The impact of feedback training on prediction of cancer clinical trial results.

INTRODUCTION: Funders must make difficult decisions about which squared treatments to prioritize for randomized trials. Earlier research suggests that experts have no ability to predict which treatments will vindicate their promise. We tested whether a brief training module could improve experts' trial predictions. METHODS: We randomized a sample of breast cancer and hematology-oncology experts to the presence or absence of a feedback training module where experts predicted outcomes for five recently completed randomized controlled trials and received feedback on accuracy. Experts then predicted primary outcome attainment for a sample of ongoing randomized controlled trials. Prediction skill was assessed by Brier scores, which measure the average deviation between their predictions and actual outcomes. Secondary outcomes were discrimination (ability to distinguish between positive and non-positive trials) and calibration (higher predictions reflecting higher probability of trials being positive). RESULTS: A total of 148 experts (46 for breast cancer, 54 for leukemia, and 48 for lymphoma) were randomized between May and December 2017 and included in the analysis (1217 forecasts for 25 trials). Feedback did not improve prediction skill (mean Brier score for control: 0.22, 95% confidence interval = 0.20-0.24 vs feedback arm: 0.21, 95% confidence interval = 0.20-0.23; p = 0.51). Control and feedback arms showed similar discrimination (area under the curve = 0.70 vs 0.73, p = 0.24) and calibration (calibration index = 0.01 vs 0.01, p = 0.81). However, experts in both arms offered predictions that were significantly more accurate than uninformative forecasts of 50% (Brier score = 0.25). DISCUSSION: A short training module did not improve predictions for cancer trial results. However, expert communities showed unexpected ability to anticipate positive trials.Pre-registration record: https://aspredicted.org/4ka6r.pdf.

Design of placebo-controlled randomized trials of anticancer agents: Ethical considerations based on a review of published trials.

BACKGROUND: Limited information exists about the design of placebo-controlled cancer trials. Through a systematic review of trials published in 2013, we describe placebo use in randomized trials testing anticancer agents and analyze strategies that increase exposure to the experimental regimen. METHODS: Trials were classified as add-on (placebo in combination with standard treatment) or placebo-only. Strategies to allow more than half of the participants to receive the experimental regimen were reviewed. The risk-benefit ratio of receiving the experimental agent was considered favorable if the difference in primary outcome was significant (p ≤ 0.05), neutral if there was no significant difference in the primary outcome and the experimental agent did not add substantial toxicity, and unfavorable otherwise. RESULTS: Eighty trials were included (32,694 participants). Most trials were add-on (69%). The risk-benefit outcome was favorable, neutral, and unfavorable to the experimental agent in 52%, 32%, and 16% of placebo-only trials and 25%, 53%, and 22%, respectively, of add-on trials. Four strategies increased exposure to the experimental regimen: one-way crossover (23%), uneven randomization (21%), three-arms (13%), and randomized discontinuation design (4%); these strategies were used more often in placebo-only trials. CONCLUSION: A minority of participants received placebo alone and strategies to increase experimental exposure were used commonly. Fewer than half of the studies had favorable outcomes, thus defending the use of placebo controls, when there is no established treatment. Strategies that increase patient exposure to experimental agents rather than placebo may expose them to non-beneficial, sometimes toxic, experimental agents.

