Early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy in patients with cancer who have low-risk neutropenic sepsis: the EASI-SWITCH RCT.

Background: Neutropenic sepsis is a common complication of systemic anticancer treatment. There is variation in practice in timing of switch to oral antibiotics after commencement of empirical intravenous antibiotic therapy. Objectives: To establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of early switch to oral antibiotics in patients with neutropenic sepsis at low risk of infective complications. Design: A randomised, multicentre, open-label, allocation concealed, non-inferiority trial to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of early oral switch in comparison to standard care. Setting: Nineteen UK oncology centres. Participants: Patients aged 16 years and over receiving systemic anticancer therapy with fever (≥ 38°C), or symptoms and signs of sepsis, and neutropenia (≤ 1.0 × 109/l) within 24 hours of randomisation, with a Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer score of ≥ 21 and receiving intravenous piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem for < 24 hours were eligible. Patients with acute leukaemia or stem cell transplant were excluded. Intervention: Early switch to oral ciprofloxacin (750 mg twice daily) and co-amoxiclav (625 mg three times daily) within 12-24 hours of starting intravenous antibiotics to complete 5 days treatment in total. Control was standard care, that is, continuation of intravenous antibiotics for at least 48 hours with ongoing treatment at physician discretion. Main outcome measures: Treatment failure, a composite measure assessed at day 14 based on the following criteria: fever persistence or recurrence within 72 hours of starting intravenous antibiotics; escalation from protocolised antibiotics; critical care support or death. Results: The study was closed early due to under-recruitment with 129 patients recruited; hence, a definitive conclusion regarding non-inferiority cannot be made. Sixty-five patients were randomised to the early switch arm and 64 to the standard care arm with subsequent intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses including 125 (intervention n = 61 and control n = 64) and 113 (intervention n = 53 and control n = 60) patients, respectively. In the intention-to-treat population the treatment failure rates were 14.1% in the control group and 24.6% in the intervention group, difference = 10.5% (95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.22). In the per-protocol population the treatment failure rates were 13.3% and 17.7% in control and intervention groups, respectively; difference = 3.7% (95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.148). Treatment failure predominantly consisted of persistence or recurrence of fever and/or physician-directed escalation from protocolised antibiotics with no critical care admissions or deaths. The median length of stay was shorter in the intervention group and adverse events reported were similar in both groups. Patients, particularly those with care-giving responsibilities, expressed a preference for early switch. However, differences in health-related quality of life and health resource use were small and not statistically significant. Conclusions: Non-inferiority for early oral switch could not be proven due to trial under-recruitment. The findings suggest this may be an acceptable treatment strategy for some patients who can adhere to such a treatment regimen and would prefer a potentially reduced duration of hospitalisation while accepting increased risk of treatment failure resulting in re-admission. Further research should explore tools for patient stratification for low-risk de-escalation or ambulatory pathways including use of biomarkers and/or point-of-care rapid microbiological testing as an adjunct to clinical decision-making tools. This could include application to shorter-duration antimicrobial therapy in line with other antimicrobial stewardship studies. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN84288963. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/140/05) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 14. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Neutropenic sepsis, or infection with a low white blood cell count, can occur following cancer treatment. Usually patients receive treatment with intravenous antibiotics (antibiotics delivered into a vein) for two or more days. Patients at low risk of complications from their infection may be able to have a shorter period of intravenous antibiotics benefitting both patients and the NHS. The trial compared whether changing from intravenous to oral antibiotics (antibiotics taken by mouth as tablets or liquid) 12­24 hours after starting antibiotic treatment ('early switch') is as effective as usual care. Patients could take part if they had started intravenous antibiotics for low-risk neutropenic sepsis. Patients were randomly allocated to 'early switch' or to usual care. The main outcome measured was treatment failure. Treatment failure happened if fever persisted or recurred despite antibiotics, if patients needed to change antibiotics, if they needed to be re-admitted to hospital or needed to be admitted to intensive care within 14 days or died. We had originally intended that 628 patients would take part, but after review of the design of the study the number needed to take part was revised to 230. We were not able to complete the trial as planned as unfortunately only 129 patients took part. As the trial was smaller than expected we were not able to draw conclusions as to whether 'early switch' is no less effective than usual care. Our findings suggest that 'early switch' might result in a shorter time in hospital initially; however, treatment failure was more likely to occur, meaning some patients had to return to hospital for further antibiotics. There were no differences in side effects and no serious complications from treatment or treatment failure (such as intensive care admission or death) among the 65 patients in the 'early switch' group. Patients were satisfied with 'early switch'. Early switch may be a treatment option for some patients with low-risk neutropenic sepsis who would prefer a shorter duration of hospital admission but accept a risk of needing hospital re-admission.

