A multicenter randomized phase 4 trial comparing sodium picosulphate plus magnesium citrate vs. polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The PRECOL trial.

Background: Adequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy is crucial. Unfortunately, 25% of colonoscopies have inadequate bowel cleansing. From a patient perspective, bowel preparation is the main obstacle to colonoscopy. Several low-volume bowel preparations have been formulated to provide more tolerable purgative solutions without loss of efficacy. Objectives: Investigate efficacy, safety, and tolerability of Sodium Picosulphate plus Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) vs. Polyethylene Glycol plus Ascorbic Acid (PEG-ASC) solutions in patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy. Materials and methods: In this phase 4, randomized, multicenter, two-arm trial, adult outpatients received either SPMC or PEG-ASC for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The primary aims were quality of bowel cleansing (primary endpoint scored according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale) and patient acceptance (measured with six visual analogue scales). The study was open for treatment assignment and blinded for primary endpoint assessment. This was done independently with videotaped colonoscopies reviewed by two endoscopists unaware of study arms. A sample size of 525 patients was calculated to recognize a difference of 10% in the proportion of successes between the arms with a two-sided alpha error of 0.05 and 90% statistical power. Results: Overall 550 subjects (279 assigned to PEG-ASC and 271 assigned to SPMC) represented the analysis population. There was no statistically significant difference in success rate according to BBPS: 94.4% with PEG-ASC and 95.7% with SPMC (P = 0.49). Acceptance and willing to repeat colonoscopy were significantly better for SPMC with all the scales. Compliance was less than full in 6.6 and 9.9% of cases with PEG-ASC and SPMC, respectively (P = 0.17). Nausea and meteorism were significantly more bothersome with PEG-ASC than SPMC. There were no serious adverse events in either group. Conclusion: SPMC and PEG-ASC are not different in terms of efficacy, but SPMC is better tolerated than PEG-ASC. SPMC could be an alternative to low-volume PEG based purgative solutions for bowel preparation. Clinical trial registration: [ClinicalTrials.gov], Identifier [NCT01649674 and EudraCT 2011-000587-10].

Addition of Bevacizumab to Erlotinib as First-Line Treatment of Patients With EGFR-Mutated Advanced Nonsquamous NSCLC: The BEVERLY Multicenter Randomized Phase 3 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Adding bevacizumab to erlotinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC in the Japanese JO25567 trial, but limited data were available in non-Asian patients. BEVERLY is an Italian, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 investigating the addition of bevacizumab to erlotinib as first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to erlotinib plus bevacizumab or erlotinib alone. Investigator-assessed PFS and blinded independent centrally reviewed PFS were coprimary end points. With 80% power in detecting a 0.60 hazard ratio and two-sided α error of 0.05, 126 events of 160 patients were needed. The trial was registered as NCT02633189 and EudraCT 2015-002235-17. RESULTS: From April 11, 2016, to February 27, 2019, a total of 160 patients were randomized to erlotinib plus bevacizumab (80) or erlotinib alone (80). At a median follow-up of 36.3 months, median investigator-assessed PFS was 15.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.2-18.6) with erlotinib plus bevacizumab and 9.6 months (95% CI: 8.2-10.6) with erlotinib alone (hazard ratio = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.47-0.92). Blinded independent centrally reviewed PFS analysis confirmed this result. A statistically significant interaction with treatment effect was found for smoking habit (p = 0.0323), with PFS prolongation being clinically significant only among current or previous smokers. Hypertension (grade ≥3: 24% versus 5%), skin rash (grade ≥ 3: 31% versus 14%), thromboembolic events (any grade: 11% versus 4%), and proteinuria (any grade: 23% versus 6%) were more frequent with the combination. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bevacizumab to first-line erlotinib prolonged PFS in Italian patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC; toxicity was increased with the combination but without unexpected safety issues.

Cross-sectional study to develop and describe psychometric characteristics of a patient-reported instrument (PROFFIT) for measuring financial toxicity of cancer within a public healthcare system.