Patient Participation in Clinical Trials of Oncology Drugs and Biologics Preceding Approval by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Importance: Several studies have estimated the financial inputs for successful drug development. Such analyses do not capture the large investment that patient study participants commit to drug development. Objective: To estimate the volume of patients required to achieve a first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for a new anticancer drug or biologic therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included a random sample of prelicense oncology drugs and biologics with a trial site in the United States that were launched into clinical efficacy testing between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2010. Drugs and biologics were identified using ClinicalTrials.gov registration records. Total patient enrollment was captured over an 8-year span, and each intervention was classified based on whether it received FDA approval and was deemed as having intermediate or substantial value according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) score. Secondarily, the association between patient numbers and intervention characteristics was tested. Data were analyzed in February 2020. Main Outcomes and Measure: The prespecified primary outcome was the number of patients enrolled in prelicense trials per FDA approval. Results: A total of 120 drugs and biologics were included in our study, with 84 (70.0%) targeted agents, 20 (16.7%) immunotherapies, and 71 (59.2%) novel agents. A total of 13 drugs and biologics (10.8%; 95% CI, 5.3%-16.8%) in our sample gained FDA approval within 8 years, of which 1 (7.7%) was deemed of intermediate value and 3 (23.1%) were deemed of substantial value using ASCO-VF scoring. Overall, 158 810 patients were enrolled in 1335 trials testing these drugs and biologics, 47 913 (30.2%) in trials that led to FDA approval and 110 897 (69.8%) in trials that did not. An estimated 12 217 (95% CI, 7970-22 215) patient study participants contributed to prelicense trials per FDA approval. The estimated number of patients needed to produce a single FDA-approved drug or biologic of intermediate or substantial ASCO-VF clinical value was 39 703 (95% CI, 19 391-177 991). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study make visible the substantial patient investment required for prelicense oncology drug development. Such analyses can be used to devise policies that maximize the clinical impact of research on a per-patient basis.

Patient burden and clinical advances associated with postapproval monotherapy cancer drug trials: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: After regulatory approval, drug companies, public funding agencies and academic researchers often pursue trials aimed at extending the uses of a new drug by testing it in new non-approved indications. Patient burden and clinical impact of such research are not well understood. DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of postapproval clinical trials launched within 5 years after the drug's first approval, testing anticancer drugs in monotherapy in indications that were first pursued after a drug's first Food and Drug Administration (FDA) license, for all 12 anticancer drugs approved between 2005 and 2007. FDA, Medline and Embase search date 2019 February 12. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Our primary objective was to measure burden and clinical impact for patients enrolling in these trials. Each trial was sorted into a 'trajectory' defined by the drug and cancer indication. The risk was operationalised by proportions of grade 3-4 severe adverse events and deaths. The clinical impact was measured by estimating the proportion of patients participating in trajectories that resulted in FDA approval, uptake into National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical practice guidelines or advancement to randomised controlled trials within 8 years. RESULTS: Our search captured 104 published trials exploring monotherapy, including 69 unique trajectories. In total, trials in our sample enrolled 4699 patients. Grade 3-4 adverse events were experienced by 19.6% of patients; grade 5 events were experienced by 2.8% of patients. None of the trajectories launched after initial drug approval received FDA approval. Five trajectories were recommended by the NCCN within 8 years of the first trial within that trajectory. Eleven trajectories were advanced to randomised controlled testing. CONCLUSIONS: The challenges associated with unlocking new applications for drugs that first received approval from 2005 to 2007 were similar to those for developing new drugs altogether. Our findings can help inform priority setting in research and provide a basis for calibrating expectations when considering enrolment in label-extending trials.

Comparison between protocols and publications for prognostic and predictive cancer biomarker studies.

BACKGROUND: Method prespecification in study protocols is important for controlling bias in reports. The primary goal of this study was to assess potential for discordance between study protocols and publications reporting predictive or prognostic cancer biomarker research. Secondary objectives included comparing characteristics of publications with accessible protocols compared to those without. METHODS: Publications reporting predictive or prognostic cancer biomarker research were identified from 15 major journals, 2012-2015. Protocols were sought online or through repeated queries of corresponding authors. The following four items were extracted: (1) biomarkers, (2) biospecimen/assays, (3) sample size, (4) endpoints. We defined "explicit discordance" as the presence of major inconsistencies on these items. RESULTS: Of 149 eligible publications, we obtained 19 eligible protocols online (13%). Out of a random sample of 103 publications where protocols were not available online, 12 protocols (12%) were furnished by corresponding authors; 8 (8% of authors) explicitly stated the absence of a protocol. Among 24 retrospective cohort studies, no protocol could be accessed. We found explicit discordance between publications and protocols for 18 studies (58%), in particular choice of biomarkers (36%), biospecimen/assays (6%), or endpoints (29%). CONCLUSION: Protocols are generally not accessible or not used for cancer biomarker studies. Publications were often explicitly discordant with protocols, particularly regarding biomarkers and endpoints. Our findings point to common unaddressed risk of bias in publications of major journals reporting the relationship between cancer biomarkers and clinical endpoints.

