The VALTIVE1 study protocol: a study for the validation of Tie2 as the first tumour vascular response biomarker for VEGF inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Anti-angiogenic, VEGF inhibitors (VEGFi) increase progression-free survival (PFS) and, in some cases, overall survival in many solid tumours. However, their use has been compromised by a lack of informative biomarkers. We have shown that plasma Tie2 is the first tumour vascular response biomarker for VEGFi in ovarian, colorectal and gall bladder cancer: If plasma Tie2 concentrations do not change after 9 weeks of treatment with a VEGFi, the patient does not benefit, whereas a confirmed reduction of at least 10% plasma Tie2 defines a vascular response with a hazard ratio (HR) for PFS of 0.56. The aim of the VALTIVE1 study is to validate the utility of plasma Tie2 as a vascular response biomarker and to optimise the Tie2-definition of vascular response so that the subsequent randomised discontinuation VALTIVE2 study can be powered optimally. METHODS: VALTIVE1 is a multi-centre, single arm, non-interventional biomarker study, with a sample size of 205 participants (176 bevacizumab-treated participants + 29 participants receiving bevacizumab and olaparib/PARPi), who are 16 years or older, have FIGO stage IIIc/IV ovarian cancer on treatment with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Their blood plasma samples will be collected before, during, and after treatment and the concentration of Tie2 will be determined. The primary objective is to define the PFS difference between Tie2-defined vascular responders and Tie2-defined vascular non-responders in patients receiving bevacizumab for high-risk Ovarian Cancer. Secondary objectives include defining the relationship between Tie2-defined vascular progression and disease progression assessed according to RECIST 1.1 criteria and assessing the impact of PARPi on the plasma concentration of Tie2 and, therefore, the decision-making utility of Tie2 as a vascular response biomarker for bevacizumab during combined bevacizumab-PARPi maintenance. DISCUSSION: There is an urgent need to establish a test that tells patients and their doctors when VEGFi are working and when they stop working. The data generated from this study will be used to design a second trial aiming to prove conclusively the value of the Tie2 test. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04523116. Registered on 21 Aug 2020.

Once daily cediranib and weekly paclitaxel to prevent malignant bowel obstruction in at-risk patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (CEBOC): a single-arm, phase II safety trial.

OBJECTIVE: Cytotoxic chemotherapy for ovarian cancer can be augmented by co-administration of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors but these are contraindicated in patients with bowel obstruction due to the risk of gastrointestinal perforation. We evaluated the safety and feasibility of paclitaxel plus cediranib to treat patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer at risk of malignant bowel obstruction. METHODS: A phase II trial included eligible patients between March 2018 and February 2021, identified by clinical symptoms and radiographic risk factors for malignant bowel obstruction. Cediranib (20 mg/day) was added to paclitaxel (70 mg/m2/week) within 9 weeks of starting paclitaxel if pretreatment bowel symptoms had improved. The primary endpoint was the number of patients treated for ≥5 days with cediranib that were free of grade 3-5 gastrointestinal perforation or fistula. Secondary endpoints were hospitalization for bowel obstruction, grade ≥3 adverse events, treatment compliance assessed by relative dose intensity, objective response, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Thirty patients were recruited. Of these, 12 received paclitaxel alone and 17 received paclitaxel and cediranib in combination. One patient died before starting treatment. No patient developed a grade 3-5 gastrointestinal perforation or fistula (one sided 95% confidence interval (CI) upper limit 0.16). One patient required hospitalization for bowel obstruction but recovered with conservative management. The most common cediranib-related grade ≥3 adverse events were fatigue (3/17), diarrhorea (2/17), and hypomagnesemia (2/17). Relative dose intensity for paclitaxel was 90% (interquartile range (IQR) 85-100%; n=29) and for cediranib 88% (IQR 76-93%; n=17). The objective response in patients who received paclitaxel and cediranib was 65.0% (one complete and 10 partial responses). Median progression-free survival was 6.9 months (95% CI 4.4-11.5 months; n=17) and overall survival was 19.4 months (95% CI 10.1-20.4 months; n=17). Median follow-up was 12.4 months (8.9-not reached; n=17). CONCLUSIONS: The unexpectedly high withdrawal rate during paclitaxel alone, before introducing cediranib, meant we were unable to definitely conclude that paclitaxel plus cediranib did not cause gastrointestinal perforation or fistula. The regimen was however tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT 2016-004618-93.

