Lack of transparent reporting of trial monitoring approaches in randomised controlled trials: A systematic review of contemporary protocol papers.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring is essential to ensure patient safety and data integrity in clinical trials as per Good Clinical Practice. The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials Statement and its checklist guides authors to include monitoring in their protocols. We investigated how well monitoring was reported in published 'protocol papers' for contemporary randomised controlled trials. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed to identify eligible protocol papers published in selected journals between 1 January 2020 and 31 May 2020. Protocol papers were classified by whether they reported monitoring and, if so, by the details of monitoring. Data were summarised descriptively. RESULTS: Of 811 protocol papers for randomised controlled trials, 386 (48%; 95% CI: 44%-51%) explicitly reported some monitoring information. Of these, 20% (77/386) reported monitoring information consistent with an on-site monitoring approach, and 39% (152/386) with central monitoring, 26% (101/386) with a mixed approach, while 14% (54/386) did not provide sufficient information to specify an approach. Only 8% (30/386) of randomised controlled trials reported complete details about all of scope, frequency and organisation of monitoring; frequency of monitoring was the least reported. However, 6% (25/386) of papers used the term 'audit' to describe 'monitoring'. DISCUSSION: Monitoring information was reported in only approximately half of the protocol papers. Suboptimal reporting of monitoring hinders the clinical community from having the full information on which to judge the validity of a trial and jeopardises the value of protocol papers and the credibility of the trial itself. Greater efforts are needed to promote the transparent reporting of monitoring to journal editors and authors.

Outcomes from a mechanistic biomarker multi-arm and randomised study of liposomal MTP-PE (Mifamurtide) in metastatic and/or recurrent osteosarcoma (EuroSarc-Memos trial).

The phase III clinical study of adjuvant liposomal muramyl tripeptide (MTP-PE) in resected high-grade osteosarcoma (OS) documented positive results that have been translated into regulatory approval, supporting initial promise for innate immune therapies in OS. There remains, however, no new approved treatment such as MTP-PE for either metastatic or recurrent OS. Whilst the addition of different agents, including liposomal MTP-PE, to surgery for metastatic or recurrent high-grade osteosarcoma has tried to improve response rates, a mechanistic hiatus exists in terms of a detailed understanding the therapeutic strategies required in advanced disease. Here we report a Bayesian designed multi-arm, multi-centre, open-label phase II study with randomisation in patients with metastatic and/or recurrent OS, designed to investigate how patients with OS might respond to liposomal MTP-PE, either given alone or in combination with ifosfamide. Despite the trial closing because of poor recruitment within the allocated funding period, with no objective responses in eight patients, we report the design and feasibility outcomes for patients registered into the trial. We demonstrate the feasibility of the Bayesian design, European collaboration, tissue collection with genomic analysis and serum cytokine characterisation. Further mechanistic investigation of liposomal MTP-PE alone and in combination with other agents remains warranted in metastatic OS.

Germline variation in the insulin-like growth factor pathway and risk of Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and its precursor, Barrett's esophagus (BE), have uncovered significant genetic components of risk, but most heritability remains unexplained. Targeted assessment of genetic variation in biologically relevant pathways using novel analytical approaches may identify missed susceptibility signals. Central obesity, a key BE/EAC risk factor, is linked to systemic inflammation, altered hormonal signaling and insulin-like growth factor (IGF) axis dysfunction. Here, we assessed IGF-related genetic variation and risk of BE and EAC. Principal component analysis was employed to evaluate pathway-level and gene-level associations with BE/EAC, using genotypes for 270 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in or near 12 IGF-related genes, ascertained from 3295 BE cases, 2515 EAC cases and 3207 controls in the Barrett's and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium (BEACON) GWAS. Gene-level signals were assessed using Multi-marker Analysis of GenoMic Annotation (MAGMA) and SNP summary statistics from BEACON and an expanded GWAS meta-analysis (6167 BE cases, 4112 EAC cases, 17 159 controls). Global variation in the IGF pathway was associated with risk of BE (P = 0.0015). Gene-level associations with BE were observed for GHR (growth hormone receptor; P = 0.00046, false discovery rate q = 0.0056) and IGF1R (IGF1 receptor; P = 0.0090, q = 0.0542). These gene-level signals remained significant at q < 0.1 when assessed using data from the largest available BE/EAC GWAS meta-analysis. No significant associations were observed for EAC. This study represents the most comprehensive evaluation to date of inherited genetic variation in the IGF pathway and BE/EAC risk, providing novel evidence that variation in two genes encoding cell-surface receptors, GHR and IGF1R, may influence risk of BE.

Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies.