Benefit, burden, and impact for a cohort of post-approval cancer combination trials.

BACKGROUND: After approval, drug developers often pursue trials aimed at extending the uses of a new drug by combining it with other drugs. Little is known about the risk and benefits associated with such research. METHODS: To establish a historic benchmark of risk and benefit, we searched Medline and Embase for clinical trials testing anti-cancer drugs in combination within 5 years of approval by the Food and Drug Administration of 12 anti-cancer "index" drugs first licensed 2005-2007 inclusive. Risk was assessed based on grade 3 or above drug-related adverse events; benefit was assessed based on efficacy outcomes and advancement of combinations into clinical practice guidelines or approval by the Food and Drug Administration. RESULTS: We captured 323 published post-approval trials exploring combinations, including 266 unique combination-indication pairings and enrolling 29,835 patients. The pooled risk ratios for treatment-related grade 3-4 severe adverse events and deaths attributed to the study drugs for trials randomized between a combination arm and a comparator were 1.54 (1.33-1.79) and 1.51 (1.16-1.97), respectively. The pooled hazard ratios for overall survival and progression-free survival were 0.99 (0.92-1.05) and 0.85 (0.79-0.93), respectively. None of the combination-indication pairings launched after initial drug approval received approval by the Food and Drug Administration, and 13 pairings (4.9%) were recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network within 5 years of the first trial within that pairing. The proportion of patients in our sample who participated in trials leading to an approval by the Food and Drug Administration or a National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendation was 12.7% with 5 years of follow-up, and 22.3% among pairings for which there were 8 years of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Patients were just as likely to benefit in the treatment arm as the control arm in terms of overall survival, but they were more likely to experience a treatment-related severe adverse event in post-approval trials of combination therapy.

Phase I study of axitinib and everolimus in metastatic solid tumours and extension to metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results of EVAX study.

PURPOSE: Anti-angiogenic and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors have shown efficacy in solid tumours. Reported combination of both drugs was deemed to be too toxic. Due to a potential favourable safety profile of axitinib (AX), a phase I study combining everolimus (EV) and AX for solid tumours was explored. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients (pts) with advanced cancers were enrolled in an escalation phase I study to investigate the safety of the combination. Pharmacokinetic profile and functional vascular imaging were performed. An extension to pts with naive metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC) was explored. RESULTS: 15 pts were included over three different dose levels (DLs); DL 0: AX 3 mg BID (twice daily)/EV 5 mg OD (once daily); DL 1: AX 5 mg BID/EV 5 mg OD and DL 2: AX 5 mg BID/EV 10 mg OD for 28 d. One dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was reported at DL 0: grade (Gr) III diarrhoea and one DLT at DL 2: Gr III asthenia. Three severe adverse events (AEs) in two pts were unexpected: jaw osteonecrosis, recurrent renal failure and cardiomyopathy. Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was level 2. After 1st cycle, Gr III or Gr II AEs of interest were mainly asthenia, diarrhoea and anorexia. All pts but one showed tumour shrinkage. Partial responses (PRs) were seen in one pt with bladder carcinoma and in one pt in 1st line MRCC in the escalating phase. In the extension phase in naive MRCC treated at MTD, five pts had a PR and one pt had a prolonged stable disease. CONCLUSION: The recommended dose for phase II is AX 5 mg BID/EV 10 mg OD.

