A signal-seeking Phase 2 study of olaparib and durvalumab in advanced solid cancers with homologous recombination repair gene alterations.

PURPOSE: To determine the safety and efficacy of PARP plus PD-L1 inhibition (olaparib + durvalumab, O + D) in patients with advanced solid, predominantly rare cancers harbouring homologous recombination repair (HRR) defects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 48 patients were treated with O + D, 16 with BRCA1/2 alterations (group 1) and 32 with other select HRR alterations (group 2). Overall, 32 (66%) patients had rare or less common cancers. The primary objective of this single-arm Phase II trial was a progression-free survival rate at 6 months (PFS6). Post hoc exploratory analyses were conducted on archival tumour tissue and serial bloods. RESULTS: The PFS6 rate was 35% and 38% with durable objective tumour responses (OTR) in 3(19%) and 3(9%) in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Rare cancers achieving an OTR included cholangiocarcinoma, perivascular epithelioid cell (PEComa), neuroendocrine, gallbladder and endometrial cancer. O + D was safe, with five serious adverse events related to the study drug(s) in 3 (6%) patients. A higher proportion of CD38 high B cells in the blood and higher CD40 expression in tumour was prognostic of survival. CONCLUSIONS: O + D demonstrated no new toxicity concerns and yielded a clinically meaningful PFS6 rate and durable OTRs across several cancers with HRR defects, including rare cancers.

INTEGRATE II: randomised phase III controlled trials of regorafenib containing regimens versus standard of care in refractory Advanced Gastro-Oesophageal Cancer (AGOC): a study by the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG).

BACKGROUND: Advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer (AGOC) carries a poor prognosis. No standard of care treatment options are available after first and second-line therapies. Regorafenib is an oral multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting angiogenic, stromal, and oncogenic receptor tyrosine kinases. Regorafenib 160 mg daily prolonged progression free survival compared to placebo (INTEGRATE, phase 2). Regorafenib 80 mg daily in combination with nivolumab 3 mg/kg showed promising objective response rates (REGONIVO). METHODS/DESIGN: INTEGRATE II (INTEGRATE IIa and IIb) platform comprises two international phase III randomised controlled trials (RCT) with 2:1 randomisation in favor of experimental intervention. INTEGRATE IIa (double-blind) compares regorafenib 160 mg daily on days 1 to 21 of each 28-day cycle to placebo. INTEGRATE IIb (open label) compares REGONIVO, regorafenib 90 mg days 1 to 21 in combination with intravenous nivolumab 240 mg days 1 and 15 each 28-day cycle with investigator's choice of chemotherapy (control). Treatment continues until disease progression or intolerable adverse events as per protocol. Eligible participants include adults with AGOC who have failed two or more lines of treatment. Stratification is by location of tumour (INTEGRATE IIa only), geographic region, prior VEGF inhibitor and prior immunotherapy use (INTEGRATE IIb only). Primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints are progression free survival, objective response rate, quality of life, and safety. Tertiary/correlative objectives include biomarker and pharmacokinetic evaluation. DISCUSSION: INTEGRATE II provides a platform to evaluate the clinical utility of regorafenib alone, as well as regorafenib in combination with nivolumab in treatment of participants with refractory AGOC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: INTEGRATE IIa prospectively registered 1 April 2016 Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12616000420448 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02773524). INTEGRATE IIb prospectively registered 10 May 2021 ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04879368.

Healthcare Costs of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer Patients in the First 12 Months: A Secondary Endpoint Analysis of the Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (ALaCaRT).

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer is widely used, however the healthcare costs are thought to be higher than for open resection. This secondary endpoint analysis of a randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate total healthcare costs of laparoscopic-assisted surgery compared with open resection for rectal cancer over a 12-month period. METHODS: Patients in the Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (ALaCaRT) were included in a prospective costing analysis. All healthcare use for the index surgery and hospital admission, readmissions, and follow-up care over 12 months were included. Unit costs were valued in Australian dollars (AUD$) using scheduled Medicare fees and hospital cost weights. The primary outcome was mean per patient cost. Non-parametric bootstrapping with 10,000 replications was undertaken for robustness checks. RESULTS: Data from 468 patients indicated that the laparoscopic-assisted surgical procedure incurred a mean cost of AUD$4542 (standard deviation [SD] AUD$1050)-AUD$521 higher than the open procedure mean cost of AUD$4021 (SD AUD$804) due to longer operative time and involvement of more costly equipment (95% confidence interval [CI] AUD$354-AUD$692). At 12 months, the average cost for the laparoscopic-assisted and open groups was AUD$43,288 (SD AUD$40,883) and AUD$45,384 (SD AUD$38,659), respectively, due to the shorter subsequent hospital stays. No overall significant cost difference between groups was found (95% CI -AUD$9358 to AUD$5003). One-way sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. CONCLUSION: While initially higher, the costs of laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer were similar to open resection at 12 months. Clinicians may choose a surgical approach based on clinical need. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG) was the legal sponsor and trial coordination was performed by the NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre. The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12609000663257).

Functional Outcome of Laparoscopic-Assisted Resection Versus Open Resection of Rectal Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial.