BACKGROUND: Trial monitoring is an important component of good clinical practice to ensure the safety and rights of study participants, confidentiality of personal information, and quality of data. However, the effectiveness of various existing monitoring approaches is unclear. Information to guide the choice of monitoring methods in clinical intervention studies may help trialists, support units, and monitors to effectively adjust their approaches to current knowledge and evidence. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of different monitoring strategies (including risk-based strategies and others) for clinical intervention studies examined in prospective comparative studies of monitoring interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We systematically searched CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase via Ovid for relevant published literature up to March 2021. We searched the online 'Studies within A Trial' (SWAT) repository, grey literature, and trial registries for ongoing or unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized or non-randomized prospective, empirical evaluation studies of different monitoring strategies in one or more clinical intervention studies. We applied no restrictions for language or date of publication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on the evaluated monitoring methods, countries involved, study population, study setting, randomization method, and numbers and proportions in each intervention group. Our primary outcome was critical and major monitoring findings in prospective intervention studies. Monitoring findings were classified according to different error domains (e.g. major eligibility violations) and the primary outcome measure was a composite of these domains. Secondary outcomes were individual error domains, participant recruitment and follow-up, and resource use. If we identified more than one study for a comparison and outcome definitions were similar across identified studies, we quantitatively summarized effects in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Otherwise, we qualitatively summarized the results of eligible studies stratified by different comparisons of monitoring strategies. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for different groups of comparisons. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight eligible studies, which we grouped into five comparisons. 1. Risk-based versus extensive on-site monitoring: based on two large studies, we found moderate certainty of evidence for the combined primary outcome of major or critical findings that risk-based monitoring is not inferior to extensive on-site monitoring. Although the risk ratio was close to 'no difference' (1.03 with a 95% confidence interval [CI] of 0.81 to 1.33, below 1.0 in favor of the risk-based strategy), the high imprecision in one study and the small number of eligible studies resulted in a wide CI of the summary estimate. Low certainty of evidence suggested that monitoring strategies with extensive on-site monitoring were associated with considerably higher resource use and costs (up to a factor of 3.4). Data on recruitment or retention of trial participants were not available. 2. Central monitoring with triggered on-site visits versus regular on-site visits: combining the results of two eligible studies yielded low certainty of evidence with a risk ratio of 1.83 (95% CI 0.51 to 6.55) in favor of triggered monitoring intervention. Data on recruitment, retention, and resource use were not available. 3. Central statistical monitoring and local monitoring performed by site staff with annual on-site visits versus central statistical monitoring and local monitoring only: based on one study, there was moderate certainty of evidence that a small number of major and critical findings were missed with the central monitoring approach without on-site visits: 3.8% of participants in the group without on-site visits and 6.4% in the group with on-site visits had a major or critical monitoring finding (odds ratio 1.7, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.7; P = 0.03). The absolute number of monitoring findings was very low, probably because defined major and critical findings were very study specific and central monitoring was present in both intervention groups. Very low certainty of evidence did not suggest a relevant effect on participant retention, and very low certainty evidence indicated an extra cost for on-site visits of USD 2,035,392. There were no data on recruitment. 4. Traditional 100% source data verification (SDV) versus targeted or remote SDV: the two studies assessing targeted and remote SDV reported findings only related to source documents. Compared to the final database obtained using the full SDV monitoring process, only a small proportion of remaining errors on overall data were identified using the targeted SDV process in the MONITORING study (absolute difference 1.47%, 95% CI 1.41% to 1.53%). Targeted SDV was effective in the verification of source documents, but increased the workload on data management. The other included study was a pilot study, which compared traditional on-site SDV versus remote SDV and found little difference in monitoring findings and the ability to locate data values despite marked differences in remote access in two clinical trial networks. There were no data on recruitment or retention. 5. Systematic on-site initiation visit versus on-site initiation visit upon request: very low certainty of evidence suggested no difference in retention and recruitment between the two approaches. There were no data on critical and major findings or on resource use. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base is limited in terms of quantity and quality. Ideally, for each of the five identified comparisons, more prospective, comparative monitoring studies nested in clinical trials and measuring effects on all outcomes specified in this review are necessary to draw more reliable conclusions. However, the results suggesting risk-based, targeted, and mainly central monitoring as an efficient strategy are promising. The development of reliable triggers for on-site visits is ongoing; different triggers might be used in different settings. More evidence on risk indicators that identify sites with problems or the prognostic value of triggers is needed to further optimize central monitoring strategies. In particular, approaches with an initial assessment of trial-specific risks that need to be closely monitored centrally during trial conduct with triggered on-site visits should be evaluated in future research.

Quality of life in the FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX and FOXFIRE-global randomised trials of selective internal radiotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.

Selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) is a liver-directed treatment involving the injection of yttrium-90 microspheres into the blood supply of liver tumours. There are very few studies assessing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients treated with SIRT. Patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer (CRC) were randomised in the FOXFIRE (FFr; ISRCTN83867919), SIRFLOX (SF; NCT00724503) and FOXFIRE-Global (FFrG; NCT01721954) trials of first-line oxaliplatin-fluorouracil (FOLFOX) chemotherapy combined with SIRT versus FOLFOX alone. HRQOL was assessed using the three-level EQ-5D, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EORTC Colorectal Liver Metastases cancer module (EORTC QLQ-LMC21) at baseline, ≤3 months, 6 months, 12 months and annually thereafter from randomisation, and at disease progression. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. In total, 554 patients were randomised to SIRT + FOLFOX and 549 patients to FOLFOX alone. HRQOL was statistically significant lower in SIRT + FOLFOX patients ≤3 months after SIRT administration in all three instruments, particularly global health, physical and role functioning and symptoms of fatigue, nausea/vomiting and appetite loss. By accepted thresholds, these differences were deemed not clinically important. Differences between SIRT + FOLFOX and FOLFOX alone over the 2-year follow up and at disease progression were also not clinically important. Although there is some decrease in HRQOL for up to 3 months following SIRT, the addition of SIRT to FOLFOX chemotherapy does not change HRQOL to a clinically important degree in metastatic CRC patients.

Dual-specificity protein phosphatase DUSP4 regulates response to MEK inhibition in BRAF wild-type melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Aiming to improve treatment options for BRAF wild-type melanoma, we previously conducted the DOC-MEK study of docetaxel with MEK inhibitor (MEKi) selumetinib or placebo, revealing trends to prolongation of progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.75, P = 0.130), and improved response rates (32% vs 14%, P = 0.059) with docetaxel plus selumetinib. NRAS status did not associate with outcome. Here, the aim was to identify novel biomarkers of response to MEKi. METHODS: A MEK 6 gene signature was quantified using NanoString and correlated with clinical outcomes. Two components of the gene signature were investigated by gene silencing in BRAF/NRAS wild-type melanoma cells. RESULTS: In melanomas of patients on the selumetinib but not the placebo arm, two gene signature components, dual-specificity protein phosphatase 4 (DUSP4) and ETS translocation variant 4 (ETV4), were expressed more highly in responders than non-responders. In vitro, ETV4 depletion inhibited cell survival but did not influence sensitivity to MEKi selumetinib or trametinib. In contrast, DUSP4-depleted cells showed enhanced cell survival and increased resistance to both selumetinib and trametinib. CONCLUSIONS: ETV4 and DUSP4 associated with clinical response to docetaxel plus selumetinib. DUSP4 depletion induced MEKi resistance, suggesting that DUSP4 is not only a biomarker but also a mediator of MEKi sensitivity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: DOC-MEK (EudraCT no: 2009-018153-23).

Practicalities in running early-phase trials using the time-to-event continual reassessment method (TiTE-CRM) for interventions with long toxicity periods using two radiotherapy oncology trials as examples.

BACKGROUND: Awareness of model-based designs for dose-finding studies such as the Continual Reassessment Method (CRM) is now becoming more commonplace amongst clinicians, statisticians and trial management staff. In some settings toxicities can occur a long time after treatment has finished, resulting in extremely long, interrupted, CRM design trials. The Time-to-Event CRM (TiTE-CRM), a modification to the original CRM, accounts for the timing of late-onset toxicities and results in shorter trial duration. In this article, we discuss how to design and deliver a trial using this method, from the grant application stage through to dissemination, using two radiotherapy trials as examples. METHODS: The TiTE-CRM encapsulates the dose-toxicity relationship with a statistical model. The model incorporates observed toxicities and uses a weight to account for the proportion of completed follow-up of participants without toxicity. This model uses all available data to determine the next participant's dose and subsequently declare the maximum tolerated dose. We focus on two trials designed by the authors to illustrate practical issues when designing, setting up, and running such studies. RESULTS: In setting up a TiTE-CRM trial, model parameters need to be defined and the time element involved might cause complications, therefore looking at operating characteristics through simulations is essential. At the grant application stage, we suggest resources to fund statisticians' time before funding is awarded and make recommendations for the level of detail to include in funding applications. While running the trial, close contact of all involved staff is required as a dose decision is made each time a participant is recruited. We suggest ways of capturing data in a timely manner and give example code in R for design and delivery of the trial. Finally, we touch upon dissemination issues while the trial is running and upon completion. CONCLUSION: Model-based designs can be complex. We hope this paper will help clinical trial teams to demystify the conduct of TiTE-CRM trials and be a starting point for using this methodology in practice.