Organ preservation for rectal cancer (GRECCAR 2): a prospective, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Organ preservation is a concept proposed for patients with rectal cancer after a good clinical response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, to potentially avoid morbidity and side-effects of rectal excision. The objective of this study was to compare local excision and total mesorectal excision in patients with a good response after chemoradiotherapy for lower rectal cancer. METHODS: We did a prospective, randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial at 15 tertiary centres in France that were experts in the treatment of rectal cancer. Patients aged 18 years and older with stage T2T3 lower rectal carcinoma, of maximum size 4 cm, who had a good clinical response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (residual tumour ≤2 cm) were centrally randomly assigned by the surgeon before surgery to either local excision or total mesorectal excision surgery. Randomisation, which was done via the internet, was not stratified and used permuted blocks of size eight. In the local excision group, a completion total mesorectal excision was required if tumour stage was ypT2-3. The primary endpoint was a composite outcome of death, recurrence, morbidity, and side-effects at 2 years after surgery, to show superiority of local excision over total mesorectal excision in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population (expected proportions of patients having at least one event were 25% vs 60% for superiority). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00427375. FINDINGS: From March 1, 2007, to Sept 24, 2012, 186 patients received chemoradiotherapy and were enrolled in the study. 148 good clinical responders were randomly assigned to treatment, three were excluded (because they had metastatic disease, tumour >8 cm from anal verge, and withdrew consent), and 145 were analysed: 74 in the local excision group and 71 in the total mesorectal excision group. In the local excision group, 26 patients had a completion total mesorectal excision. At 2 years in the modified ITT population, one or more events from the composite primary outcome occurred in 41 (56%) of 73 patients in the local excision group and 33 (48%) of 69 in the total mesorectal excision group (odds ratio 1·33, 95% CI 0·62-2·86; p=0·43). In the modified ITT analysis, there was no difference between the groups in all components of the composite outcome, and superiority was not shown for local excision over total mesorectal excision. INTERPRETATION: We failed to show superiority of local excision over total mesorectal excision, because many patients in the local excision group received a completion total mesorectal excision that probably increased morbidity and side-effects, and compromised the potential advantages of local excision. Better patient selection to avoid unnecessary completion total mesorectal excision could improve the strategy. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute of France, Sanofi, Roche Pharma.

A multicenter phase II study of sunitinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic differentiated, anaplastic or medullary thyroid carcinomas: mature data from the THYSU study.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced radioactive iodine resistant differentiated (MDTC) or medullary (MMTC) thyroid cancer had an unmet need. Early data showed promising efficacy of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitors. We investigated sunitinib in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase 2 trial enrolled MDTC, anaplastic (MATC) and MMTC patients in 1st line anti-angiogenic therapy with sunitinib at 50 mg/d, 4/6w. Objective response rate was the primary end-point. Secondary end-points were progression-free survival, overall survival and safety. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients were enrolled from August 2007 to October 2009, 41 MDTC/4 MATC patients and 26 MMTC patients. Patients received a median of 8 and 9 cycles, respectively. In the MDTC/MATC group, 13% of patients and 43% of cycles and in the MMTC group, 23% of the patients and 48.8% of cycles remained at 50 mg/d, respectively. The primary end-point was reached with an objective response rate of 22% (95% CI: 10.6-37.6) in MDTC patients and in 38.5% (95% CI: 22.6-56.4) in MMTC patients. No objective response was seen in MATC patients. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 13.1 and 26.4 months in MDTC patients, 16.5 and 29.4 months in MMTC patients. The most frequent side effects were asthenia/fatigue (27.8% ≥ grade 3), mucosal (9.9% ≥ grade 3), cutaneous toxicities, hand-foot syndrome (18.3% ≥ grade 3). Of all, 14.1% had a cardiac event. Nine unexpected side effects were reported, out of which, five induced deaths. CONCLUSION: Sunitinib is active in MDTC and MMTC patients. Side effects were more severe than with previous reports. If using sunitinib, alternative schedule/dosage should be considered.

One-Year Mortality in Older Patients with Cancer: Development and External Validation of an MNA-Based Prognostic Score.

