiotherapy (pCRT), and reduced acute and late toxicities of pelvic radiation. Major tumour regression following pCRT has strong prognostic significance and can be assessed in vivo using MRI-based tumour regression grading (mrTRG) or after surgery using pathological TRG (pathTRG). METHODS: A double-blind phase 2 trial will randomise 222 patients planned to receive long-course fluoropyrimidine-based pCRT for rectal adenocarcinoma at 18+ sites in New Zealand and Australia. Patients will receive simvastatin 40 mg or placebo daily for 90 days starting 1 week prior to standard pCRT. Pelvic MRI 6 weeks after pCRT will assess mrTRG grading prior to surgery. The primary objective is rates of favourable (grades 1-2) mrTRG following pCRT with simvastatin compared to placebo, considering mrTRG in 4 ordered categories (1, 2, 3, 4-5). Secondary objectives include comparison of: rates of favourable pathTRG in resected tumours; incidence of toxicity; compliance with intended pCRT and trial medication; proportion of patients undergoing surgical resection; cancer outcomes and pathological scores for radiation colitis. Tertiary objectives include: association between mrTRG and pathTRG grouping; inter-observer agreement on mrTRG scoring and pathTRG scoring; studies of T-cell infiltrates in diagnostic biopsies and irradiated resected normal and malignant tissue; and the effect of simvastatin on markers of systemic inflammation (modified Glasgow prognostic score and the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio). Trial recruitment commenced April 2018. DISCUSSION: When completed this study will be able to observe meaningful differences in measurable tumour outcome parameters and/or toxicity from simvastatin. A positive result will require a larger RCT to confirm and validate the merit of statins in the preoperative management of rectal cancer. Such a finding could also lead to studies of statins in conjunction with chemoradiation in a range of other malignancies, as well as further exploration of possible mechanisms of action and interaction of statins with both radiation and chemotherapy. The translational substudies undertaken with this trial will provisionally explore some of these possible mechanisms, and the tissue and data can be made available for further investigations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZ Clinical Trials Register ACTRN12617001087347. (www.anzctr.org.au, registered 26/7/2017) Protocol Version: 1.1 (June 2017).

Challenges of international oncology trial collaboration-a call to action.

International collaboration in oncology trials has the potential to enhance clinical trial activity by expediting the recruitment of large patient populations, testing treatments in diverse populations and facilitating the study of rare tumours or specific molecular subtypes. However, a number of challenges continue to hinder the efficient and productive conduct of both commercial and non-commercial international clinical trials. These challenges include complex and burdensome regulatory requirements, the high cost of conducting trials, and logistical challenges associated with ethics review, drug supply and biospecimen collection and management. We propose solutions to promote oncology trial collaboration, such as regulatory reform, harmonisation of trial initiation and management processes and greater recognition and funding of academic (non-commercial) clinical trials. It is only through coordinated effort and leadership from researchers, regulators and those responsible for health systems that the full potential of international trial collaboration can be realised.

Enzalutamide with Standard First-Line Therapy in Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Enzalutamide, an androgen-receptor inhibitor, has been associated with improved overall survival in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer. It is not known whether adding enzalutamide to testosterone suppression, with or without early docetaxel, will improve survival in men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial, we assigned patients to receive testosterone suppression plus either open-label enzalutamide or a standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy (standard-care group). The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points included progression-free survival as determined by the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, clinical progression-free survival, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 1125 men underwent randomization; the median follow-up was 34 months. There were 102 deaths in the enzalutamide group and 143 deaths in the standard-care group (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.86; P = 0.002). Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival at 3 years were 80% (based on 94 events) in the enzalutamide group and 72% (based on 130 events) in the standard-care group. Better results with enzalutamide were also seen in PSA progression-free survival (174 and 333 events, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.39; P<0.001) and in clinical progression-free survival (167 and 320 events, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.40; P<0.001). Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was more frequent in the enzalutamide group than in the standard-care group (33 events and 14 events, respectively). Fatigue was more common in the enzalutamide group; seizures occurred in 7 patients in the enzalutamide group (1%) and in no patients in the standard-care group. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide was associated with significantly longer progression-free and overall survival than standard care in men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer receiving testosterone suppression. The enzalutamide group had a higher incidence of seizures and other toxic effects, especially among those treated with early docetaxel. (Funded by Astellas Scientific and Medical Affairs and others; ENZAMET (ANZUP 1304) ANZCTR number, ACTRN12614000110684; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02446405; and EU Clinical Trials Register number, 2014-003190-42.).