Esomeprazole and aspirin in Barrett's oesophagus (AspECT): a randomised factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal adenocarcinoma is the sixth most common cause of cancer death worldwide and Barrett's oesophagus is the biggest risk factor. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of high-dose esomeprazole proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) and aspirin for improving outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus. METHODS: The Aspirin and Esomeprazole Chemoprevention in Barrett's metaplasia Trial had a 2 × 2 factorial design and was done at 84 centres in the UK and one in Canada. Patients with Barrett's oesophagus of 1 cm or more were randomised 1:1:1:1 using a computer-generated schedule held in a central trials unit to receive high-dose (40 mg twice-daily) or low-dose (20 mg once-daily) PPI, with or without aspirin (300 mg per day in the UK, 325 mg per day in Canada) for at least 8 years, in an unblinded manner. Reporting pathologists were masked to treatment allocation. The primary composite endpoint was time to all-cause mortality, oesophageal adenocarcinoma, or high-grade dysplasia, which was analysed with accelerated failure time modelling adjusted for minimisation factors (age, Barrett's oesophagus length, intestinal metaplasia) in all patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2004-003836-77. FINDINGS: Between March 10, 2005, and March 1, 2009, 2557 patients were recruited. 705 patients were assigned to low-dose PPI and no aspirin, 704 to high-dose PPI and no aspirin, 571 to low-dose PPI and aspirin, and 577 to high-dose PPI and aspirin. Median follow-up and treatment duration was 8·9 years (IQR 8·2-9·8), and we collected 20 095 follow-up years and 99·9% of planned data. 313 primary events occurred. High-dose PPI (139 events in 1270 patients) was superior to low-dose PPI (174 events in 1265 patients; time ratio [TR] 1·27, 95% CI 1·01-1·58, p=0·038). Aspirin (127 events in 1138 patients) was not significantly better than no aspirin (154 events in 1142 patients; TR 1·24, 0·98-1·57, p=0·068). If patients using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were censored at the time of first use, aspirin was significantly better than no aspirin (TR 1·29, 1·01-1·66, p=0·043; n=2236). Combining high-dose PPI with aspirin had the strongest effect compared with low-dose PPI without aspirin (TR 1·59, 1·14-2·23, p=0·0068). The numbers needed to treat were 34 for PPI and 43 for aspirin. Only 28 (1%) participants reported study-treatment-related serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: High-dose PPI and aspirin chemoprevention therapy, especially in combination, significantly and safely improved outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, AstraZeneca, Wellcome Trust, and Health Technology Assessment.

No Association Between Vitamin D Status and Risk of Barrett's Esophagus or Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Mendelian Randomization Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Epidemiology studies of circulating concentrations of 25 hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) and risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) have produced conflicting results. We conducted a Mendelian randomization study to determine the associations between circulating concentrations of 25(OH)D and risks of EAC and its precursor, Barrett's esophagus (BE). METHODS: We conducted a Mendelian randomization study using a 2-sample (summary data) approach. Six single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs; rs3755967, rs10741657, rs12785878, rs10745742, rs8018720, and rs17216707) associated with circulating concentrations of 25(OH)D were used as instrumental variables. We collected data from 6167 patients with BE, 4112 patients with EAC, and 17,159 individuals without BE or EAC (controls) participating in the Barrett's and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium, as well as studies from Bonn, Germany, and Cambridge and Oxford, United Kingdom. Analyses were performed separately for BE and EAC. RESULTS: Overall, we found no evidence for an association between genetically estimated 25(OH)D concentration and risk of BE or EAC. The odds ratio per 20 nmol/L increase in genetically estimated 25(OH)D concentration for BE risk estimated by combining the individual SNP association using inverse variance weighting was 1.21 (95% CI, 0.77-1.92; P = .41). The odds ratio for EAC risk, estimated by combining the individual SNP association using inverse variance weighting, was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.39-1.19; P = .18). CONCLUSIONS: In a Mendelian randomization study, we found that low genetically estimated 25(OH)D concentrations were not associated with risk of BE or EAC.

How to design a dose-finding study using the continual reassessment method.

INTRODUCTION: The continual reassessment method (CRM) is a model-based design for phase I trials, which aims to find the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of a new therapy. The CRM has been shown to be more accurate in targeting the MTD than traditional rule-based approaches such as the 3 + 3 design, which is used in most phase I trials. Furthermore, the CRM has been shown to assign more trial participants at or close to the MTD than the 3 + 3 design. However, the CRM's uptake in clinical research has been incredibly slow, putting trial participants, drug development and patients at risk. Barriers to increasing the use of the CRM have been identified, most notably a lack of knowledge amongst clinicians and statisticians on how to apply new designs in practice. No recent tutorial, guidelines, or recommendations for clinicians on conducting dose-finding studies using the CRM are available. Furthermore, practical resources to support clinicians considering the CRM for their trials are scarce. METHODS: To help overcome these barriers, we present a structured framework for designing a dose-finding study using the CRM. We give recommendations for key design parameters and advise on conducting pre-trial simulation work to tailor the design to a specific trial. We provide practical tools to support clinicians and statisticians, including software recommendations, and template text and tables that can be edited and inserted into a trial protocol. We also give guidance on how to conduct and report dose-finding studies using the CRM. RESULTS: An initial set of design recommendations are provided to kick-start the design process. To complement these and the additional resources, we describe two published dose-finding trials that used the CRM. We discuss their designs, how they were conducted and analysed, and compare them to what would have happened under a 3 + 3 design. CONCLUSIONS: The framework and resources we provide are aimed at clinicians and statisticians new to the CRM design. Provision of key resources in this contemporary guidance paper will hopefully improve the uptake of the CRM in phase I dose-finding trials.