Assessment of Pembrolizumab Therapy for the Treatment of Microsatellite Instability-High Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer Among Patients in the KEYNOTE-059, KEYNOTE-061, and KEYNOTE-062 Clinical Trials.

IMPORTANCE: Immunotherapy has been associated with improved outcomes among patients who have received previous treatment for microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumors. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the antitumor activity of pembrolizumab therapy vs chemotherapy among patients with MSI-H advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer regardless of the line of therapy in which it was received. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This post hoc analysis of the phase 2 KEYNOTE-059 (third-line treatment or higher) single-arm trial and the phase 3 KEYNOTE-061 (second-line treatment) and KEYNOTE-062 (first-line treatment) randomized trials included patients with advanced G/GEJ cancer from 52 sites in 16 countries enrolled in KEYNOTE-059, 148 sites in 30 countries enrolled in KEYNOTE-061, and 200 sites in 29 countries enrolled in KEYNOTE-062. Patients were enrolled from March 2, 2015, to March 26, 2016, in KEYNOTE-059; from June 4, 2015, to July 26, 2016, in KEYNOTE-061; and from September 18, 2015, to May 26, 2017, in KEYNOTE-062, with data cutoff dates of August 8, 2018; October 26, 2017; and March 26, 2019; respectively. INTERVENTIONS: Pembrolizumab monotherapy in KEYNOTE-059, pembrolizumab monotherapy or chemotherapy (paclitaxel) in KEYNOTE-061, and pembrolizumab monotherapy, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine), or chemotherapy alone in KEYNOTE-062. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Response was assessed centrally using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST), version 1.1; MSI-H status was determined centrally by polymerase chain reaction testing. RESULTS: At data cutoff, 7 of 174 patients (4.0%) in KEYNOTE-059, 27 of 514 patients (5.3%) in KEYNOTE-061, and 50 of 682 patients (7.3%) in KEYNOTE-062 had MSI-H tumors. Among those with MSI-H tumors, the median overall survival was not reached (NR) for pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-059, KEYNOTE-061, and KEYNOTE-062 or for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in KEYNOTE-062. The median progression-free survival (PFS) for pembrolizumab was NR (95% CI, 1.1 months to NR) in KEYNOTE-059 and 17.8 months (95% CI, 2.7 months to NR) in KEYNOTE-061 (vs 3.5 months [95% CI, 2.0-9.8 months] for chemotherapy). In KEYNOTE-062, the median PFS was 11.2 months (95% CI, 1.5 months to NR) for pembrolizumab, NR (95% CI, 3.6 months to NR) for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and 6.6 months (95% CI, 4.4-8.3 months) for chemotherapy. The objective response rate (ORR) for pembrolizumab was 57.1% in KEYNOTE-059 and 46.7% (vs 16.7% for chemotherapy) in KEYNOTE-061. In KEYNOTE-062, the ORR was 57.1% for pembrolizumab , 64.7% for pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and 36.8% for chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Findings from this study indicate that MSI-H status may be a biomarker for pembrolizumab therapy among patients with advanced G/GEJ cancer regardless of the line of therapy in which it was received. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02335411, NCT02370498, and NCT02494583.

Early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy in patients with cancer who have low-risk neutropenic sepsis (the EASI-SWITCH trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neutropenic sepsis remains a common treatment complication for patients receiving systemic anti-cancer treatment. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence have not recommended switching from empirical intravenous antibiotics to oral antibiotics within 48 h for patients assessed as low risk for septic complications because of uncertainty about whether this would achieve comparable outcomes to using intravenous antibiotics for longer. The UK National Institute for Health Research funded the EASI-SWITCH trial to tackle this uncertainty. METHODS: The trial is a pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial that aims to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of early switching from intravenous to oral antibiotics in cancer patients with low-risk neutropenic sepsis. Patients ≥ 16 years, receiving systemic anti-cancer treatment (acute leukaemics/stem cell transplants excluded), with a temperature of > 38 °C, neutrophil count ≤ 1.0 × 109/L, MASCC (Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer) score ≥ 21 and receiving IV piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem for less than 24 h are eligible to participate. Patients are randomised 1:1 either (i) to switch to oral ciprofloxacin and co-amoxiclav within 12-24 h of commencing intravenous antibiotics, completing at least 5 days total antibiotics (intervention), or (ii) to continue intravenous antibiotics for at least 48 h, with ongoing antibiotics being continued at the physician's discretion (control). Patients are discharged home when their physician deems it appropriate. The primary outcome measure is a composite of treatment failures as assessed at day 14. The criteria for treatment failure include fever persistence or recurrence 72 h after starting intravenous antibiotics, escalation from protocolised antibiotics, hospital readmission related to infection/antibiotics, critical care support or death. Based on a 15% treatment failure rate in the control group and a 15% non-inferiority margin, the recruitment target is 230 patients. DISCUSSION: If the trial demonstrates non-inferiority of early switching to oral antibiotics, with potential benefits for patient quality of life and resource savings, this finding will have significant implications for the routine clinical management of those with low-risk neutropenic sepsis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 84288963. Registered on the 1 July 2015. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN84288963. EudraCT: 2015-002830-35.