PURPOSE: The MNA (Mini Nutritional Assessment) is known as a prognosis factor in older population. We analyzed the prognostic value for one-year mortality of MNA items in older patients with cancer treated with chemotherapy as the basis of a simplified prognostic score. METHODS: The prospective derivation cohort included 606 patients older than 70 years with an indication of chemotherapy for cancers. The endpoint to predict was one-year mortality. The 18 items of the Full MNA, age, gender, weight loss, cancer origin, TNM, performance status and lymphocyte count were considered to construct the prognostic model. MNA items were analyzed with a backward step-by-step multivariate logistic regression and other items were added in a forward step-by-step regression. External validation was performed on an independent cohort of 229 patients. RESULTS: At one year 266 deaths had occurred. Decreased dietary intake (p = 0.0002), decreased protein-rich food intake (p = 0.025), 3 or more prescribed drugs (p = 0.023), calf circumference <31 cm (p = 0.0002), tumor origin (p<0.0001), metastatic status (p = 0.0007) and lymphocyte count <1500/mm3 (0.029) were found to be associated with 1-year mortality in the final model and were used to construct a prognostic score. The area under curve (AUC) of the score was 0.793, which was higher than the Full MNA AUC (0.706). The AUC of the score in validation cohort (229 subjects, 137 deaths) was 0.698. CONCLUSION: Key predictors of one-year mortality included cancer cachexia clinical features, comorbidities, the origin and the advanced status of the tumor. The prognostic value of this model combining a subset of MNA items and cancer related items was better than the full MNA, thus providing a simple score to predict 1-year mortality in older patients with an indication of chemotherapy.

Innovations for phase I dose-finding designs in pediatric oncology clinical trials.

Phase I oncology clinical trials are designed to identify the optimal dose that will be recommended for phase II trials. In pediatric oncology, the conduct of those trials raises specific challenges, as the disease is rare with limited therapeutic options. In addition, the tolerance profile is known from adult trials. This paper provides a review of the major recent developments in the design of these trials, inspired by the need to cope with the specific challenges of dose finding in cancer pediatric oncology. We reviewed simulation studies comparing designs dedicated to address these challenges. We also reviewed the design used in published dose-finding trials in pediatric oncology over the period 2009-2014. Three main fields of innovation were identified. First, designs that were developed in order to relax the rules for more flexible inclusions. Second, methods to incorporate data emerging from adult studies. Third, designs accounting for toxicity evaluation at repeated cycles in pediatric oncology. In addition to this overview, we propose some further directions for designing pediatric dose-finding trials.

Dose finding with longitudinal data: simpler models, richer outcomes.

Phase I oncology clinical trials are designed to identify the optimal dose that will be recommended for phase II trials. This dose is typically defined as the dose associated with a certain probability of severe toxicity at cycle 1, although toxicity is repeatedly measured over cycles on an ordinal scale. Recently, a proportional odds mixed-effect model for ordinal outcomes has been proposed to (i) identify the optimal dose accounting for repeated events and (ii) to provide some framework to explore time trend. We compare this approach to a method based on repeated binary variables and to a method based on an under-parameterized model of the dose-time toxicity relationship. We show that repeated binary and ordinal outcomes both improve the accuracy of dose-finding trials in the same proportion; ordinal outcomes are, however, superior to detect time trend even in the presence of nonproportional odds models. Moreover, less parameterized models led to the best operating characteristics. These approaches are illustrated on two dose-finding phase I trials. Integration of repeated measurements is appealing in phase I dose-finding trials.

Diagnostic and prognostic value of BCL2 rearrangement in 53 patients with follicular lymphoma presenting as primary skin lesions.

OBJECTIVES: To study the diagnostic value of BCL2 rearrangement in follicle center lymphoma (FCL) presenting as primary skin lesions, evaluate its prevalence and the prognostic value in primary cutaneous FCL (PCFCL), and assess prognostic factors in PCFCL. METHODS: Fifty-three patients with a cutaneous presentation of FCL without a history of nodal lymphoma were selected retrospectively. Clinical and histologic data were collected together with staging and follow-up data. A fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) test for BCL2 split probes was performed on skin biopsy specimens. RESULTS: Initial staging procedures identified 47 PCFCLs and six cases of secondary skin involvement of FCL (SSIFCL). FISH detected seven cases carrying a BCL2 rearrangement: four (8.5%) of 47 PCFCLs and three (50%) of six SSIFCLs. These seven cases coexpressed BCL2 and CD10. In PCFCL, cutaneous relapse rate was 42.6%. A small/medium centrocytic cell population was associated with a higher probability of skin relapse in univariate (P = .008) and multivariate (P = .028) analysis, and BCL2 rearrangement detection was associated with secondary extracutaneous spreading (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: We observed that BCL2 rearrangement in PCFCL is rare, associated with initial positivity of staging (diagnostic value) or with secondary extracutaneous spreading (prognostic value). In selected cases with BCL2-CD10 coexpression, FISH testing could detect patients with poor outcome and require closer monitoring.