Integration of genetic and clinical risk factors improves prognostication in relapsed childhood B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Somatic genetic abnormalities are initiators and drivers of disease and have proven clinical utility at initial diagnosis. However, the genetic landscape and its clinical utility at relapse are less well understood and have not been studied comprehensively. We analyzed cytogenetic data from 427 children with relapsed B-cell precursor ALL treated on the international trial, ALLR3. Also we screened 238 patients with a marrow relapse for selected copy number alterations (CNAs) and mutations. Cytogenetic risk groups were predictive of outcome postrelapse and survival rates at 5 years for patients with good, intermediate-, and high-risk cytogenetics were 68%, 47%, and 26%, respectively (P < .001). TP53 alterations and NR3C1/BTG1 deletions were associated with a higher risk of progression: hazard ratio 2.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.51-3.70, P < .001) and 2.15 (1.32-3.48, P = .002). NRAS mutations were associated with an increased risk of progression among standard-risk patients with high hyperdiploidy: 3.17 (1.15-8.71, P = .026). Patients classified clinically as standard and high risk had distinct genetic profiles. The outcome of clinical standard-risk patients with high-risk cytogenetics was equivalent to clinical high-risk patients. Screening patients at relapse for key genetic abnormalities will enable the integration of genetic and clinical risk factors to improve patient stratification and outcome. This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.org as #ISCRTN45724312.

Germline variation in inflammation-related pathways and risk of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OA) incidence has risen sharply in Western countries over recent decades. Local and systemic inflammation is considered an important contributor to OA pathogenesis. Established risk factors for OA and its precursor, Barrett's oesophagus (BE), include symptomatic reflux, obesity and smoking. The role of inherited genetic susceptibility remains an area of active investigation. Here, we explore whether germline variation related to inflammatory processes influences susceptibility to BE/OA. DESIGN: We used data from a genomewide association study of 2515 OA cases, 3295 BE cases and 3207 controls. Our analysis included 7863 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 449 genes assigned to five pathways: cyclooxygenase (COX), cytokine signalling, oxidative stress, human leucocyte antigen and nuclear factor-κB. A principal components-based analytic framework was employed to evaluate pathway-level and gene-level associations with disease risk. RESULTS: We identified a significant signal for the COX pathway in relation to BE risk (p=0.0059, false discovery rate q=0.03), and in gene-level analyses found an association with microsomal glutathione-S-transferase 1 (MGST1); (p=0.0005, q=0.005). Assessment of 36 MGST1 SNPs identified 14 variants associated with elevated BE risk (q<0.05). Four of these were subsequently confirmed (p<5.5×10-5) in a meta-analysis encompassing an independent set of 1851 BE cases and 3496 controls, and are known strong expression quantitative trait loci for MGST1. Three such variants were associated with similar elevations in OA risk. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the most comprehensive evaluation of inflammation-related germline variation in relation to risk of BE/OA and suggests that variants in MGST1 influence disease susceptibility.