OBJECTIVES: To measure and explain financial toxicity (FT) of cancer in Italy, where a public healthcare system exists and patients with cancer are not expected (or only marginally) to pay out-of-pocket for healthcare. SETTING: Ten clinical oncological centres, distributed across Italian macroregions (North, Centre, South and Islands), including hospitals, university hospitals and national research institutes. PARTICIPANTS: From 8 October 2019 to 11 December 2019, 184 patients, aged 18 or more, who were receiving or had received within the previous 3 months active anticancer treatment were enrolled, 108 (59%) females and 76 (41%) males. INTERVENTION: A 30-item prefinal questionnaire, previously developed within the qualitative tasks of the project, was administered, either electronically (n=115) or by paper sheet (n=69). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: According to the protocol and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research methodology, the final questionnaire was developed by mean of explanatory factor analysis and tested for reliability, internal consistency (Cronbach's α test and item-total correlation) and stability of measurements over time (test-retest reliability by intraclass correlation coefficient and weighted Cohen's kappa coefficient). RESULTS: After exploratory factor analysis, a score measuring FT (FT score) was identified, made by seven items dealing with outcomes of FT. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the FT score was 0.87 and the item-total correlation coefficients ranged from 0.53 to 0.74. Further, nine single items representing possible determinants of FT were also retained in the final instrument. Test-retest analysis revealed a good internal validity of the FT score and of the 16 items retained in the final questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The Patient-Reported Outcome for Fighting FInancial Toxicity (PROFFIT) instrument consists of 16 items and is the first reported instrument to assess FT of cancer developed in a country with a fully public healthcare system. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03473379.

The opportunity of patient-journey studies for academic clinical research in oncology.

A wave of new treatments and treatment combinations are becoming available for solid tumours. Trials performed to obtain registration establish a positive benefit-risk but unavoidably leave many questions unanswered on place-in-therapy and the relative efficacy of different treatment sequences. Such limitations create problems in terms of strength of treatment guidelines and reimbursement (in countries where a public payer exists). Data on new drugs arriving during the last 10 years for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma and renal cancer are reported as an example of how the fortunate condition of having new effective treatments may translate into uncertainty regarding the optimal treatment plan. We suggest that academic research should react to such limitations and propose a model of patient-journey study (PJS), where patients are followed from the initial diagnosis across subsequent lines of treatment. A PJS master protocol might include at each node of clinical decision either the possibility of choosing treatment according to guidelines (generating prospective real-world evidence) or the possibility to randomise where uncertainty exists (generating comparative effectiveness data). PJS protocols might be adaptively modified every time a new drug arrives on the market. Overall, methodologically sound analyses of PJS will produce knowledge on the efficacy and the effectiveness of different treatment pathways and might significantly optimise treatment of patients in clinical practice. PJS would represent a jump from a few snapshots (trials performed to get regulatory approval) to a full movie (evidence on the relative value of treatment pathways).

Thromboembolic events and antithrombotic prophylaxis in advanced ovarian cancer patients treated with bevacizumab: secondary analysis of the phase IV MITO-16A/MaNGO-OV2A trial.

INTRODUCTION: The use of routine antithrombotic prophylaxis is not recommended for advanced cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. The effect of bevacizumab-containing therapy on the risk of thromboembolic events remains controversial in ovarian cancer patients. We report on the incidence of thromboembolic events and the prevalence of antithrombotic therapy in patients enrolled in the single arm, phase IV, MITO-16A/MaNGO-OV2A trial. METHODS: In this trial, potential prognostic factors for patients with previously untreated ovarian cancer receiving a combination of platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab were explored and the final analysis has already been reported. In this secondary analysis, the occurrence of thromboembolic events and the use of antithrombotic therapy were described according to the clinical characteristics of the patients. The prognostic role of thromboembolic events for progression-free and overall survival were also evaluated. RESULTS: From October 2012 to November 2014, 398 eligible patients were enrolled. 76 patients (19.1%) were receiving some type of anticoagulant or anti-aggregant treatment at baseline. Overall, 24 thromboembolic events were reported (cumulative incidence of 6.0%). The occurrence of thromboembolic events was not associated with baseline patient characteristics and was not modified by the use of antithrombotic prophylaxis (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.0). Occurrence of thromboembolic events was not associated with progression-free survival (HR 1.34, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.15) or overall survival (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.61). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, a 6.0% rate of thromboembolic events was reported during treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy. Thromboembolic events were not associated with the clinical characteristics of the patients or with the use of antithrombotic prophylaxis, nor did they significantly affect the long-term prognosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01706120.