Nutritional advice in older patients at risk of malnutrition during treatment for chemotherapy: a two-year randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: We tested the effect of dietary advice dedicated to increase intake in older patients at risk for malnutrition during chemotherapy, versus usual care, on one-year mortality. METHOD: We conducted a multicentre, open-label interventional, stratified (centre), parallel randomised controlled trial, with a 1∶1 ratio, with two-year follow-up. Patients were aged 70 years or older treated with chemotherapy for solid tumour and at risk of malnutrition (MNA, Mini Nutritional Assessment 17-23.5). Intervention consisted of diet counselling with the aim of achieving an energy intake of 30 kCal/kg body weight/d and 1.2 g protein/kg/d, by face-to-face discussion targeting the main nutritional symptoms, compared to usual care. Interviews were performed 6 times during the chemotherapy sessions for 3 to 6 months. The primary endpoint was 1-year mortality and secondary endpoints were 2-year mortality, toxicities and chemotherapy outcomes. RESULTS: Between April 2007 and March 2010 we randomised 341 patients and 336 were analysed: mean (standard deviation) age of 78.0 y (4·9), 51.2% male, mean MNA 20.2 (2.1). Distribution of cancer types was similar in the two groups; the most frequent were colon (22.4%), lymphoma (14.9%), lung (10.4%), and pancreas (17.0%). Both groups increased their dietary intake, but to a larger extent with intervention (p<0.01). At the second visit, the energy target was achieved in 57 (40.4%) patients and the protein target in 66 (46.8%) with the intervention compared respectively to 13 (13.5%) and 20 (20.8%) in the controls. Death occurred during the first year in 143 patients (42.56%), without difference according to the intervention (p = 0.79). No difference in nutritional status changes was found. Response to chemotherapy was also similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: Early dietary counselling was efficient in increasing intake but had no beneficial effect on mortality or secondary outcomes. Cancer cachexia antianabolism may explain this lack of effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00459589.

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in early recurrent ovarian carcinoma: phase I dose-finding study.

PURPOSE: This single-arm phase I dose-escalation study determines the optimal dose of the non-platinum treatment pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) plus cyclophosphamide (CPM) every 4 weeks in early recurrent ovarian carcinoma. METHODS: Twenty-one women with ovarian carcinoma relapsing within 12 months of first-line surgery and platinum-taxane chemotherapy received escalating doses of PLD (35-45 mg/m(2)) and CPM (500-600 mg/m(2)) every 4 weeks for at least two cycles. Primary objective was assessment of maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) over the first two cycles. Secondary objectives were to assess safety over 2 cycles, efficacy evaluated every two cycles (response evaluation criteria in solid tumours criteria) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The PLD-CPM MTD was 40/600 mg/m(2) with 2/3 patients treated at 45/500 mg/m(2), showing DLTs with Grade 3/4 oesophagitis, thrombopenia/neutropenia, leucopoenia, and Grade 3 stomatitis/asthenia during the first cycle of treatment. Four severe toxicities were reported by three patients during the two first cycles, namely Grade 4 anaemia, and Grade 3 stomatitis. The most common treatment-related toxicities were anaemia (71.4 %), nausea (61.9 %), neutropenia (57.1 %), asthenia (52.4 %), leucopoenia (47.6 %), stomatitis (42.9 %), skin (28.6 %) and palmar-plantar-erythrodysesthesia (19 %). No treatment-related deaths were reported. The overall response rate (complete and partial) was 31 %, and median OS was 8.2 months [95 % CI (3.3-13.2)]. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of PLD and CPM is feasible and may be considered particularly in cases where platinum-based treatment is not suitable. The recommended doses for a phase II trial are PLD 40 mg/m(2) plus CPM 600 mg/m(2) every 4 weeks.

