Using the AR-V7 biomarker to determine treatment in metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer, a feasibility randomised control trial, conclusions from the VARIANT trial [version 2; peer review: 2 approved].

Background: Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in the UK. Castrate resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) can be difficult to manage with response to next generation hormonal treatment variable. AR-V7 is a protein biomarker that can be used to predict response to treatment and potentially better inform management in these patients. Our aim was to establish the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical utility of AR-V7 biomarker assay in personalising treatments for patients with metastatic CRPC within the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS).  Due to a number of issues the trial was not completed successfully, we aim to discuss and share lessons learned herein. Methods: We conducted a randomised, open, feasibility trial, which aimed to recruit 70 adult men with metastatic CRPC within three secondary care NHS trusts in the UK to be run over an 18-month period. Participants were randomised to personalised treatment based on AR-V7 status (intervention) or standard care (control). The primary outcome was feasibility, which included: recruitment rate, retention and compliance. Additionally, a baseline prevalence of AR-V7 expression was to be estimated. Results: Fourteen participants were screened and 12 randomised with six into each arm over a nine-month period. Reliability issues with the AR-V7 assay meant prevalence was not estimated. Due to limited recruitment the study did not complete to target. Conclusions: Whilst the trial did not complete to target, we have ascertained that men with advanced cancer are willing to take part in trials utilising biomarker guided treatment. A number of issues were identified that serve as important learning points in future clinical trials.

Photobiomodulation in the management of oral mucositis for adult head and neck cancer patients receiving irradiation: the LiTEFORM RCT.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis is a debilitating and painful complication of head and neck cancer irradiation that is characterised by inflammation of the mucous membranes, erythema and ulceration. Oral mucositis affects 6000 head and neck cancer patients per year in England and Wales. Current treatments have not proven to be effective. International studies suggest that low-level laser therapy may be an effective treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of low-level laser therapy in the management of oral mucositis in head and neck cancer irradiation. To identify barriers to and facilitators of implementing low-level laser therapy in routine care. DESIGN: Placebo-controlled, individually randomised, multicentre Phase III superiority trial, with an internal pilot and health economic and qualitative process evaluations. The participants, outcome assessors and therapists were blinded. SETTING: Nine NHS head and neck cancer sites in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 87 out of 380 participants were recruited who were aged ≥ 18 years and were undergoing head and neck cancer irradiation with ≥ 60 Gy. INTERVENTION: Random allocation (1 : 1 ratio) to either low-level laser therapy or sham low-level laser therapy three times per week for the duration of irradiation. The diode laser had the following specifications: wavelength 660 nm, power output 75 mW, beam area 1.5 cm2, irradiance 50 mW/cm2, exposure time 60 seconds and fluence 3 J/cm2. There were 20-30 spots per session. Sham low-level laser therapy was delivered in an identical manner. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks following the start of irradiation. Higher scores indicate a worse outcome. RESULTS: A total of 231 patients were screened and, of these, 87 were randomised (low-level laser therapy arm, n = 44; sham arm, n = 43). The mean age was 59.4 years (standard deviation 8.8 years) and 69 participants (79%) were male. The mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks was 33.2 (standard deviation 10) in the low-level laser therapy arm and 27.4 (standard deviation 13.8) in the sham arm. LIMITATIONS: The trial lacked statistical power because it did not meet the recruitment target. Staff and patients willingly participated in the trial and worked hard to make the LiTEFORM trial succeed. However, the task of introducing, embedding and sustaining new low-level laser therapy services into a complex care pathway proved challenging. Sites could deliver low-level laser therapy to only a small number of patients at a time. The administration of low-level laser therapy was viewed as straightforward, but also time-consuming and sometimes uncomfortable for both patients and staff, particularly those staff who were not used to working in a patient's mouth. CONCLUSIONS: This trial had a robust design but lacked power to be definitive. Low-level laser therapy is relatively inexpensive. In contrast with previous trials, some patients found low-level laser therapy sessions to be difficult. The duration of low-level laser therapy sessions is, therefore, an important consideration. Clinicians experienced in oral cavity work most readily adapt to delivering low-level laser therapy, although other allied health professionals can be trained. Blinding the clinicians delivering low-level laser therapy is feasible. There are important human resource, real estate and logistical considerations for those setting up low-level laser therapy services. FUTURE WORK: Further well-designed randomised controlled trials investigating low-level laser therapy in head and neck cancer irradiation are needed, with similar powered recruitment targets but addressing the recruitment challenges and logistical findings from this research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14224600. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Around 9 out of 10 head and neck cancer patients undergoing treatment experience pain, swelling and sores in their mouth (oral mucositis). This can lead to weight loss, painful ulcers, difficulty talking, eating and drinking, and even hospitalisation. Current care includes helping patients to keep their mouth and teeth clean, encouraging them to have a healthy diet and prescribing mouthwashes, painkillers and mouth-coating gels. However, these treatments give limited help in preventing or treating this condition. The LiTEFORM trial looked at whether or not low-level laser therapy could be used to prevent and treat oral mucositis. Patients were allocated to one of two arms at random: active laser or fake (sham) laser. Neither the patients nor the hospital staff knew which laser was being used. Eighty-seven people joined the study during the time allowed (44 received low-level laser therapy and 43 received sham treatment); however, this was a smaller number than the planned target of 380 people. As a result, no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from the results about whether the therapy is beneficial or cost-effective. People receiving the low-level laser therapy reported slightly more soreness in their mouth than those receiving the sham laser, but this could be down to chance. The number of participants is too small to draw conclusions about whether or not the low-level laser is helpful. Some patients found the laser treatment sessions to be difficult. Setting up a new service delivering laser therapy at the same time as cancer treatments was more complicated than originally anticipated. Problems included the scheduling of appointments, finding suitable rooms and having enough trained staff with time to deliver laser therapy. However, this study has provided us with knowledge on how best to set up a laser therapy service in the NHS as part of the cancer treatment pathway and the costs involved. These findings could help future studies looking into low-level laser therapy for those with head and neck cancer.