Telephone call reminders did not increase screening uptake more than SMS reminders: a recruitment study within a trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the response rates and costs of phone call vs. short message service (SMS) screening reminders to prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) participants. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study was a randomized evaluation within a large Australian diabetes prevention RCT. Participants were men aged 50-74 years, overweight or obese, without a previous type 2 diabetes diagnosis. Those eligible on a prescreening questionnaire who did not attend a further screening assessment within 4 weeks were randomized to receive an SMS or phone call reminder (N = 709). The primary outcome was attendance for further screening assessment within 8 weeks of prescreening. RESULTS: Attendance was 18% (62/354) in the SMS reminder group, and 23% (80/355) in the phone reminder group, with no statistically significant difference in response according to reminder type (relative risk = 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96-1.73, P = 0.09). The lower confidence limits for response to SMS (95% CI: 14-22%) and phone reminders (95% CI: 18-27%) did not include the 8-week attendance rate before this evaluation, 12%. Phone reminders cost substantially more than SMS reminders (AU$6.21 vs. AU$0.53 per reminder). CONCLUSION: SMS reminders were as adequate a method as phone reminders to boost RCT screening uptake and were considerably more affordable.

Testosterone therapy to prevent type 2 diabetes mellitus in at-risk men (T4DM): Design and implementation of a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low circulating testosterone is associated with an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in overweight men with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). AIMS: To determine in a multi-centre, double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized trial whether testosterone treatment combined with lifestyle intervention (Weight Watchers) relative to lifestyle intervention alone reduces T2DM incidence and improves glucose tolerance at 2 years. STUDY POPULATION: Overweight or obese men aged 50-74 years with a serum testosterone of ≤14 nmol/L and IGT or newly diagnosed T2DM established by an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). SETTING, DRUG AND PROTOCOL: Six Australian capital city-based tertiary care centres. Participants were randomized 1:1 and injected with testosterone undecanoate (1000 mg/4 mL) or vehicle (4 mL castor oil), at baseline, 6 weeks and 3-monthly thereafter. PRIMARY ENDPOINTS: (a) Proportion of participants with 2-hour OGTT ≥11.1 mmol/L at 2 years, and (b) a difference at 2 years ≥0.6 mmol/L in the mean 2-hour OGTT glucose between treatments. SECONDARY ENDPOINTS: Fasting insulin, HbA1c, body composition, maximal handgrip strength; sexual function and lower urinary tract symptoms; serum sex steroids and sex hormone binding globulin; mood and psychosocial function; adherence to lifestyle intervention; and healthcare utilization and costs. SAFETY: Overseen by an Independent Data Safety Monitoring Committee. Haematocrit, lipids and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) are assessed 6-monthly and information relating to haematological, urological and cardiovascular adverse events from each clinic visit. SUB-STUDIES: (a) Changes in bone density and micro-architecture, (b) motivation and behaviour, (c) telomere length, (d) extended treatment up to 4 years, and (e) hypothalamo-pituitary testicular axis recovery at treatment end.

Disease-free Survival and Local Recurrence After Laparoscopic-assisted Resection or Open Resection for Rectal Cancer: The Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the efficacy of laparoscopic rectal resection (Lap) versus open laparotomy and rectal resection (Open) for rectal cancer on locoregional recurrence (LRR) and disease-free survival (DFS) at 2 years. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Although a Lap approach to colon cancer surgery may offer similar oncological outcomes to Open with potentially less morbidity, this remains to be clearly established for the treatment of rectal cancer. METHODS: A randomized, multicenter noninferiority phase 3 trial of 475 patients with T1 to T3 rectal adenocarcinoma <15 cm from anal verge, given Lap or Open and followed for a minimum 2 years to assess LRR, DFS, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Secondary endpoint analyses included 450 patients (95%) without metastases at baseline (mean age 64; 34% women) who received Lap (n = 225) or Open (n = 225). Median follow-up was 3.2 years (range: 0.1-5.4 yrs). LRR cumulative incidence at 2 years: Lap 5.4%; Open 3.1% [difference, 2.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -1.5% to 6.1%; hazard ratio (HR) 1.7; 95% CI, 0.74-3.9]. DFS at 2 years: Lap 80%; Open 82% (difference, 2.0%; 95% CI, -9.3% to 5.4%; HR for recurrence or death, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.81-1.68; P = 0.41). After adjustment for baseline factors HR = 1.07 (95% CI, 0.7-1.6). OS at 2 years: Lap 94%; Open 93% (difference 0.9%; 95% CI, -3.6% to 5.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer did not differ significantly from open surgery in effects on 2-year recurrence or DFS and OS. Confidence intervals included potentially clinically important differences favoring open resection, so that the combination of primary and secondary study endpoints may not support laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer as a routine standard of care and further follow-up is required.