BACKGROUND: Low anterior resection syndrome has a significant impact on the quality of life in rectal cancer survivors. Previous studies comparing laparoscopic to open rectal resection have neglected bowel function outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess whether there is a difference in the functional outcome between patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open resection for rectal adenocarcinoma. DESIGN: Cross-sectional prevalence of low anterior resection syndrome was assessed in a secondary analysis of the multicenter phase 3 randomized clinical trial, Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (ACTRN12609000663257). SETTING: There were 7 study subsites across New Zealand and Australia. PATIENTS: Participants were adults with rectal cancer who underwent anterior resection and had bowel continuity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative bowel function was evaluated using the validated low anterior resection syndrome score and Bowel Function Instrument. RESULTS: The Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial randomized 475 patients with T1-T3 rectal adenocarcinoma less than 15 cm from the anal verge. A total of 257 participants were eligible for, and invited to, participate in additional follow-up; 163 (63%) completed functional follow-up. Overall cross-sectional prevalence of major low anterior resection syndrome was 49% (minor low anterior resection syndrome 27%). There were no differences in median overall Bowel Function Instrument score nor low anterior resection syndrome score between participants undergoing laparoscopic versus open surgery (66 vs 67, p = 0.52; 31 vs 27, p = 0.24) at a median follow-up of 69 months. LIMITATIONS: The major limitations are a result of conducting a secondary analysis; the likelihood of an insufficient sample size to detect a difference in prevalence between the groups and the possibility of selection bias as a subset of the randomized population was analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Bowel dysfunction affects a majority of rectal cancer patients for a significant time after the operation. In this secondary analysis of a randomized trial, surgical approach does not appear to influence the likelihood or severity of low anterior resection syndrome. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B794. RESULTADO FUNCIONAL DE LA RESECCIN ASISTIDA POR LAPAROSCOPIA VERSUS RESECCIN ABIERTA EN CNCER DE RECTO ANLISIS SECUNDARIO DEL ESTUDIO DE CNCER DE RECTO LAPAROSCPICO DE AUSTRALASIA: ANTECEDENTES:El síndrome de resección anterior baja tiene un impacto significativo en la calidad de vida de los supervivientes de cáncer de recto. Los estudios anteriores que compararon la resección rectal laparoscópica con la abierta no han presentado resultados de la función intestinal.OBJETIVO:Evaluar si existe una diferencia en el resultado funcional entre los pacientes sometidos a resección laparoscópica versus resección abierta por adenocarcinoma de recto.DISEÑO:La prevalencia transversal del síndrome de resección anterior baja se evaluó en un análisis secundario del ensayo clínico aleatorizado multicéntrico de fase 3, Estudio Sobre el Cáncer de Recto Laparoscópico de Australasia (Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial, ACTRN12609000663257).AJUSTE:Siete subsitios de estudio en Nueva Zelanda y Australia.PACIENTES:Los participantes eran adultos con cáncer de recto que se sometieron a resección anterior con anastomosis.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:La función intestinal posoperatoria se evaluó utilizando el previamente validado puntaje LARS y el Instrumento de Función Intestinal.RESULTADOS:El Estudio Sobre el Cáncer de Recto Laparoscópico de Australasia asignó al azar a 475 pacientes con adenocarcinoma rectal T1-T3 a menos de 15 cm del borde anal. 257 participantes fueron elegibles e invitados a participar en un seguimiento adicional. 163 (63%) completaron el seguimiento funcional. La prevalencia transversal general de LARS mayor fue del 49% (LARS menor 27%). No hubo diferencias en la puntuación media general del Instrumento de Función Intestinal ni en la puntuación LARS entre los participantes sometidos a cirugía laparoscópica versus cirugía abierta (66 frente a 67, p = 0,52; 31 frente a 27, p = 0,24) en una mediana de seguimiento de 69 meses.LIMITACIONES:Las principales limitaciones son el resultado de realizar un análisis secundario; se analizó la probabilidad de un tamaño de muestra insuficiente para detectar una diferencia en la prevalencia entre los grupos y la posibilidad de sesgo de selección como un subconjunto de la población aleatorizada.CONCLUSIONES:La disfunción intestinal afecta a la mayoría de los pacientes con cáncer de recto durante un tiempo significativo después de la operación. En este análisis secundario de un ensayo aleatorizado, el abordaje quirúrgico no parece influir en la probabilidad o gravedad del síndrome de resección anterior baja. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B794. (Traducción-Dr. Felipe Bellolio).