Olaparib maintenance versus placebo monotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (PIN): A multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

Background: Impaired double strand DNA repair by homologous repair deficiency (HRD) leads to sensitivity to poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibition. Poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors target HRD to induce synthetic lethality and are used routinely in the treatment of BRCA1 mutated ovarian cancer in the platinum-sensitive maintenance setting. A subset of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) harbour impaired DNA double strand break repair. We therefore hypothesised that patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer exhibiting partial responses to platinum doublet-based chemotherapy, might enrich for impaired HRD, rendering these tumours more sensitive to inhibition of PARP inhibition by olaparib. Methods: The Olaparib Maintenance versus Placebo Monotherapy in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer trial (PIN) was a multicentre double-blind placebo controlled randomised phase II screening trial. This study was conducted at 23 investigative hospital sites in the UK. Patients had advanced (stage IIIB/IV) squamous (Sq) or non-squamous (NSq) NSCLC, and had to be chemo-naive, European Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-1. Prior immunotherapy with a PD1 or PDL1 inhibitor was allowed. Patients could be registered for PIN prior to (stage 1), or after (stage 2) initiation of induction chemotherapy. If any tumour shrinkage was observed (any shrinkage of RECIST target lesions), following a minimum of 3 cycles of platinum doublet chemotherapy, patients were randomised 1:1 using a centralised online system, to either olaparib (300 mg twice daily by mouth in 21-day cycles) or placebo, which was continued until disease progression, or unacceptable toxicity. Intention to treat (ITT) analyses of the primary endpoint included all randomised participants. Per protocol (PP) safety analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), with a one-sided p-value of 0.2 to demonstrate statistical significance. Hazard ratios (HR) for PFS were both unadjusted and adjusted for the randomisation balancing factors (smoking status and histology). The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01788332) and EudraCT (2012-003383-51). Findings: A total of 940 patients were assessed for stage 1 eligibility of whom 263 were registered between Feb 24, 2014 and Nov 7, 2017. 194 patients were excluded prior to stage 2 (no tumour shrinkage or unevaluable) and 70 were randomised; 32 (46%) to Olaparib and 38 (54%) to placebo. 4% (3/70) of patients randomised had a CR and 96% (67/70) had a PR (or other evidence of tumour response/mixed stable) during induction therapy. A total of 36 patients were registered in stage 2 only, i.e., post induction therapy. Intention to treat (ITT) unadjusted analysis showed a PFS hazard ratio (HR) of 0.83 (one-sided 80% CI upper limit 1.03, one-sided unadjusted log rank test p-value=0.23). ITT Cox-adjusted model showed a HR 0.73 (one-sided 80% CI upper limit 0.91, one sided p-value 0.11). Adverse events were reported in 31/32 subjects (97%) in the olaparib arm and 38/38 (100%) in the placebo group. The most commonly reported adverse events in the olaparib group were fatigue (20/31; 65%), nausea (17/31; 55%), anaemia (15/31; 48%) and dyspnea (13/31; 42%). In the placebo group the most common adverse events were fatigue (25/38; 66%), coughing (22/38; 58%), dyspnea (15/38; 39%) and nausea (11/38; 29%). There were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation: PFS was longer in the olaparib arm, but this did not reach statistical significance. When the PFS HR was adjusted for smoking status and histology, a significant difference at the one-sided 0.2 level was observed, suggesting that tumour control may be achieved for chemosensitive NSCLC treated with PARP monotherapy. We speculate that this signal may be driven by a molecular subgroup harbouring HRD. Funding: This study was funded between AstraZeneca CRUK, National Cancer Research Institute, and Cancer Research UK Feasibility Study Committee.

Active symptom control with or without oral vinorelbine in patients with relapsed malignant pleural mesothelioma (VIM): A randomised, phase 2 trial.

