Immediate surgery compared with short-course neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus capecitabine, FOLFIRINOX, or chemoradiotherapy in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (ESPAC5): a four-arm, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma have relatively low resection rates and poor survival despite the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. The aim of our study was to establish the feasibility and efficacy of three different types of short-course neoadjuvant therapy compared with immediate surgery. METHODS: ESPAC5 (formerly known as ESPAC-5f) was a multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial done in 16 pancreatic centres in two countries (UK and Germany). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, biopsy proven pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic head, and were staged as having a borderline resectable tumour by contrast-enhanced CT criteria following central review. Participants were randomly assigned by means of minimisation to one of four groups: immediate surgery; neoadjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15, and oral capecitabine 830 mg/m2 twice a day on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle for two cycles); neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, folinic acid given according to local practice, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus injection on days 1 and 15 followed by 2400 mg/m2 46 h intravenous infusion given on days 1 and 15, repeated every 2 weeks for four cycles); or neoadjuvant capecitabine-based chemoradiation (total dose 50·4 Gy in 28 daily fractions over 5·5 weeks [1·8 Gy per fraction, Monday to Friday] with capecitabine 830 mg/m2 twice daily [Monday to Friday] throughout radiotherapy). Patients underwent restaging contrast-enhanced CT at 4-6 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy and underwent surgical exploration if the tumour was still at least borderline resectable. All patients who had their tumour resected received adjuvant therapy at the oncologist's discretion. Primary endpoints were recruitment rate and resection rate. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 89500674, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2014, and Dec 20, 2018, from 478 patients screened, 90 were randomly assigned to a group (33 to immediate surgery, 20 to gemcitabine plus capecitabine, 20 to FOLFIRINOX, and 17 to capecitabine-based chemoradiation); four patients were excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis (one in the capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy withdrew consent before starting therapy and three [two in the immediate surgery group and one in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group] were found to be ineligible after randomisation). 44 (80%) of 55 patients completed neoadjuvant therapy. The recruitment rate was 25·92 patients per year from 16 sites; 21 (68%) of 31 patients in the immediate surgery and 30 (55%) of 55 patients in the combined neoadjuvant therapy groups underwent resection (p=0·33). R0 resection was achieved in three (14%) of 21 patients in the immediate surgery group and seven (23%) of 30 in the neoadjuvant therapy groups combined (p=0·49). Surgical complications were observed in 29 (43%) of 68 patients who underwent surgery; no patients died within 30 days. 46 (84%) of 55 patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy were available for restaging. Six (13%) of 46 had a partial response. Median follow-up time was 12·2 months (95% CI 12·0-12·4). 1-year overall survival was 39% (95% CI 24-61) for immediate surgery, 78% (60-100) for gemcitabine plus capecitabine, 84% (70-100) for FOLFIRINOX, and 60% (37-97) for capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy (p=0·0028). 1-year disease-free survival from surgery was 33% (95% CI 19-58) for immediate surgery and 59% (46-74) for the combined neoadjuvant therapies (hazard ratio 0·53 [95% CI 0·28-0·98], p=0·016). Three patients reported local disease recurrence (two in the immediate surgery group and one in the FOLFIRINOX group). 78 (91%) patients were included in the safety set and assessed for toxicity events. 19 (24%) of 78 patients reported a grade 3 or worse adverse event (two [7%] of 28 patients in the immediate surgery group and 17 [34%] of 50 patients in the neoadjuvant therapy groups combined), the most common of which were neutropenia, infection, and hyperglycaemia. INTERPRETATION: Recruitment was challenging. There was no significant difference in resection rates between patients who underwent immediate surgery and those who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. Short-course (8 week) neoadjuvant therapy had a significant survival benefit compared with immediate surgery. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with either gemcitabine plus capecitabine or FOLFIRINOX had the best survival compared with immediate surgery. These findings support the use of short-course neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Investigating the potential clinical benefit of Selumetinib in resensitising advanced iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer to radioiodine therapy (SEL-I-METRY): protocol for a multicentre UK single arm phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Thyroid cancer is the most common endocrine malignancy. Some advanced disease is, or becomes, resistant to radioactive iodine therapy (refractory disease); this holds poor prognosis of 10% 10-year overall survival. Whilst Sorafenib and Lenvatinib are now licenced for the treatment of progressive iodine refractory thyroid cancer, these treatments require continuing treatment and can be associated with significant toxicity. Evidence from a pilot study has demonstrated feasibility of Selumetinib to allow the reintroduction of I-131 therapy; this larger, multicentre study is required to demonstrate the broader clinical impact of this approach before progression to a confirmatory trial. METHODS: SEL-I-METRY is a UK, single-arm, multi-centre, two-stage phase II trial. Participants with locally advanced or metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer with at least one measureable lesion and iodine refractory disease will be recruited from eight NHS Hospitals and treated with four-weeks of oral Selumetinib and assessed for sufficient I-123 uptake (defined as any uptake in a lesion with no previous uptake or 30% or greater increase in uptake). Those with sufficient uptake will be treated with I-131 and followed for clinical outcomes. Radiation absorbed doses will be predicted from I-123 SPECT/CT and verified from scans following the therapy. Sixty patients will be recruited to assess the primary objective of whether the treatment schedule leads to increased progression-free survival compared to historical control data. DISCUSSION: The SEL-I-METRY trial will investigate the effect of Selumetinib followed by I-131 therapy on progression-free survival in radioiodine refractory patients with differentiated thyroid cancer showing increased radioiodine uptake following initial treatment with Selumetinib. In addition, information on toxicity and dosimetry will be collected. This study presents an unprecedented opportunity to investigate the role of lesional dosimetry in molecular radiotherapy, leading to greater personalisation of therapy. To date this has been a neglected area of research. The findings of this trial will be useful to healthcare professionals and patients alike to determine whether further study of this agent is warranted. It is hoped that the development of the infrastructure to deliver a multicentre trial involving molecular radiotherapy dosimetry will lead to further trials in this field. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SEL-I-METRY is registered under ISRCTN17468602 , 02/12/2015.