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer: an individual patient data network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomised, controlled trials and meta-analyses have shown the survival benefit of concomitant chemoradiotherapy or hyperfractionated radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer. However, the relative efficacy of these treatments is unknown. We aimed to determine whether one treatment was superior to the other. METHODS: We did a frequentist network meta-analysis based on individual patient data of meta-analyses evaluating the role of chemotherapy (Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer [MACH-NC]) and of altered fractionation radiotherapy (Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Carcinomas of Head and Neck [MARCH]). Randomised, controlled trials that enrolled patients with non-metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer between Jan 1, 1980, and Dec 31, 2016, were included. We used a two-step random-effects approach, and the log-rank test, stratified by trial to compare treatments, with locoregional therapy as the reference. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. The global Cochran Q statistic was used to assess homogeneity and consistency and P score to rank treatments (higher scores indicate more effective therapies). FINDINGS: 115 randomised, controlled trials, which enrolled patients between Jan 1, 1980, and April 30, 2012, yielded 154 comparisons (28 978 patients with 19 253 deaths and 20 579 progression events). Treatments were grouped into 16 modalities, for which 35 types of direct comparisons were available. Median follow-up based on all trials was 6·6 years (IQR 5·0-9·4). Hyperfractionated radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy (HFCRT) was ranked as the best treatment for overall survival (P score 97%; hazard ratio 0·63 [95% CI 0·51-0·77] compared with locoregional therapy). The hazard ratio of HFCRT compared with locoregional therapy with concomitant chemoradiotherapy with platinum-based chemotherapy (CLRTP) was 0·82 (95% CI 0·66-1·01) for overall survival. The superiority of HFCRT was robust to sensitivity analyses. Three other modalities of treatment had a better P score, but not a significantly better HR, for overall survival than CLRTP (P score 78%): induction chemotherapy with taxane, cisplatin, and fluorouracil followed by locoregional therapy (ICTaxPF-LRT; 89%), accelerated radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy (82%), and ICTaxPF followed by CLRT (80%). INTERPRETATION: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that further intensifying chemoradiotherapy, using HFCRT or ICTaxPF-CLRT, could improve outcomes over chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer. FUNDINGS: French Institut National du Cancer, French Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, and Fondation ARC.

Generating comparative evidence on new drugs and devices after approval.

Certain limitations of evidence available on drugs and devices at the time of market approval often persist in the post-marketing period. Often, post-marketing research landscape is fragmented. When regulatory agencies require pharmaceutical and device manufacturers to conduct studies in the post-marketing period, these studies might remain incomplete many years after approval. Even when completed, many post-marketing studies lack meaningful active comparators, have observational designs, and might not collect patient-relevant outcomes. Regulators, in collaboration with the industry and patients, ought to ensure that the key questions unanswered at the time of drug and device approval are resolved in a timely fashion during the post-marketing phase. We propose a set of seven key guiding principles that we believe will provide the necessary incentives for pharmaceutical and device manufacturers to generate comparative data in the post-marketing period. First, regulators (for drugs and devices), notified bodies (for devices in Europe), health technology assessment organisations, and payers should develop customised evidence generation plans, ensuring that future post-approval studies address any limitations of the data available at the time of market entry impacting the benefit-risk profiles of drugs and devices. Second, post-marketing studies should be designed hierarchically: priority should be given to efforts aimed at evaluating a product's net clinical benefit in randomised trials compared with current known effective therapy, whenever possible, to address common decisional dilemmas. Third, post-marketing studies should incorporate active comparators as appropriate. Fourth, use of non-randomised studies for the evaluation of clinical benefit in the post-marketing period should be limited to instances when the magnitude of effect is deemed to be large or when it is possible to reasonably infer the comparative benefits or risks in settings, in which doing a randomised trial is not feasible. Fifth, efficiency of randomised trials should be improved by streamlining patient recruitment and data collection through innovative design elements. Sixth, governments should directly support and facilitate the production of comparative post-marketing data by investing in the development of collaborative research networks and data systems that reduce the complexity, cost, and waste of rigorous post-marketing research efforts. Last, financial incentives and penalties should be developed or more actively reinforced.

AGITG MASTERPLAN: a randomised phase II study of modified FOLFIRINOX alone or in combination with stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with high-risk and locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with non-metastatic pancreatic cancer, 80% have high-risk, borderline resectable or locally advanced cancer, with a 5-year overall survival of 12%. MASTERPLAN evaluates the safety and activity of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in addition to chemotherapy in these patients. METHODS AND DESIGN: MASTERPLAN is a multi-centre randomised phase II trial of 120 patients with histologically confirmed potentially operable pancreatic cancer (POPC) or inoperable pancreatic cancer (IPC). POPC includes patients with borderline resectable or high-risk tumours; IPC is defined as locally advanced or medically inoperable pancreatic cancer. Randomisation is 2:1 to chemotherapy + SBRT (investigational arm) or chemotherapy alone (control arm) by minimisation and stratified by patient cohort (POPC v IPC), planned induction chemotherapy and institution. Chemotherapy can have been commenced ≤28 days prior to randomisation. Both arms receive 6 × 2 weekly cycles of modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2 IV), irinotecan (150 mg/m2), 5-fluorouracil (2400 mg/m2 CIV), leucovorin (50 mg IV bolus)) plus SBRT in the investigational arm. Gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel is permitted for patients unsuitable for mFOLFIRINOX. SBRT is 40Gy in five fractions with planning quality assurance to occur in real time. Following initial chemotherapy ± SBRT, resectability will be evaluated. For resected patients, adjuvant chemotherapy is six cycles of mFOLFIRINOX. Where gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel was used initially, the adjuvant treatment is 12 weeks of gemcitabine and capecitabine or mFOLFIRINOX. Unresectable or medically inoperable patients with stable/responding disease will continue with a further six cycles of mFOLFIRINOX or three cycles of gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel, whatever was used initially. The primary endpoint is 12-month locoregional control. Secondary endpoints are safety, surgical morbidity and mortality, radiological response rates, progression-free survival, pathological response rates, surgical resection rates, R0 resection rate, quality of life, deterioration-free survival and overall survival. Tertiary/correlative objectives are radiological measures of nutrition and sarcopenia, and serial tissue, blood and microbiome samples to be assessed for associations between clinical endpoints and potential predictive/prognostic biomarkers. Interim analysis will review rates of locoregional recurrence, distant failure and death after 40 patients complete 12 months follow-up. Fifteen Australian and New Zealand sites will recruit over a 4-year period, with minimum follow-up period of 12 months. DISCUSSION: MASTERPLAN evaluates SBRT in both resectable and unresectable patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619000409178 , 13/03/2019. Protocol version: 2.0, 19 May 2019.