Fresh-frozen plasma transfusion did not reduce 30-day mortality in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass cardiac surgery with excessive bleeding: the PLASMACARD multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: During on-pump cardiac surgery, hemorrhagic complications occur frequently. Fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) is widely transfused to provide coagulation factors. Yet, no randomized clinical trial has demonstrated its benefits on mortality. We assessed the relationship between therapeutic transfusion of FFP and 30-day mortality in cardiac surgery patients suffering from excessive bleeding in a prospective cohort study. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Adult patients who underwent on-pump cardiac surgery and experienced excessive bleeding during the 48-hour perioperative period were recruited from 15 French centers between February 2004 and January 2006. Patients who received a preventive FFP transfusion were excluded. The association between FFP transfusion and all cause 30-day mortality was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model, adjusted for confounding. A propensity score (PS) sensitivity analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Among 967 patients included in this study, 58.1% received FFP. The median dose was 11.3 mL/kg (interquartile range, 7.6-19.5). The cumulative 30-day mortality rate was 11.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.5-13.5). FFP transfusion was associated with a higher 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 3.2; 95% CI, 1.7-6.1) in univariate analysis; however, after adjusting for prognostic factors, there was no longer any association (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.8-3.0, p = 0.20). The results of the PS analysis were consistent with the adjusted analysis. CONCLUSION: Among on-pump cardiac surgery patients experiencing excessive perioperative bleeding, there is no evidence of a beneficial impact of FFP transfusion on mortality.

Dose-finding design using mixed-effect proportional odds model for longitudinal graded toxicity data in phase I oncology clinical trials.

Phase I oncology clinical trials are designed to identify the optimal dose that will be recommended for phase II trials. This dose is typically defined as the dose associated with a certain probability of severe toxicity during the first cycle of treatment, although toxicity is repeatedly measured over cycles on an ordinal scale. We propose a new adaptive dose-finding design using longitudinal measurements of ordinal toxic adverse events, with proportional odds mixed-effect models. Likelihood-based inference is implemented. The optimal dose is then the dose producing a target rate of severe toxicity per cycle. This model can also be used to identify cumulative or late toxicities. The performances of this approach were compared with those of the continual reassessment method in a simulation study. Operating characteristics were evaluated in terms of correct identification of the target dose, distribution of the doses allocated and power to detect trends in the risk of toxicities over time. This approach was also used to reanalyse data from a phase I oncology trial. Use of a proportional odds mixed-effect model appears to be feasible in phase I dose-finding trials, increases the ability of selecting the correct dose and provides a tool to detect cumulative effects.

Protocol of the Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event Endpoints in CANcer trials (DATECAN) project: formal consensus method for the development of guidelines for standardised time-to-event endpoints' definitions in cancer clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: In randomised phase III cancer clinical trials, the most objectively defined and only validated time-to-event endpoint is overall survival (OS). The appearance of new types of treatments and the multiplication of lines of treatment have resulted in the use of surrogate endpoints for overall survival such as progression-free survival (PFS), or time-to-treatment failure. Their development is strongly influenced by the necessity of reducing clinical trial duration, cost and number of patients. However, while these endpoints are frequently used, they are often poorly defined and definitions can differ between trials which may limit their use as primary endpoints. Moreover, this variability of definitions can impact on the trial's results by affecting estimation of treatments' effects. The aim of the Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event Endpoints in CANcer trials (DATECAN) project is to provide recommendations for standardised definitions of time-to-event endpoints in randomised cancer clinical trials. METHODS: We will use a formal consensus methodology based on experts' opinions which will be obtained in a systematic manner. RESULTS: Definitions will be independently developed for several cancer sites, including pancreatic, breast, head and neck and colon cancer, as well as sarcomas and gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs). DISCUSSION: The DATECAN project should lead to the elaboration of recommendations that can then be used as guidelines by researchers participating in clinical trials. This process should lead to a standardisation of the definitions of commonly used time-to-event endpoints, enabling appropriate comparisons of future trials' results.