Recurrence after low-dose radioiodine ablation and recombinant human thyroid-stimulating hormone for differentiated thyroid cancer (HiLo): long-term results of an open-label, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Two large randomised trials of patients with well-differentiated thyroid cancer reported in 2012 (HiLo and ESTIMABL1) found similar post-ablation success rates at 6-9 months between a low administered radioactive iodine (131I) dose (1·1 GBq) and the standard high dose (3·7 GBq). However, recurrence rates following radioactive iodine ablation have previously only been reported in observational studies, and recently in ESTIMABL1. We aimed to compare recurrence rates between radioactive iodine doses in HiLo. METHODS: HiLo was a non-inferiority, parallel, open-label, randomised controlled factorial trial done at 29 centres in the UK. Eligible patients were aged 16-80 years with histological confirmation of differentiated thyroid cancer requiring radioactive iodine ablation (performance status 0-2, tumour stage T1-T3 with the possibility of lymph-node involvement but no distant metastasis and no microscopic residual disease, and one-stage or two-stage total thyroidectomy). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to 1·1 GBq or 3·7 GBq ablation, each prepared with either recombinant human thyroid-stimulating hormone (rhTSH) or thyroid hormone withdrawal. Patients were followed up at annual clinic visits. Recurrences were diagnosed at each hospital with a combination of established methods according to national standards. We used Kaplan-Meier curves and hazard ratios (HRs) for time to first recurrence, which was a pre-planned secondary outcome. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00415233. RESULTS: Between Jan 16, 2007, and July 1, 2010, 438 patients were randomly assigned. At the end of the follow-up period in Dec 31, 2017, median follow-up was 6·5 years (IQR 4·5-7·6) in 434 patients (217 in the low-dose group and 217 in the high-dose group). Confirmed recurrences were seen in 21 patients: 11 who had 1·1 GBq ablation and ten who had 3·7 GBq ablation. Four of these (two in each group) were considered to be persistent disease. Cumulative recurrence rates were similar between low-dose and high-dose radioactive iodine groups (3 years, 1·5% vs 2·1%; 5 years, 2·1% vs 2·7%; and 7 years, 5·9% vs 7·3%; HR 1·10 [95% CI 0·47-2·59]; p=0·83). No material difference in risk was seen for T3 or N1 disease. Recurrence rates were also similar among patients who were prepared for ablation with rhTSH and those prepared with thyroid hormone withdrawal (3 years, 1·5% vs 2·1%; 5 years, 2·1% vs 2·7%; and 7 years, 8·3% vs 5·0%; HR 1·62 [95% CI 0·67-3·91]; p=0·28). Data on adverse events were not collected during follow-up. INTERPRETATION: The recurrence rate among patients who had 1·1 GBq radioactive iodine ablation was not higher than that for 3·7 GBq, consistent with data from large, recent observational studies. These findings provide further evidence in favour of using low-dose radioactive iodine for treatment of patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer. Our data also indicate that recurrence risk was not affected by use of rhTSH. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Gemcitabine and capecitabine with or without telomerase peptide vaccine GV1001 in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (TeloVac): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of sequential or simultaneous telomerase vaccination (GV1001) in combination with chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: TeloVac was a three-group, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. We recruited patients from 51 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were treatment naive, aged older than 18 years, with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy with sequential GV1001 (sequential chemoimmunotherapy), or chemotherapy with concurrent GV1001 (concurrent chemoimmunotherapy). Treatments were allocated with equal probability by means of computer-generated random permuted blocks of sizes 3 and 6 in equal proportion. Chemotherapy included six cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2), 30 min intravenous infusion, at days 1, 8, and 15) and capecitabine (830 mg/m(2) orally twice daily for 21 days, repeated every 28 days). Sequential chemoimmunotherapy included two cycles of combination chemotherapy, then an intradermal lower abdominal injection of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; 75 µg) and GV1001 (0·56 mg; days 1, 3, and 5, once on weeks 2-4, and six monthly thereafter). Concurrent chemoimmunotherapy included giving GV1001 from the start of chemotherapy with GM-CSF as an adjuvant. The primary endpoint was overall survival; analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN4382138. FINDINGS: The first patient was randomly assigned to treatment on March 29, 2007, and the trial was terminated on March 27, 2011. Of 1572 patients screened, 1062 were randomly assigned to treatment (358 patients were allocated to the chemotherapy group, 350 to the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 354 to the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group). We recorded 772 deaths; the 290 patients still alive were followed up for a median of 6·0 months (IQR 2·4-12·2). Median overall survival was not significantly different in the chemotherapy group than in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group (7·9 months [95% CI 7·1-8·8] vs 6·9 months [6·4-7·6]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·19, 98·25% CI 0·97-1·48, p=0·05), or in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group (8·4 months [95% CI 7·3-9·7], HR 1·05, 98·25% CI 0·85-1·29, p=0·64; overall log-rank of χ(2)2df=4·3; p=0·11). The commonest grade 3-4 toxic effects were neutropenia (68 [19%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 58 [17%] patients in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 79 [22%] patients in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group; fatigue (27 [8%] in the chemotherapy group, 35 [10%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 44 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group); and pain (34 [9%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 39 [11%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 41 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group). INTERPRETATION: Adding GV1001 vaccination to chemotherapy did not improve overall survival. New strategies to enhance the immune response effect of telomerase vaccination during chemotherapy are required for clinical efficacy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and KAEL-GemVax.