Development and validation of a ceramide- and phospholipid-based cardiovascular risk estimation score for coronary artery disease patients.

AIMS: Distinct ceramide lipids have been shown to predict the risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, especially cardiovascular death. As phospholipids have also been linked with CVD risk, we investigated whether the combination of ceramides with phosphatidylcholines (PCs) would be synergistic in the prediction of CVD events in patients with atherosclerotic coronary heart disease in three independent cohort studies. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ceramides and PCs were analysed using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) in three studies: WECAC (The Western Norway Coronary Angiography Cohort) (N = 3789), LIPID (Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease) trial (N = 5991), and KAROLA (Langzeiterfolge der KARdiOLogischen Anschlussheilbehandlung) (N = 1023). A simple risk score, based on the ceramides and PCs showing the best prognostic features, was developed in the WECAC study and validated in the two other cohorts. This score was highly significant in predicting CVD mortality [multiadjusted hazard ratios (HRs; 95% confidence interval) per standard deviation were 1.44 (1.28-1.63) in WECAC, 1.47 (1.34-1.61) in the LIPID trial, and 1.69 (1.31-2.17) in KAROLA]. In addition, a combination of the risk score with high-sensitivity troponin T increased the HRs to 1.63 (1.44-1.85) and 2.04 (1.57-2.64) in WECAC and KAROLA cohorts, respectively. The C-statistics in WECAC for the risk score combined with sex and age was 0.76 for CVD death. The ceramide-phospholipid risk score showed comparable and synergistic predictive performance with previously published CVD risk models for secondary prevention. CONCLUSION: A simple ceramide- and phospholipid-based risk score can efficiently predict residual CVD event risk in patients with coronary artery disease.

Guidelines for Reporting Trial Protocols and Completed Trials Modified Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Extenuating Circumstances: The CONSERVE 2021 Statement.

Importance: Extenuating circumstances can trigger unplanned changes to randomized trials and introduce methodological, ethical, feasibility, and analytical challenges that can potentially compromise the validity of findings. Numerous randomized trials have required changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but guidance for reporting such modifications is incomplete. Objective: As a joint extension for the CONSORT and SPIRIT reporting guidelines, CONSERVE (CONSORT and SPIRIT Extension for RCTs Revised in Extenuating Circumstances) aims to improve reporting of trial protocols and completed trials that undergo important modifications in response to extenuating circumstances. Evidence: A panel of 37 international trial investigators, patient representatives, methodologists and statisticians, ethicists, funders, regulators, and journal editors convened to develop the guideline. The panel developed CONSERVE following an accelerated, iterative process between June 2020 and February 2021 involving (1) a rapid literature review of multiple databases (OVID Medline, OVID EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL) and gray literature sources from 2003 to March 2021; (2) consensus-based panelist meetings using a modified Delphi process and surveys; and (3) a global survey of trial stakeholders. Findings: The rapid review yielded 41 673 citations, of which 38 titles were relevant, including emerging guidance from regulatory and funding agencies for managing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on trials. However, no generalizable guidance for all circumstances in which trials and trial protocols might face unanticipated modifications were identified. The CONSERVE panel used these findings to develop a consensus reporting guidelines following 4 rounds of meetings and surveys. Responses were received from 198 professionals from 34 countries, of whom 90% (n = 178) indicated that they understood the concept definitions and 85.4% (n = 169) indicated that they understood and could use the implementation tool. Feedback from survey respondents was used to finalize the guideline and confirm that the guideline's core concepts were applicable and had utility for the trial community. CONSERVE incorporates an implementation tool and checklists tailored to trial reports and trial protocols for which extenuating circumstances have resulted in important modifications to the intended study procedures. The checklists include 4 sections capturing extenuating circumstances, important modifications, responsible parties, and interim data analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: CONSERVE offers an extension to CONSORT and SPIRIT that could improve the transparency, quality, and completeness of reporting important modifications to trials in extenuating circumstances such as COVID-19.

Uric acid predicts long-term cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes but does not mediate the benefits of fenofibrate: The FIELD study.

AIM: To explore the relationship between baseline uric acid (UA) levels and long-term cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and to determine whether the cardioprotective effects of fenofibrate are partly mediated through its UA-lowering effects. METHODS: Data from the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) trial were utilized, comprising 9795 adults with T2D randomly allocated to treatment with fenofibrate or matching placebo. Plasma UA was measured before and after a 6-week, active fenofibrate run-in phase in all participants. Cox proportional hazards models were used to explore the relationships between baseline UA, pre-to-post run-in reductions in UA and long-term cardiovascular outcomes. RESULTS: Mean baseline plasma UA was 0.33 mmol/L (SD 0.08). Baseline UA was a significant predictor of long-term cardiovascular events, with every 0.1 mmol/L higher UA conferring a 21% increase in event rate (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13-1.29, P < .001). This remained significant after adjustment for treatment allocation, cardiovascular risk factors and renal function. The extent of UA reduction during fenofibrate run-in was also a significant predictor of long-term cardiovascular events, with every 0.1 mmol/L greater reduction conferring a 14% lower long-term risk (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76-0.97, P = .015). This effect was not modified by treatment allocation (Pinteraction = .77). CONCLUSIONS: UA is a strong independent predictor of long-term cardiovascular risk in adults with T2D. Although greater reduction in UA on fenofibrate is predictive of lower cardiovascular risk, this does not appear to mediate the cardioprotective effects of fenofibrate.