Cancer Molecular Screening and Therapeutics (MoST): a framework for multiple, parallel signal-seeking studies of targeted therapies for rare and neglected cancers.

BACKGROUND: Precision medicine aims to link molecular targets in tumours with corresponding therapies, particularly for patients with rare cancers. Innovative approaches are needed to translate molecular opportunities into clinical care. The Cancer Molecular Screening and Therapeutics (MoST) program employs a molecular screening platform to identify molecular changes of therapeutic relevance (actionable changes) and a master protocol for multiple, parallel signal-seeking clinical substudies, focused on therapies for patients with rare and neglected cancers. Methods and analysis: Archival pathology laboratory samples from patients with treatment-refractory advanced solid cancer of any histologic type undergo molecular tumour profiling. Following review by a Molecular Tumour Board, eligible patients are offered treatment in therapeutic substudies. This novel master protocol allows expedited addition of individual substudies; at least 12 open label, single arm, signal-seeking substudies during the initial 4 years of MoST are planned. The primary objectives are to identify signals of efficacy for developing biomarker-driven therapies and biomarkers that more accurately predict response to therapy, as well as to evaluate the MoST design. Ethics approval: The program has been approved by the St Vincent's Hospital Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (reference, HREC/16/SVH/23). Dissemination of results: A report summarising and interpreting collected study data will be published. Our findings will be presented at national and international conferences and scientific meetings, and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12616000908437 (8 July 2016).

D-Dimer Predicts Long-Term Cause-Specific Mortality, Cardiovascular Events, and Cancer in Patients With Stable Coronary Heart Disease: LIPID Study.

BACKGROUND: D-dimer, a degradation product of cross-linked fibrin, is a marker for hypercoagulability and thrombotic events. Moderately elevated levels of D-dimer are associated with the risk of venous and arterial events in patients with vascular disease. We assessed the role of D-dimer levels in predicting long-term vascular outcomes, cause-specific mortality, and new cancers in the LIPID trial (Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease) in the context of other risk factors. METHODS: LIPID randomized patients to placebo or pravastatin 40 mg/d 5 to 38 months after myocardial infarction or unstable angina. D-dimer levels were measured at baseline and at 1 year. Median follow-up was 6.0 years during the trial and 16 years in total. RESULTS: Baseline D-dimer levels for 7863 patients were grouped by quartile (≤112, 112-173, 173-273, >273 ng/mL). Higher levels were associated with older age, female sex, history of hypertension, poor renal function, and elevated levels of B-natriuretic peptide, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and sensitive troponin I (each P<0.001). During the first 6 years, after adjustment for up to 30 additional risk factors, higher D-dimer was associated with a significantly increased risk of a major coronary event (quartile 4 versus 1: hazard ratio [HR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.74), major cardiovascular disease (CVD) event (HR, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.71) and venous thromboembolism (HR, 4.03; 95% confidence interval, 2.31-7.03; each P<0.001). During the 16 years overall, higher D-dimer was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (HR, 1.59), CVD mortality (HR, 1.61), cancer mortality (HR, 1.54), and non-CVD noncancer mortality (HR, 1.57; each P<0.001), remaining significant for deaths resulting from each cause occurring beyond 10 years of follow-up (each P≤0.01). Higher D-dimer also independently predicted an increase in cancer incidence (HR, 1.16; P=0.02).The D-dimer level increased the net reclassification index for all-cause mortality by 4.0 and venous thromboembolism by 13.6. CONCLUSIONS: D-dimer levels predict long-term risk of arterial and venous events, CVD mortality, and non-CVD noncancer mortality independent of other risk factors. D-dimer is also a significant predictor of cancer incidence and mortality. These results support an association of D-dimer with fatal events across multiple diseases and demonstrate that this link extends beyond 10 years' follow-up.

Long-Term Effectiveness and Safety of Pravastatin in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease: Sixteen Years of Follow-Up of the LIPID Study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the long-term effects of treatment with statin therapy on all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, and cancer incidence from extended follow-up of the Long-term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischemic Disease (LIPID) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: LIPID initially compared pravastatin and placebo over 6 years in 9014 patients with previous coronary heart disease. After the double-blind period, all patients were offered open-label statin therapy. Data were obtained over a further 10 years from 7721 patients, by direct contact for 2 years, by questionnaires thereafter, and from mortality and cancer registries. During extended follow-up, 85% assigned pravastatin and 84% assigned placebo took statin therapy. Patients assigned pravastatin maintained a significantly lower risk of death from coronary heart disease (relative risk [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.97; P=0.009), from cardiovascular disease (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.95; P=0.002), and from any cause (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.97; absolute risk reduction, 2.6%; P=0.003).Cancer incidence was similar by original treatment group during the double-blind period (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08; P=0.41), later follow-up (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.14; P=0.74), and overall (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.08; P=0.83). There were no significant differences in cancer mortality, or in the incidence of organ-specific cancers. Cancer findings were confirmed in a meta-analysis with other large statin trials with extended follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In LIPID, the absolute survival benefit from 6 years of pravastatin treatment appeared to be maintained for the next 10 years, with a similar risk of death among survivors in both groups after the initial period. Treatment with statins does not influence cancer or death from noncardiovascular causes during long-term follow-up.