First-line selective internal radiotherapy plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer (FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX, and FOXFIRE-Global): a combined analysis of three multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: Data suggest selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) in third-line or subsequent therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer has clinical benefit in patients with colorectal liver metastases with liver-dominant disease after chemotherapy. The FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX, and FOXFIRE-Global randomised studies evaluated the efficacy of combining first-line chemotherapy with SIRT using yttrium-90 resin microspheres in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with liver metastases. The studies were designed for combined analysis of overall survival. METHODS: FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX, and FOXFIRE-Global were randomised, phase 3 trials done in hospitals and specialist liver centres in 14 countries worldwide (Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, New Zealand, Portugal, South Korea, Singapore, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA). Chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (WHO performance status 0 or 1) with liver metastases not suitable for curative resection or ablation were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (FOLFOX: leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) or FOLFOX plus single treatment SIRT concurrent with cycle 1 or 2 of chemotherapy. In FOXFIRE, FOLFOX chemotherapy was OxMdG (oxaliplatin modified de Gramont chemotherapy; 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin infusion over 2 h, L-leucovorin 175 mg or D,L-leucovorin 350 mg infusion over 2 h, and 400 mg/m2 bolus fluorouracil followed by a 2400 mg/m2 continuous fluorouracil infusion over 46 h). In SIRFLOX and FOXFIRE-Global, FOLFOX chemotherapy was modified FOLFOX6 (85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin infusion over 2 h, 200 mg leucovorin, and 400 mg/m2 bolus fluorouracil followed by a 2400 mg/m2 continuous fluorouracil infusion over 46 h). Randomisation was done by central minimisation with four factors: presence of extrahepatic metastases, tumour involvement of the liver, planned use of a biological agent, and investigational centre. Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population, using a two-stage meta-analysis of pooled individual patient data. All three trials have completed 2 years of follow-up. FOXFIRE is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83867919. SIRFLOX and FOXFIRE-Global are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00724503 (SIRFLOX) and NCT01721954 (FOXFIRE-Global). FINDINGS: Between Oct 11, 2006, and Dec 23, 2014, 549 patients were randomly assigned to FOLFOX alone and 554 patients were assigned FOLFOX plus SIRT. Median follow-up was 43·3 months (IQR 31·6-58·4). There were 411 (75%) deaths in 549 patients in the FOLFOX alone group and 433 (78%) deaths in 554 patients in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group. There was no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·90-1·19; p=0·61). The median survival time in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group was 22·6 months (95% CI 21·0-24·5) compared with 23·3 months (21·8-24·7) in the FOLFOX alone group. In the safety population containing patients who received at least one dose of study treatment, as treated, the most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia (137 [24%] of 571 patients receiving FOLFOX alone vs 186 (37%) of 507 patients receiving FOLFOX plus SIRT). Serious adverse events of any grade occurred in 244 (43%) of 571 patients receiving FOLFOX alone and 274 (54%) of 507 patients receiving FOLFOX plus SIRT. 10 patients in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group and 11 patients in the FOLFOX alone group died due to an adverse event; eight treatment-related deaths occurred in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group and three treatment-related deaths occurred in the FOLFOX alone group. INTERPRETATION: Addition of SIRT to first-line FOLFOX chemotherapy for patients with liver-only and liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer did not improve overall survival compared with that for FOLFOX alone. Therefore, early use of SIRT in combination with chemotherapy in unselected patients with metastatic colorectal cancer cannot be recommended. To further define the role of SIRT in metastatic colorectal cancer, careful patient selection and studies investigating the role of SIRT as consolidation therapy after chemotherapy are needed. FUNDING: Bobby Moore Fund of Cancer Research UK, Sirtex Medical.

Embracing model-based designs for dose-finding trials.

BACKGROUND: Dose-finding trials are essential to drug development as they establish recommended doses for later-phase testing. We aim to motivate wider use of model-based designs for dose finding, such as the continual reassessment method (CRM). METHODS: We carried out a literature review of dose-finding designs and conducted a survey to identify perceived barriers to their implementation. RESULTS: We describe the benefits of model-based designs (flexibility, superior operating characteristics, extended scope), their current uptake, and existing resources. The most prominent barriers to implementation of a model-based design were lack of suitable training, chief investigators' preference for algorithm-based designs (e.g., 3+3), and limited resources for study design before funding. We use a real-world example to illustrate how these barriers can be overcome. CONCLUSIONS: There is overwhelming evidence for the benefits of CRM. Many leading pharmaceutical companies routinely implement model-based designs. Our analysis identified barriers for academic statisticians and clinical academics in mirroring the progress industry has made in trial design. Unified support from funders, regulators, and journal editors could result in more accurate doses for later-phase testing, and increase the efficiency and success of clinical drug development. We give recommendations for increasing the uptake of model-based designs for dose-finding trials in academia.