D-Dimer Predicts Long-Term Cause-Specific Mortality, Cardiovascular Events, and Cancer in Patients With Stable Coronary Heart Disease: LIPID Study.

BACKGROUND: D-dimer, a degradation product of cross-linked fibrin, is a marker for hypercoagulability and thrombotic events. Moderately elevated levels of D-dimer are associated with the risk of venous and arterial events in patients with vascular disease. We assessed the role of D-dimer levels in predicting long-term vascular outcomes, cause-specific mortality, and new cancers in the LIPID trial (Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease) in the context of other risk factors. METHODS: LIPID randomized patients to placebo or pravastatin 40 mg/d 5 to 38 months after myocardial infarction or unstable angina. D-dimer levels were measured at baseline and at 1 year. Median follow-up was 6.0 years during the trial and 16 years in total. RESULTS: Baseline D-dimer levels for 7863 patients were grouped by quartile (≤112, 112-173, 173-273, >273 ng/mL). Higher levels were associated with older age, female sex, history of hypertension, poor renal function, and elevated levels of B-natriuretic peptide, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and sensitive troponin I (each P<0.001). During the first 6 years, after adjustment for up to 30 additional risk factors, higher D-dimer was associated with a significantly increased risk of a major coronary event (quartile 4 versus 1: hazard ratio [HR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.74), major cardiovascular disease (CVD) event (HR, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.71) and venous thromboembolism (HR, 4.03; 95% confidence interval, 2.31-7.03; each P<0.001). During the 16 years overall, higher D-dimer was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (HR, 1.59), CVD mortality (HR, 1.61), cancer mortality (HR, 1.54), and non-CVD noncancer mortality (HR, 1.57; each P<0.001), remaining significant for deaths resulting from each cause occurring beyond 10 years of follow-up (each P≤0.01). Higher D-dimer also independently predicted an increase in cancer incidence (HR, 1.16; P=0.02).The D-dimer level increased the net reclassification index for all-cause mortality by 4.0 and venous thromboembolism by 13.6. CONCLUSIONS: D-dimer levels predict long-term risk of arterial and venous events, CVD mortality, and non-CVD noncancer mortality independent of other risk factors. D-dimer is also a significant predictor of cancer incidence and mortality. These results support an association of D-dimer with fatal events across multiple diseases and demonstrate that this link extends beyond 10 years' follow-up.

Disease-free Survival and Local Recurrence After Laparoscopic-assisted Resection or Open Resection for Rectal Cancer: The Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the efficacy of laparoscopic rectal resection (Lap) versus open laparotomy and rectal resection (Open) for rectal cancer on locoregional recurrence (LRR) and disease-free survival (DFS) at 2 years. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Although a Lap approach to colon cancer surgery may offer similar oncological outcomes to Open with potentially less morbidity, this remains to be clearly established for the treatment of rectal cancer. METHODS: A randomized, multicenter noninferiority phase 3 trial of 475 patients with T1 to T3 rectal adenocarcinoma <15 cm from anal verge, given Lap or Open and followed for a minimum 2 years to assess LRR, DFS, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Secondary endpoint analyses included 450 patients (95%) without metastases at baseline (mean age 64; 34% women) who received Lap (n = 225) or Open (n = 225). Median follow-up was 3.2 years (range: 0.1-5.4 yrs). LRR cumulative incidence at 2 years: Lap 5.4%; Open 3.1% [difference, 2.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -1.5% to 6.1%; hazard ratio (HR) 1.7; 95% CI, 0.74-3.9]. DFS at 2 years: Lap 80%; Open 82% (difference, 2.0%; 95% CI, -9.3% to 5.4%; HR for recurrence or death, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.81-1.68; P = 0.41). After adjustment for baseline factors HR = 1.07 (95% CI, 0.7-1.6). OS at 2 years: Lap 94%; Open 93% (difference 0.9%; 95% CI, -3.6% to 5.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer did not differ significantly from open surgery in effects on 2-year recurrence or DFS and OS. Confidence intervals included potentially clinically important differences favoring open resection, so that the combination of primary and secondary study endpoints may not support laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer as a routine standard of care and further follow-up is required.

Baseline and on-statin treatment lipoprotein(a) levels for prediction of cardiovascular events: individual patient-data meta-analysis of statin outcome trials.