Effect of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection vs Open Resection on Pathological Outcomes in Rectal Cancer: The ALaCaRT Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Laparoscopic procedures are generally thought to have better outcomes than open procedures. Because of anatomical constraints, laparoscopic rectal resection may not be better because of limitations in performing an adequate cancer resection. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether laparoscopic resection is noninferior to open rectal cancer resection for adequacy of cancer clearance. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 trial (Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum; ALaCaRT) conducted between March 2010 and November 2014. Twenty-six accredited surgeons from 24 sites in Australia and New Zealand randomized 475 patients with T1-T3 rectal adenocarcinoma less than 15 cm from the anal verge. INTERVENTIONS: Open laparotomy and rectal resection (n = 237) or laparoscopic rectal resection (n = 238). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was a composite of oncological factors indicating an adequate surgical resection, with a noninferiority boundary of Δ = -8%. Successful resection was defined as meeting all the following criteria: (1) complete total mesorectal excision, (2) a clear circumferential margin (≥1 mm), and (3) a clear distal resection margin (≥1 mm). Pathologists used standardized reporting and were blinded to the method of surgery. RESULTS: A successful resection was achieved in 194 patients (82%) in the laparoscopic surgery group and 208 patients (89%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of -7.0% [95% CI, -12.4% to ∞]; P = .38 for noninferiority). The circumferential resection margin was clear in 222 patients (93%) in the laparoscopic surgery group and in 228 patients (97%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of -3.7% [95% CI, -7.6% to 0.1%]; P = .06), the distal margin was clear in 236 patients (99%) in the laparoscopic surgery group and in 234 patients (99%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of -0.4% [95% CI, -1.8% to 1.0%]; P = .67), and total mesorectal excision was complete in 206 patients (87%) in the laparoscopic surgery group and 216 patients (92%) in the open surgery group (risk difference of -5.4% [95% CI, -10.9% to 0.2%]; P = .06). The conversion rate from laparoscopic to open surgery was 9%. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with T1-T3 rectal tumors, noninferiority of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for successful resection was not established. Although the overall quality of surgery was high, these findings do not provide sufficient evidence for the routine use of laparoscopic surgery. Longer follow-up of recurrence and survival is currently being acquired. TRIAL REGISTRATION: anzctr.org Identifier: ACTRN12609000663257.

Biomarkers in stable coronary heart disease, their modulation and cardiovascular risk: The LIPID biomarker study.

AIMS: In patients with stable coronary heart disease (CHD), we aimed to assess 1. the prognostic power of biomarkers reflecting haemodynamics, micronecrosis, inflammation, coagulation, lipids, neurohumoral activity, and renal function; 2. whether changes in concentrations of these biomarkers over 12 months affected subsequent CHD risk; and 3. whether pravastatin modified the change in biomarker concentrations and this influenced the risk of future events. METHODS: In the LIPID study, 9014 patients were randomised to pravastatin 40 mg or placebo 3-36 months after an acute coronary syndrome. Eight biomarkers were measured at baseline (n=7863) and 12 months later (n=6434). RESULTS: During a median of 6.0 (IQR 5.5-6.5) years follow-up, 1100 CHD-related deaths and nonfatal myocardial infarctions occurred, 694 after biomarker measurement at 12 months. Baseline BNP, CRP, cystatin C, D-dimer, midregional pro-adrenomedullin, and sensitive troponin I predicted recurrent CHD events. In a multivariable model, sensitive troponin I, BNP, and cystatin C had the strongest associations with outcome (P<0.001 for trend). The strongest improvement in risk prediction was achieved by including sensitive troponin I (net reclassification improvement (NRI) 5.5%; P=0.003), BNP (4.3%; P=0.02), history of MI (NRI 7.0%; P<0.001). In landmark analyses, among biomarkers, changes to 12 months in sensitive troponin I (HR 1.32 (1.03-1.70) for T3/T1), BNP (HR 1.37 (1.10-1.69) for Q4/Q1) and Lp-PLA2 (HR 1.52 (1.16-1.97)) improved CHD risk prediction. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline levels and changes in sensitive troponin I, and BNP may have the potential to guide the intensity of secondary prevention therapy.