Background: Currently, there is no US Food and Drug Administration approved therapy for patients with pleural mesothelioma who have relapsed following platinum-doublet based chemotherapy. Vinorelbine has demonstrated useful clinical activity in mesothelioma, however its efficacy has not been formally evaluated in a randomised setting. BRCA1 expression is required for vinorelbine induced apoptosis in preclinical models. Loss of expression may therefore correlate with vinorelbine resistance. Methods: In this randomised, phase 2 trial, patients were eligible if they met the following criteria: age ≥ 18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, histologically confirmed pleural mesothelioma, post platinum-based chemotherapy, and radiological evidence of disease progression. Consented patients were randomised 2:1 to either active symptom control with oral vinorelbine versus active symptom control (ASC) every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal at an initial dose of 60 mg/m2 increasing to 80 mg/m2 post-cycle 1. Randomisation was stratified by histological subtype, white cell count, gender, ECOG performance status and best response during first-line therapy. The study was open label. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), measured from randomisation to time of event (or censoring). Analyses were carried out according to intention-to-treat (ITT) principles. Recruitment and trial follow-up are complete. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02139904. Findings: Between June 1, 2016 and Oct 31, 2018, we performed a randomised phase 2 trial in 14 hospitals in the United Kingdom. 225 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 154 were randomly assigned to receive either ASC + vinorelbine (n = 98) or ASC (n = 56). PFS was significantly longer for ASC+vinorelbine compared with ASC alone; 4.2 months (interquartile range (IQR) 2.2-8.0) versus 2.8 months (IQR 1.4-4.1) for ASC, giving an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0·60 (80% CI upper limit 0.7, one-sided unadjusted log rank test p = 0.002); adjusted HR 0.6 (80% CI upper limit 0.7, one-sided adjusted log rank test p < 0.001). BRCA1 did not predict resistance to ASC+vinorelbine. Neutropenia was the most common grades 3, 4 adverse events in the ASC +vinorelbine arm. Interpretation: Vinorelbine plus ASC confers clinical benefit to patients with relapsed pleural mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum-based doublet chemotherapy. Funding: This study was funded by Cancer Research UK (grant CRUK A15569).

Palliative radiotherapy combined with stent insertion to reduce recurrent dysphagia in oesophageal cancer patients: the ROCS RCT.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with oesophageal cancer present with incurable disease. For those with advanced disease, the mean survival is 3-5 months. Treatment emphasis is therefore on effective palliation, with the majority of patients requiring intervention for dysphagia. Insertion of a self-expanding metal stent provides rapid relief but dysphagia may recur within 3 months owing to tumour progression. Evidence reviews have called for trials of interventions combined with stenting to better maintain the ability to swallow. OBJECTIVES: The Radiotherapy after Oesophageal Cancer Stenting (ROCS) study examined the effectiveness of palliative radiotherapy, combined with insertion of a stent, in maintaining the ability to swallow. The trial also examined the impact that the ability to swallow had on quality of life, bleeding events, survival and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with follow-up every 4 weeks for 12 months. An embedded qualitative study examined trial experiences in a participant subgroup. SETTING: Participants were recruited in secondary care, with all planned follow-up at home. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who were referred for stent insertion as the primary management of dysphagia related to incurable oesophageal cancer. INTERVENTIONS: Following stent insertion, the external beam radiotherapy arm received palliative oesophageal radiotherapy at a dose of 20 Gy in five fractions or 30 Gy in 10 fractions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of participants with recurrent dysphagia, or death, at 12 weeks. Recurrent dysphagia was defined as deterioration of ≥ 11 points on the dysphagia scale of the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire oesophago-gastric module questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, bleeding risk and survival. RESULTS: The study recruited 220 patients: 112 were randomised to the usual-care arm and 108 were randomised to the external beam radiotherapy arm. There was no evidence that radiotherapy reduced recurrence of dysphagia at 12 weeks (48.6% in the usual-care arm compared with 45.3% in the external beam radiotherapy arm; adjusted odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 1.68; p = 0.587) and it was less cost-effective than stent insertion alone. There was no difference in median survival or key quality-of-life outcomes. There were fewer bleeding events in the external beam radiotherapy arm. Exploration of patient experience prompted changes to trial processes. Participants in both trial arms experienced difficulty in managing the physical and psychosocial aspects of eating restriction and uncertainties of living with advanced oesophageal cancer. LIMITATIONS: Change in timing of the primary outcome to 12 weeks may affect the ability to detect a true intervention effect. However, consistency of results across sensitivity analyses is robust, including secondary analysis of dysphagia deterioration-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Widely accessible palliative external beam radiotherapy in combination with stent insertion does not reduce the risk of dysphagia recurrence at 12 weeks, does not have an impact on survival and is less cost-effective than inserting a stent alone. Reductions in bleeding events should be considered in the context of patient-described trade-offs of fatigue and burdens of attending hospital. Trial design elements including at-home data capture, regular multicentre nurse meetings and qualitative enquiry improved recruitment/data capture, and should be considered for future studies. FUTURE WORK: Further studies are required to identify interventions that improve stent efficacy and to address the multidimensional challenges of eating and nutrition in this patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12376468 and Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01915693. 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. 25, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Most people are diagnosed with oesophageal (gullet) cancer when it is already at an advanced stage. Losing the ability to swallow food and even fluids is very common when patients are approaching the last months of life. Placing a flexible metal tube, or stent, in the gullet opens it up and improves the ability to swallow quickly. Unfortunately this can fail after around 3 months because the cancer grows and presses on the stent. We designed this trial to see if giving a small dose of radiotherapy alongside insertion of the stent would allow more people to remain swallowing well after 3 months. This could then improve their quality of life and reduce hospitalisation towards the end of life. It may also reduce bleeding from the gullet, as well as other symptoms. We recruited 220 people across the UK, randomly assigning them to have the stent as usual or the stent and a low dose of radiotherapy. We collected a lot of information from the participants at home on how the cancer, the stent and the radiotherapy affected their ability to swallow and their quality of life. Overall, the study showed that the radiotherapy did not improve the ability to swallow 3 months following stent insertion and was less cost-effective than stent insertion alone. It seemed to reduce the risk of bleeding from the tumour itself, but patients found that radiotherapy made them tired and attending extra hospital visits could be troublesome. We also learned that, even after a stent was inserted, patients still struggled with food and needed more support with managing daily life with the stent. The trial results are important. They show that, to answer questions such as these, studies should use different ways of assessing what works, particularly focusing on patients' and families' viewpoints. The results will guide doctors to not routinely give radiotherapy in this situation. The results also suggest that, after the insertion of a stent, patients need extra help in managing their diet, their worries about the stent and their worries about the future.