BACKGROUND: Elevated lipoprotein(a) is a genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease in general population studies. However, its contribution to risk for cardiovascular events in patients with established cardiovascular disease or on statin therapy is uncertain. METHODS: Patient-level data from seven randomised, placebo-controlled, statin outcomes trials were collated and harmonised to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for cardiovascular events, defined as fatal or non-fatal coronary heart disease, stroke, or revascularisation procedures. HRs for cardiovascular events were estimated within each trial across predefined lipoprotein(a) groups (15 to <30 mg/dL, 30 to <50 mg/dL, and ≥50 mg/dL, vs <15 mg/dL), before pooling estimates using multivariate random-effects meta-analysis. FINDINGS: Analyses included data for 29 069 patients with repeat lipoprotein(a) measurements (mean age 62 years [SD 8]; 8064 [28%] women; 5751 events during 95 576 person-years at risk). Initiation of statin therapy reduced LDL cholesterol (mean change -39% [95% CI -43 to -35]) without a significant change in lipoprotein(a). Associations of baseline and on-statin treatment lipoprotein(a) with cardiovascular disease risk were approximately linear, with increased risk at lipoprotein(a) values of 30 mg/dL or greater for baseline lipoprotein(a) and 50 mg/dL or greater for on-statin lipoprotein(a). For baseline lipoprotein(a), HRs adjusted for age and sex (vs <15 mg/dL) were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91-1·18) for 15 mg/dL to less than 30 mg/dL, 1·11 (1·00-1·22) for 30 mg/dL to less than 50 mg/dL, and 1·31 (1·08-1·58) for 50 mg/dL or higher; respective HRs for on-statin lipoprotein(a) were 0·94 (0·81-1·10), 1·06 (0·94-1·21), and 1·43 (1·15-1·76). HRs were almost identical after further adjustment for previous cardiovascular disease, diabetes, smoking, systolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol. The association of on-statin lipoprotein(a) with cardiovascular disease risk was stronger than for on-placebo lipoprotein(a) (interaction p=0·010) and was more pronounced at younger ages (interaction p=0·008) without effect-modification by any other patient-level or study-level characteristics. INTERPRETATION: In this individual-patient data meta-analysis of statin-treated patients, elevated baseline and on-statin lipoprotein(a) showed an independent approximately linear relation with cardiovascular disease risk. This study provides a rationale for testing the lipoprotein(a) lowering hypothesis in cardiovascular disease outcomes trials. FUNDING: Novartis Pharma AG.

Pulse Oximeter Saturation Targeting and Oximeter Changes in the Benefits of Oxygen Saturation Targeting (BOOST)-II Australia and BOOST-II UK Oxygen Trials.

Infants in the Australian and UK Benefits of Oxygen Saturation Targeting-II trials treated using revised oximeters spent more time within their planned pulse oximeter saturation target ranges than infants treated using the original oximeters (P < .001). This may explain the larger mortality difference seen with revised oximeters. If so, average treatment effects from the Neonatal Oxygen Prospective Meta-analysis trials may be underestimates.

Delayed vs early umbilical cord clamping for preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effects of delayed cord clamping of the umbilical cord in preterm infants are unclear. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the effects of delayed vs early cord clamping on hospital mortality (primary outcome) and morbidity in preterm infants using Cochrane Collaboration neonatal review group methodology. STUDY DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Chinese articles, cross-referencing citations, expert informants, and trial registries to July 31, 2017, for randomized controlled trials of delayed (≥30 seconds) vs early (<30 seconds) clamping in infants born <37 weeks' gestation. Before searching the literature, we specified that trials estimated to have cord milking in >20% of infants in any arm would be ineligible. Two reviewers independently selected studies, assessed bias, and extracted data. Relative risk (ie, risk ratio), risk difference, and mean difference with 95% confidence intervals were assessed by fixed effects models, heterogeneity by I2 statistics, and the quality of evidence by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations. RESULTS: Eighteen randomized controlled trials compared delayed vs early clamping in 2834 infants. Most infants allocated to have delayed clamping were assigned a delay of ≥60 seconds. Delayed clamping reduced hospital mortality (risk ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.90; risk difference, -0.03; 95% confidence interval, -0.05 to -0.01; P = .005; number needed to benefit, 33; 95% confidence interval, 20-100; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations = high, with I2 = 0 indicating no heterogeneity). In 3 trials in 996 infants ≤28 weeks' gestation, delayed clamping reduced hospital mortality (risk ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.95; risk difference, -0.05; 95% confidence interval, -0.09 to -0.01; P = .02, number needed to benefit, 20; 95% confidence interval, 11-100; I2 = 0). In subgroup analyses, delayed clamping reduced the incidence of low Apgar score at 1 minute, but not at 5 minutes, and did not reduce the incidence of intubation for resuscitation, admission temperature, mechanical ventilation, intraventricular hemorrhage, brain injury, chronic lung disease, patent ductus arteriosus, necrotizing enterocolitis, late onset sepsis or retinopathy of prematurity. Delayed clamping increased peak hematocrit by 2.73 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 1.94-3.52; P < .00001) and reduced the proportion of infants having blood transfusion by 10% (95% confidence interval, 6-13%; P < .00001). Potential harms of delayed clamping included polycythemia and hyperbilirubinemia. CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides high-quality evidence that delayed clamping reduced hospital mortality, which supports current guidelines recommending delayed clamping in preterm infants. This review does not evaluate cord milking, which may also be of benefit. Analyses of individual patient data in these and other randomized controlled trials will be critically important in reliably evaluating important secondary outcomes.