Adjuvant capecitabine plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine alone in patients with colorectal cancer (QUASAR 2): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Antiangiogenic agents have established efficacy in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. We investigated whether bevacizumab could improve disease-free survival in the adjuvant setting after resection of the primary tumour. METHODS: For the open-label, randomised, controlled QUASAR 2 trial, which was done at 170 hospitals in seven countries, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with WHO performance status scores of 0 or 1 who had undergone potentially curative surgery for histologically proven stage III or high-risk stage II colorectal cancer. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive eight 3-week cycles of oral capecitabine alone (1250 mg/m2 twice daily for 14 days followed by a break for 7 days) or the same regimen of oral capecitabine plus 16 cycles of 7·5 mg/kg bevacizumab by intravenous infusion over 90 min on day 1 of each cycle. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated schedule with use of minimisation with a random element stratified by age, disease stage, tumour site, and country. The study was open label and no-one was masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Toxic effects were assessed in patients who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN45133151. FINDINGS: Between April 25, 2005, and Oct 12, 2010, 1952 eligible patients were enrolled, of whom 1941 had assessable data (968 in the capecitabine alone group and 973 in the capecitabine and bevacizumab group). Median follow-up was 4·92 years (IQR 4·00-5·16). Disease-free survival at 3 years did not differ between the groups (75·4%, 95% CI 72·5-78·0 in the capecitabine and bevacizumab group vs 78·4%, 75·7-80·9 in the capecitabine alone group; hazard ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·89-1·25, p=0·54). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hand-foot syndrome (201 [21%] of 963 in the capecitabine alone group vs 257 [27%] of 959 in the capecitabine and bevacizumab group) and diarrhoea (102 [11%] vs 104 [11%]), and, with the addition of bevacizumab, expected increases were recorded in all-grade hypertension (320 [33%] vs 75 [8%]), proteinuria (197 [21%] vs 49 [5%]), and wound healing problems (30 [3%] vs 17 [2%]). 571 serious adverse events were reported (221 with capecitabine alone and 350 with capecitabine and bevacizumab). Most of these were gastrointestinal (n=245) or cardiovascular (n=169). 23 deaths within 6 months of randomisation were classified as being related to treatment, eight in the capecitabine alone group and 15 in the capecitabine and bevacizumab group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of bevacizumab to capecitabine in the adjuvant setting for colorectal cancer yielded no benefit in the treatment of an unselected population and should not be used. FUNDING: Roche.

Genome-wide association studies in oesophageal adenocarcinoma and Barrett's oesophagus: a large-scale meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal adenocarcinoma represents one of the fastest rising cancers in high-income countries. Barrett's oesophagus is the premalignant precursor of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. However, only a few patients with Barrett's oesophagus develop adenocarcinoma, which complicates clinical management in the absence of valid predictors. Within an international consortium investigating the genetics of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma, we aimed to identify novel genetic risk variants for the development of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: We did a meta-analysis of all genome-wide association studies of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma available in PubMed up to Feb 29, 2016; all patients were of European ancestry and disease was confirmed histopathologically. All participants were from four separate studies within Europe, North America, and Australia and were genotyped on high-density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays. Meta-analysis was done with a fixed-effects inverse variance-weighting approach and with a standard genome-wide significance threshold (p<5 × 10-8). We also did an association analysis after reweighting of loci with an approach that investigates annotation enrichment among genome-wide significant loci. Furthermore, the entire dataset was analysed with bioinformatics approaches-including functional annotation databases and gene-based and pathway-based methods-to identify pathophysiologically relevant cellular mechanisms. FINDINGS: Our sample comprised 6167 patients with Barrett's oesophagus and 4112 individuals with oesophageal adenocarcinoma, in addition to 17 159 representative controls from four genome-wide association studies in Europe, North America, and Australia. We identified eight new risk loci associated with either Barrett's oesophagus or oesophageal adenocarcinoma, within or near the genes CFTR (rs17451754; p=4·8 × 10-10), MSRA (rs17749155; p=5·2 × 10-10), LINC00208 and BLK (rs10108511; p=2·1 × 10-9), KHDRBS2 (rs62423175; p=3·0 × 10-9), TPPP and CEP72 (rs9918259; p=3·2 × 10-9), TMOD1 (rs7852462; p=1·5 × 10-8), SATB2 (rs139606545; p=2·0 × 10-8), and HTR3C and ABCC5 (rs9823696; p=1·6 × 10-8). The locus identified near HTR3C and ABCC5 (rs9823696) was associated specifically with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (p=1·6 × 10-8) and was independent of Barrett's oesophagus development (p=0·45). A ninth novel risk locus was identified within the gene LPA (rs12207195; posterior probability 0·925) after reweighting with significantly enriched annotations. The strongest disease pathways identified (p<10-6) belonged to muscle cell differentiation and to mesenchyme development and differentiation. INTERPRETATION: Our meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies doubled the number of known risk loci for Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma and revealed new insights into causes of these diseases. Furthermore, the specific association between oesophageal adenocarcinoma and the locus near HTR3C and ABCC5 might constitute a novel genetic marker for prediction of the transition from Barrett's oesophagus to oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Fine-mapping and functional studies of new risk loci could lead to identification of key molecules in the development of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma, which might encourage development of advanced prevention and intervention strategies. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute, US National Institutes of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Swedish Cancer Society, Medical Research Council UK, Cambridge NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, Else Kröner Fresenius Stiftung, Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK, AstraZeneca UK, University Hospitals of Leicester, University of Oxford, Australian Research Council.