Prostate cancer androgen receptor splice variant 7 biomarker study - a multicentre randomised feasibility trial of biomarker-guided personalised treatment in patients with advanced prostate cancer (the VARIANT trial) study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer is the most common male cancer with one in four developing non-curable metastatic disease. Initial treatment responses to hormonal therapies are transient and further management options lie between (1) further hormone therapy or (2) a non-hormonal approach involving additional chemotherapy or molecular radiotherapy (radium-223). There is no clear rationale for choosing between these mechanistically different treatment approaches. The biology of hormone resistance is driven through abnormal androgen receptor activity and we can assay this through a blood test measuring androgen receptor variant 7 (AR-V7) expression in circulating tumour cells. Despite increasing evidence supporting AR-V7's role as a prognostic marker, the clinical utility of such measures remains unknown in helping personalise treatment decisions. METHODS AND DESIGN: The VARIANT feasibility trial is a pragmatic design, to be run over 18 months with participants randomised into the intervention arm receiving biomarker (AR-V7) guided clinical treatment and participants randomised into the control arm with conventional standard management (no biomarker guidance). AR-V7 positive participants (likely to be insensitive to further hormone treatment) will receive chemotherapy or in other cases radium-223 (where routinely available). Seventy male ≥18 years old participants with metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer clinically indicated to proceed to further hormone therapy or chemotherapy, will be recruited from three National Health Service Trusts based in England, Scotland and Wales. The feasibility primary outcome is willingness of patients to be randomised and clinicians to recruit to a biomarker-based treatment strategy, with trial data informing the basis of a definitive and appropriately powered randomised control trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethics review was undertaken with a favourable opinion, through Wales NRES Committee 2 18/WA/0419. Findings to be disseminated through patient and professional organisations that have expressed their support, media outlets and peer-reviewed journal publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10246848; pre-results.

The Changing Landscape of HIV Prevention in the United States: Health Department Experiences and Local Adaptations in Response to the National HIV/AIDS Strategy and High-Impact Prevention Approach.

OBJECTIVE: HIV prevention has changed substantially in recent years due to changes in national priorities, biomedical advances, and health care reform. Starting in 2010, motivated by the National HIV/AIDS Strategy (NHAS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) High-Impact Prevention (HIP), health departments realigned resources so that cost-effective, evidence-based interventions were targeted to groups at risk in areas most affected by HIV. This analysis describes how health departments in diverse settings were affected by NHAS and HIP. METHODS: We conducted interviews and a consultation with health departments from 16 jurisdictions and interviewed CDC project officers who monitored programs in 5 of the jurisdictions. Participants were asked to describe changes since NHAS and HIP and how they adapted. We used inductive qualitative analysis to identify themes of change. RESULTS: Health departments improved their HIV prevention practices in different ways. They aligned jurisdictional plans with NHAS and HIP goals, increased local data use to monitor program performance, streamlined services, and strengthened partnerships to increase service delivery to persons at highest risk for infection/transmission. They shifted efforts to focus more on the needs of people with diagnosed HIV infection, increased HIV testing and routine HIV screening in clinical settings, raised provider and community awareness about preexposure prophylaxis, and used nontraditional strategies to successfully engage out-of-care people with diagnosed HIV infection. However, staff-, provider-, and data-related barriers that could slow scale-up of priority programs were consistently reported by participants, potentially impeding the ability to meet national goals. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest progress toward NHAS and HIP goals has been made in some jurisdictions but highlight the need to monitor prevention programs in different contexts to identify areas for improvement and increase the likelihood of national success. Health departments and federal funders alike can benefit from the routine sharing of successes and challenges associated with local policy implementation, considering effects on the overall portfolio of programs.

NIH support of Centers for AIDS Research and Department of Health Collaborative Public Health Research: advancing CDC's Enhanced Comprehensive HIV Prevention Planning project.

The contributions reported in this supplemental issue highlight the relevance of NIH-funded CEWG research to health department­supported HIV prevention and care activities in the 9 US cities with the highest numbers of AIDS cases. The project findings have the potential to enhance ongoing HIV treatment and care services and to advance the wider scientific agenda. The HIV testing to care continuum, while providing a framework to help track progress on national goals, also can reflect the heterogeneities of local epidemics. The collaborative research that is highlighted in this issue not only reflects a locally driven research agenda but also demonstrates research methods, data collection tools, and collaborative processes that could be encouraged across jurisdictions. Projects such as these, capitalizing on the integrated efforts of NIH, CDC, DOH, and academic institutions, have the potential to contribute to improvements in the HIV care continuum in these communities, bringing us closer to realizing the HIV prevention and treatment goals of the NHAS.