Health-related quality of life associated with regorafenib treatment in refractory advanced gastric adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The INTEGRATE phase II multinational randomized controlled trial demonstrated the activity of regorafenib on progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with refractory advanced gastric adenocarcinoma. We sought to evaluate whether these PFS gains had the potential to be offset by quality of life (QoL) impacts from treatment side effects and to thereby determine the appropriateness of continuing development to phase III. METHODS: QoL was assessed in INTEGRATE at baseline and at each 4 weeks thereafter, until discontinuation of study treatment, using the QLQ-C30, STO22, and EQ-5D questionnaires. The patient disease and treatment assessment (PTDATA) form was also provided to English-speaking participants. Randomized groups were compared on the QLQ-C30, STO22, and EQ-5D scales using a repeated-measures model; the frequency of troublesome symptoms and side effects measured by the PTDATA form; and deterioration-free survival (DFS). The prognostic value of baseline QoL information was also evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 147 eligible randomized patients, 142 consented to participate in the QoL substudy, 136 completed a baseline QoL assessment, and 95 completed at least one post-baseline QoL assessment. The DFS rate was significantly improved with regorafenib, and there was no compelling statistical evidence that regorafenib had a broad negative effect across the spectrum of QoL indices evaluated. Fatigue, anxiety, appetite loss, and pain were among the issues most commonly reported for both randomized groups. Baseline levels of pain, appetite, constipation, and physical functioning were prognostic factors for survival. CONCLUSIONS: Regorafenib improved DFS without an excessively negative effect on QoL. Progressing development to the phase III setting is warranted.

When do patient reported quality of life indicators become prognostic in breast cancer?

BACKGROUND: Various patient reported quality-of-life indicators are independently prognostic for survival in metastatic breast cancer and other cancers. The same measures recorded at first diagnosis of early breast cancer carry no corresponding prognostic information. The present study aims to assess at what time in the disease evolution the prognostic association appears. METHODS: Among 8024 patients enrolled in one of seven randomized controlled trials in early-stage breast cancer 3247 had a breast cancer relapse after a median follow-up of 12.1 years. Of these 677 had completed QL indicator assessments within defined windows 1, 2 or 3 months prior to relapse. We performed Cox regression analyses using these assessments and using identical instruments after relapse. All analyses were stratified by trial and adjusted for baseline clinicopathologic factors. RESULTS: QL indicators in the months before relapse were not significantly prognostic for subsequent survival with the possibly chance exception of mood at the second month before relapse. After relapse, physical well-being was statistically significantly associated with survival (P < 0.001). This prognostic significance increased in later post-relapse assessments. Similar findings were observed using patient-reported indicators for nausea and vomiting, appetite, coping effort, and health perception. CONCLUSIONS: Before cancer relapse, QL indicators were not generally prognostic for subsequent survival. After relapse, QL indicators substantially predicted OS, with a stronger association later in the course of relapsed disease. Simple patient perception of disease burden seems unlikely to explain this sudden change: rather the patient's awareness of disease relapse must contribute.

Anti-angiogenic therapy for high-grade glioma.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in September 2014. The most common primary brain tumours in adults are gliomas. Gliomas span a spectrum from low to high grade and are graded pathologically on a scale of one to four according to the World Health Organization (WHO) classification. High-grade glioma (HGG) carries a poor prognosis. Grade IV glioma is known as glioblastoma and carries a median survival in treated patients of about 15 months. Glioblastomas are rich in blood vessels (i.e. highly vascular) and also rich in a protein known as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) that promotes new blood vessel formation (the process of angiogenesis). Anti-angiogenic agents inhibit the process of new blood vessel formation and promote regression of existing vessels. Several anti-angiogenic agents have been investigated in clinical trials, both in newly diagnosed and recurrent HGG, showing preliminary promising results. This review was undertaken to report on the benefits and harms associated with the use of anti-angiogenic agents in the treatment of HGGs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of anti-angiogenic therapy in people with high-grade glioma (HGG). The intervention can be used in two broad groups: at first diagnosis as part of 'adjuvant' therapy, or in the setting of recurrent disease. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted updated searches to identify published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 9), MEDLINE and Embase to October 2018. We handsearched proceedings of relevant oncology conferences up to 2018. We also searched trial registries for ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs evaluating the use of anti-angiogenic therapy to treat HGG versus the same therapy without anti-angiogenic therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors screened the search results and reviewed the abstracts of potentially relevant articles before retrieving the full text of eligible articles. MAIN RESULTS: After a comprehensive literature search, we identified 11 eligible RCTs (3743 participants), of which 7 were included in the original review (2987 participants). There was significant design heterogeneity in the included studies, especially in the response assessment criteria used. All eligible studies were restricted to glioblastomas and there were no eligible studies evaluating other HGGs. Ten studies were available as fully published peer-reviewed manuscripts, and one study was available in abstract form. The overall risk of bias in included studies was low. This risk was based upon low rates of selection bias, detection bias, attrition bias and reporting bias. The 11 studies included in this review did not show an improvement in overall survival with the addition of anti-angiogenic therapy (pooled hazard ratio (HR) of 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.02; P = 0.16; 11 studies, 3743 participants; high-certainty evidence). However, pooled analysis from 10 studies (3595 participants) showed improvement in progression-free survival with the addition of anti-angiogenic therapy (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.79; P < 0.00001; high-certainty evidence).We carried out additional analyses of overall survival and progression-free survival according to treatment setting and for anti-angiogenic therapy combined with chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone. Pooled analysis of overall survival in either the adjuvant or recurrent setting did not show an improvement (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.02; P = 0.12; 8 studies, 2833 participants; high-certainty evidence and HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16; P = 0.90; 3 studies, 910 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). Pooled analysis of overall survival for anti-angiogenic therapy combined with chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy also did not clearly show an improvement (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00; P = 0.05; 11 studies, 3506 participants; low-certainty evidence). The progression-free survival in the subgroups all showed findings that demonstrated improvements in progression-free survival with the addition of anti-angiogenic therapy. Pooled analysis of progression-free survival in both the adjuvant and recurrent setting showed an improvement (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.82; P < 0.00001; 8 studies, 2833 participants; high-certainty evidence and HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.76; P < 0.00001; 2 studies, 762 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). Pooled analysis of progression-free survival for anti-angiogenic therapy combined with chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone showed an improvement (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.77; P < 0.00001; 10 studies, 3464 participants). Similar to trials of anti-angiogenic therapies in other solid tumours, adverse events related to this class of therapy included hypertension and proteinuria, poor wound healing, and the potential for thromboembolic events, although generally, the rate of grade 3 and 4 adverse events was low (< 14.1%) and in keeping with the literature. The impact of anti-angiogenic therapy on quality of life varied between studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of anti-angiogenic therapy does not significantly improve overall survival in newly diagnosed people with glioblastoma. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of anti-angiogenic therapy for people with newly diagnosed glioblastoma at this time. Overall there is a lack of evidence of a survival advantage for anti-angiogenic therapy over chemotherapy in recurrent glioblastoma. When considering the combination anti-angiogenic therapy with chemotherapy compared with the same chemotherapy alone, there may possibly be a small improvement in overall survival. While there is strong evidence that bevacizumab (an anti-angiogenic drug) prolongs progression-free survival in newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma, the impact of this on quality of life and net clinical benefit for patients remains unclear. Not addressed here is whether subsets of people with glioblastoma may benefit from anti-angiogenic therapies, nor their utility in other HGG histologies.