RADVAN: a randomised phase 2 trial of WBRT plus vandetanib for melanoma brain metastases - results and lessons learnt.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases occur in up to 75% of patients with advanced melanoma. Most are treated with whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT), with limited effectiveness. Vandetanib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor and rearranged during transfection tyrosine kinases, is a potent radiosensitiser in xenograft models. We compared WBRT with WBRT plus vandetanib in the treatment of patients with melanoma brain metastases. METHODS: In this double-blind, multi-centre, phase 2 trial patients with melanoma brain metastases were randomised to receive WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions) plus 3 weeks of concurrent vandetanib 100 mg once daily or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in brain (PFS brain). The main study was preceded by a safety run-in phase to confirm tolerability of the combination. A post-hoc analysis and literature review considered barriers to recruiting patients with melanoma brain metastases to clinical trials. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were recruited, six to the safety phase and 18 to the randomised phase. The study closed early due to poor recruitment. Median PFS brain was 3.3 months (90% confidence interval (CI): 1.6-5.6) in the vandetanib group and 2.5 months (90% CI: 0.2-4.8) in the placebo group (P=0.34). Median overall survival (OS) was 4.6 months (90% CI: 1.6-6.3) and 2.5 months (90% CI: 0.2-7.2), respectively (P=0.54). The most frequent adverse events were fatigue, alopecia, confusion and nausea. The most common barrier to study recruitment was availability of alternative treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of WBRT plus vandetanib was well tolerated. Compared with WBRT alone, there was no significant improvement in PFS brain or OS, although we are unable to provide a definitive result due to poor accrual. A review of barriers to trial accrual identified several factors that affect study recruitment in this difficult disease area.

NCRI phase II study of CHOP in combination with ofatumumab in induction and maintenance in newly diagnosed Richter syndrome.

Richter syndrome (RS) is associated with chemotherapy resistance and a poor historical median overall survival (OS) of 8-10 months. We conducted a phase II trial of standard CHOP-21 (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone every 21 d) with ofatumumab induction (Cycle 1: 300 mg day 1, 1000 mg day 8, 1000 mg day 15; Cycles 2-6: 1000 mg day 1) (CHOP-O) followed by 12 months ofatumumab maintenance (1000 mg given 8-weekly for up to six cycles). Forty-three patients were recruited of whom 37 were evaluable. Seventy-three per cent were aged >60 years. Over half of the patients received a fludarabine and cyclophosphamide-based regimen as prior CLL treatment. The overall response rate was 46% (complete response 27%, partial response 19%) at six cycles. The median progression-free survival was 6·2 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 4·9-14·0 months) and median OS was 11·4 months (95% CI 6·4-25·6 months). Treatment-naïve and TP53-intact patients had improved outcomes. Fifteen episodes of neutropenic fever and 46 non-neutropenic infections were observed. There were no treatment-related deaths. Seven patients received platinum-containing salvage at progression, with only one patient obtaining an adequate response to proceed to allogeneic transplantation. CHOP-O with ofatumumab maintenance provides minimal benefit beyond CHOP plus rutuximab. Standard immunochemotherapy for RS remains wholly inadequate for unselected RS. Multinational trials incorporating novel agents are urgently needed.

Polymorphisms near TBX5 and GDF7 are associated with increased risk for Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Barrett's esophagus (BE) increases the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We found the risk to be BE has been associated with single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on chromosome 6p21 (within the HLA region) and on 16q23, where the closest protein-coding gene is FOXF1. Subsequently, the Barrett's and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium (BEACON) identified risk loci for BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma near CRTC1 and BARX1, and within 100 kb of FOXP1. We aimed to identify further SNPs that increased BE risk and to validate previously reported associations. METHODS: We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) to identify variants associated with BE and further analyzed promising variants identified by BEACON by genotyping 10,158 patients with BE and 21,062 controls. RESULTS: We identified 2 SNPs not previously associated with BE: rs3072 (2p24.1; odds ratio [OR] = 1.14; 95% CI: 1.09-1.18; P = 1.8 × 10(-11)) and rs2701108 (12q24.21; OR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.86-0.93; P = 7.5 × 10(-9)). The closest protein-coding genes were respectively GDF7 (rs3072), which encodes a ligand in the bone morphogenetic protein pathway, and TBX5 (rs2701108), which encodes a transcription factor that regulates esophageal and cardiac development. Our data also supported in BE cases 3 risk SNPs identified by BEACON (rs2687201, rs11789015, and rs10423674). Meta-analysis of all data identified another SNP associated with BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma: rs3784262, within ALDH1A2 (OR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.87-0.93; P = 3.72 × 10(-9)). CONCLUSIONS: We identified 2 loci associated with risk of BE and provided data to support a further locus. The genes we found to be associated with risk for BE encode transcription factors involved in thoracic, diaphragmatic, and esophageal development or proteins involved in the inflammatory response.