Comparison between MRI and pathology in the assessment of tumour regression grade in rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist regarding the correlation between MRI tumour regression grade (mrTRG) and pathological TRG (pTRG) in rectal cancer. METHODS: mrTRG and pTRG were compared in rectal cancer patients from two phase II trials (EXPERT and EXPERT-C). The agreement between radiologist and pathologist was assessed with the weighted κ test while the Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-one patients were included. Median time from completion of neoadjuvant treatment to pre-operative MRI and surgery was 4.1 weeks (interquartile range (IQR): 3.7-4.7) and 6.6 weeks (IQR: 5.9-7.6), respectively. Fair agreement was found between mrTRG and pTRG when regression was classified according to standard five-tier systems (κ=0.24) or modified three-tier systems (κ=0.25). Sensitivity and specificity of mrTRG 1-2 (complete/good radiological regression) for the prediction of pathological complete response was 74.4% (95% CI: 58.8-86.5) and 62.8% (95% CI: 54.5-70.6), respectively. Survival outcomes of patients with intermediate pathological regression (pTRG 2) were numerically better if complete/good regression was also observed on imaging (mrTRG 1-2) compared to poor regression (mrTRG 3-5) (5-year recurrence-free survival 76.9% vs 65.9%, P=0.18; 5-year overall survival 80.6% vs 68.8%, P=0.22). CONCLUSIONS: The agreement between mrTRG and pTRG is low and mrTRG cannot be used as a surrogate of pTRG. Further studies are warranted to assess the ability of mrTRG to identify pathological complete responders for the adoption of non-operative management strategies and to provide complementary prognostic information to pTRG for better risk-stratification after surgery.

The influence of industry sponsorship on the reporting of subgroup analyses within phase III randomised controlled trials in gastrointestinal oncology.

PURPOSE: Correct interpretation of subgroup analyses (SGA) is important as it influences selection of therapeutic interventions for patient subsets. The primary aim of our study was to compare reporting of SGA between industry and non-industry sponsored trials. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review and extracted data from journal articles (JA) and conference abstracts (CA) published over a decade reporting SGA results of phase III randomised controlled gastrointestinal (GI) oncology trials with patient participants of ≥150. RESULTS: In JA, SGA was reported in 100/145 (69%) trials: 41/54 industry sponsored (76%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 63-86%) and 59/91 non-industry sponsored (65%; 95% CI: 55-74%) trials (p = 0.16). In CA, SGA was reported in 86/204 (42%) trials: 43/83 industry sponsored (52%; 95% CI: 41-62%) and 43/121 non-industry sponsored (36%; 95% CI: 28-44%) trials (p = 0.02). Number of SGA performed per trial was significantly larger for industry compared to non-industry sponsored trials in both JA (median 6 versus 2, p = 0.003) and CA (median 1 versus 0, p = 0.023). Claims of subgroup effect were made in 52% of trials in JA and 50% in CA, with significant test of interaction evident in only 25% of JA and 16% of CA, with no difference between industry and non-industry trials. Industry sponsored trials with a significant primary end-point reported more SGA (p < 0.001 JA; p = 0.046 CA). CONCLUSIONS: Industry sponsored trials reported more SGA. Claimed subgroup effects were often not accompanied by significant interaction test; thus circumspection should be adopted when using SGA to deviate from standard therapeutic decision-making in GI oncology.

Longitudinal assessment of quality of life in rectal cancer patients with or without stomas following primary resection.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the longitudinal impact of stoma formation on the health-related quality of life of rectal cancer patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Health-related quality of life data was prospectively collected in a randomized trial designed to compare 24 weeks of bolus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin with 12 weeks of continuous 5-fluorouracil in patients with resected Dukes B and C colorectal cancer. Health-related quality of life data was collected at baseline, during adjuvant treatment, and at one and three years after completion of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Between 1993 and 2003, 186 rectal cancer patients were enrolled. One hundred thirty-nine patients had anterior resection, of whom 46 had a temporary defunctioning colostomy. Forty-seven patients had abdominoperineal resection with formation of a permanent colostomy. There was no significant difference in global health-related quality of life between patients with and patients without a stoma at any time point. However, during adjuvant treatment, role (P = 0.04) and social (P = 0.005) functioning were significantly worse in stoma patients than in nonstoma patients. Moreover, the impairment in social functioning persisted at one (P = 0.03) and three years (P = 0.04) after adjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate important adverse effects of either temporary or permanent stoma formation on subsequent health-related quality of life in patients with rectal cancer.