Long-Term Effectiveness and Safety of Pravastatin in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease: Sixteen Years of Follow-Up of the LIPID Study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the long-term effects of treatment with statin therapy on all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, and cancer incidence from extended follow-up of the Long-term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischemic Disease (LIPID) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: LIPID initially compared pravastatin and placebo over 6 years in 9014 patients with previous coronary heart disease. After the double-blind period, all patients were offered open-label statin therapy. Data were obtained over a further 10 years from 7721 patients, by direct contact for 2 years, by questionnaires thereafter, and from mortality and cancer registries. During extended follow-up, 85% assigned pravastatin and 84% assigned placebo took statin therapy. Patients assigned pravastatin maintained a significantly lower risk of death from coronary heart disease (relative risk [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.97; P=0.009), from cardiovascular disease (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.95; P=0.002), and from any cause (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.97; absolute risk reduction, 2.6%; P=0.003).Cancer incidence was similar by original treatment group during the double-blind period (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08; P=0.41), later follow-up (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.14; P=0.74), and overall (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.08; P=0.83). There were no significant differences in cancer mortality, or in the incidence of organ-specific cancers. Cancer findings were confirmed in a meta-analysis with other large statin trials with extended follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In LIPID, the absolute survival benefit from 6 years of pravastatin treatment appeared to be maintained for the next 10 years, with a similar risk of death among survivors in both groups after the initial period. Treatment with statins does not influence cancer or death from noncardiovascular causes during long-term follow-up.

Plasma Lipidomic Profiles Improve on Traditional Risk Factors for the Prediction of Cardiovascular Events in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Clinical lipid measurements do not show the full complexity of the altered lipid metabolism associated with diabetes mellitus or cardiovascular disease. Lipidomics enables the assessment of hundreds of lipid species as potential markers for disease risk. METHODS: Plasma lipid species (310) were measured by a targeted lipidomic analysis with liquid chromatography electrospray ionization-tandem mass spectrometry on a case-cohort (n=3779) subset from the ADVANCE trial (Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron-MR Controlled Evaluation). The case-cohort was 61% male with a mean age of 67 years. All participants had type 2 diabetes mellitus with ≥1 additional cardiovascular risk factors, and 35% had a history of macrovascular disease. Weighted Cox regression was used to identify lipid species associated with future cardiovascular events (nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death) and cardiovascular death during a 5-year follow-up period. Multivariable models combining traditional risk factors with lipid species were optimized with the Akaike information criteria. C statistics and NRIs were calculated within a 5-fold cross-validation framework. RESULTS: Sphingolipids, phospholipids (including lyso- and ether- species), cholesteryl esters, and glycerolipids were associated with future cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death. The addition of 7 lipid species to a base model (14 traditional risk factors and medications) to predict cardiovascular events increased the C statistic from 0.680 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.678-0.682) to 0.700 (95% CI, 0.698-0.702; P<0.0001) with a corresponding continuous NRI of 0.227 (95% CI, 0.219-0.235). The prediction of cardiovascular death was improved with the incorporation of 4 lipid species into the base model, showing an increase in the C statistic from 0.740 (95% CI, 0.738-0.742) to 0.760 (95% CI, 0.757-0.762; P<0.0001) and a continuous net reclassification index of 0.328 (95% CI, 0.317-0.339). The results were validated in a subcohort with type 2 diabetes mellitus (n=511) from the LIPID trial (Long-Term Intervention With Pravastatin in Ischemic Disease). CONCLUSIONS: The improvement in the prediction of cardiovascular events, above traditional risk factors, demonstrates the potential of plasma lipid species as biomarkers for cardiovascular risk stratification in diabetes mellitus. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00145925.