The effects of gemcitabine and capecitabine combination chemotherapy and of low-dose adjuvant GM-CSF on the levels of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

In pre-clinical models, the only two chemotherapy drugs which have been demonstrated to directly reduce the number of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) are gemcitabine and 5-fluorouracil. Here we analyze the dynamics of MDSCs, phenotyped as Lin-DR-CD11b+, in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving the combination of gemcitabine and capecitabine, a 5-FU pro-drug. We found no evidence that gemcitabine and capecitabine directly reduce MDSC% in patients. Gemcitabine and capecitabine reduced MDSCs in 42% of patients (n = 19) and MDSC% fell in only 3/9 patients with above-median baseline MDSCs. In 5/8 patients with minimal tumour volume change on treatment, the MDSC% went up: increases in MDSC% in these patients appeared to correlate with sustained cancer-related inflammatory cytokine upregulation. In a separate cohort of 21 patients treated with gemcitabine and capecitabine together with concurrently administered GV1001 vaccine with adjuvant GM-CSF, the MDSC% fell in 18/21 patients and there was a significant difference in the trajectory of MDSCs between those receiving GV1001 and GM-CSF in combination with chemotherapy and those receiving chemotherapy alone. Thus, there was no evidence that the addition of low-dose adjuvant GM-CSF increased Lin-DR-CD11b+ MDSC in patients receiving combination chemoimmunotherapy. 9/21 patients developed an immune response to GV1001 and the MDSCs fell in 8 of these 9 patients, 6 of whom had above-median pre-vaccination MDSC levels. A high pre-vaccination MDSC% does not preclude the development of immunity to a tumour-associated antigen.

Ablation with low-dose radioiodine and thyrotropin alfa in thyroid cancer.

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether low-dose radioiodine (1.1 GBq [30 mCi]) is as effective as high-dose radioiodine (3.7 GBq [100 mCi]) for treating patients with differentiated thyroid cancer or whether the effects of radioiodine (especially at a low dose) are influenced by using either recombinant human thyrotropin (thyrotropin alfa) or thyroid hormone withdrawal. METHODS: At 29 centers in the United Kingdom, we conducted a randomized noninferiority trial comparing low-dose and high-dose radioiodine, each in combination with either thyrotropin alfa or thyroid hormone withdrawal before ablation. Patients (age range, 16 to 80 years) had tumor stage T1 to T3, with possible spread to nearby lymph nodes but without metastasis. End points were the rate of success of ablation at 6 to 9 months, adverse events, quality of life, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 438 patients underwent randomization; data could be analyzed for 421. Ablation success rates were 85.0% in the group receiving low-dose radioiodine versus 88.9% in the group receiving the high dose and 87.1% in the thyrotropin alfa group versus 86.7% in the group undergoing thyroid hormone withdrawal. All 95% confidence intervals for the differences were within ±10 percentage points, indicating noninferiority. Similar results were found for low-dose radioiodine plus thyrotropin alfa (84.3%) versus high-dose radioiodine plus thyroid hormone withdrawal (87.6%) or high-dose radioiodine plus thyrotropin alfa (90.2%). More patients in the high-dose group than in the low-dose group were hospitalized for at least 3 days (36.3% vs. 13.0%, P<0.001). The proportions of patients with adverse events were 21% in the low-dose group versus 33% in the high-dose group (P=0.007) and 23% in the thyrotropin alfa group versus 30% in the group undergoing thyroid hormone withdrawal (P=0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose radioiodine plus thyrotropin alfa was as effective as high-dose radioiodine, with a lower rate of adverse events. (Funded by Cancer Research UK; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00415233.).