Palliative radiotherapy after oesophageal cancer stenting (ROCS): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced oesophageal cancer have a median survival of 3-6 months, and most require intervention for dysphagia. Self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) insertion is the most typical form of palliation in these patients, but dysphagia deterioration and re-intervention are common. This study examined the efficacy of adjuvant external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) compared with usual care alone in preventing dysphagia deterioration and reducing service use after SEMS insertion. METHODS: This was a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial based at cancer centres and acute care hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales. Patients (aged ≥16 years) with incurable oesophageal carcinoma receiving stent insertion for primary management of dysphagia were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive usual care alone or EBRT (20 Gy in five fractions or 30 Gy in ten fractions) plus usual care after stent insertion. Usual care was implemented according to need as identified by the local multidisciplinary team (MDT). Randomisation was via the method of minimisation stratified by treating centre, stage at diagnosis (I-III vs IV), histology (squamous or non-squamous), and MDT intent to give chemotherapy (yes vs no). The primary outcome was difference in proportions of participants with dysphagia deterioration (>11 point decrease on patient-reported European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire-oesophagogastric module [QLQ-OG25], or a dysphagia-related event consistent with such a deterioration) or death by 12 weeks in a modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population, which excluded patients who did not have a stent inserted and those without a baseline QLQ-OG25 assessment. Secondary outcomes included survival, quality of life (QoL), morbidities (including time to first bleeding event or hospital admission for bleeding event and first dysphagia-related stent complications or re-intervention), and cost-effectiveness. Safety analysis was undertaken in the modified ITT population. The study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, ISRCTN12376468, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01915693, and is completed. FINDINGS: 220 patients were randomly assigned between Dec 16, 2013, and Aug 24, 2018, from 23 UK centres. The modified ITT population (n=199) comprised 102 patients in the usual care group and 97 patients in the EBRT group. Radiotherapy did not reduce dysphagia deterioration, which was reported in 36 (49%) of 74 patients receiving usual care versus 34 (45%) of 75 receiving EBRT (adjusted odds ratio 0·82 [95% CI 0·40-1·68], p=0·59) in those with complete data for the primary endpoint. No significant difference was observed in overall survival: median overall survival was 19·7 weeks (95% CI 14·4-27·7) with usual care and 18·9 weeks (14·7-25·6) with EBRT (adjusted hazard ratio 1·06 [95% CI 0·78-1·45], p=0·70; n=199). Median time to first bleeding event or hospital admission for a bleeding event was 49·0 weeks (95% CI 33·3-not reached) with usual care versus 65·9 weeks (52·7-not reached) with EBRT (adjusted subhazard ratio 0·52 [95% CI 0·28-0·97], p=0·038; n=199). No time versus treatment interaction was observed for prespecified QoL outcomes. We found no evidence of differences between trial group in time to first stent complication or re-intervention event. The most common (grade 3-4) adverse event was fatigue, reported in 19 (19%) of 102 patients receiving usual care alone and 22 (23%) of 97 receiving EBRT. On cost-utility analysis, EBRT was more expensive and less efficacious than usual care. INTERPRETATION: Patients with advanced oesophageal cancer having SEMS insertion for the primary management of their dysphagia did not gain additional benefit from concurrent palliative radiotherapy and it should not be routinely offered. For a minority of patients clinically considered to be at high risk of tumour bleeding, concurrent palliative radiotherapy might reduce bleeding risk and the need for associated interventions. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.