Effect of Bevacizumab in Combination With Standard Oxaliplatin-Based Regimens in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Although bevacizumab is a standard of care in combination treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), its clinical benefit has been limited. Objective: To determine whether sequential scheduling of bevacizumab administration in combination with chemotherapy improves treatment efficacy in patients with mCRC, in keeping with the tumor vascular normalization hypothesis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, randomized clinical phase 3 trial was conducted from May 8, 2012, to December 9, 2015, at 3 Italian centers. Patients aged 18 to 75 years with unresectable, previously untreated, or single line-treated mCRC were recruited. Follow-up was completed December 31, 2019, and data were analyzed from February 26 to July 24, 2020. Interventions: Patients received 12 biweekly cycles of standard oxaliplatin-based regimens (modified FOLFOX-6 [levo-folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin]/modified CAPOX [capecitabine and oxaliplatin]) plus bevacizumab administered either on the same day as chemotherapy (standard arm) or 4 days before chemotherapy (experimental arm). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the objective response rate (ORR) measured with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, overall survival, safety, and quality of life (QOL). Results: Overall, 230 patients (136 men [59.1%]; median age, 62.3 [interquartile range, 53.3-67.6] years) were randomly assigned to the standard arm (n = 115) or the experimental arm (n = 115). The median duration of follow-up was 68.3 (95% CI, 61.0-70.0) months. No difference in ORR (57.4% [95% CI, 47.8%-66.6%] in the standard arm and 56.5% [95% CI, 47.0-65.7] in the experimental arm; P = .89) or progression-free survival (10.5 [95% CI, 9.1-12.3] months in the standard arm and 11.7 [95% CI, 9.9-12.9] months in the experimental arm; P = .15) was observed. However, the median overall survival was 29.8 (95% CI, 22.5-41.1) months in the experimental arm compared with 24.1 (95% CI, 18.6-29.8) months in the standard arm (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.99; P = .04). Moreover, the experimental arm was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of severe diarrhea (6 [5.3%] vs 19 [16.5%]; P = .006) and nausea (2 [1.8%] vs 8 [7.0%]; P = .05) and improved physical functioning (mean [SD] change from baseline, 0.65 [1.96] vs -7.41 [2.95] at 24 weeks; P = .02), and constipation scores (mean [SD] change from baseline, -17.2 [3.73] vs -0.62 [4.44]; P = .003). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, sequential administration of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy did not improve ORR, the primary end point. However, the overall survival advantage, fewer adverse effects, and better health-related QOL associated with sequential bevacizumab administration might provide the basis for exploring antiangiogenic combination treatments with innovative perspectives. Trial Registration: EudraCT Identifier: 2011-004997-27; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01718873.

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and treatment efficacy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of 6 randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) has been demonstrated to be a prognostic factor in several cancer conditions. We previously found a significant prognostic value of CIN on overall survival (OS), in a pooled dataset of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving first line chemotherapy from 1996 to 2001. However, the prognostic role of CIN in NSCLC is still debated. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis pooling data prospectively collected in six randomized phase 3 trials in NSCLC conducted from 2002 to 2016. Patients who never started chemotherapy and those for whom toxicity data were missing were excluded. Neutropenia was categorized on the basis of worst grade during chemotherapy: absent (grade 0), mild (grade 1-2), or severe (grade 3-4). The primary endpoint was OS. Multivariable Cox model was applied for statistical analyses. In the primary analysis, a minimum time (landmark) at 180 days from randomization was applied in order to minimize the time-dependent bias. RESULTS: Overall, 1529 patients, who received chemotherapy, were eligible; 572 of them (who received 6 cycles of treatment) represented the landmark population. Severe CIN was reported in 143 (25.0%) patients and mild CIN in 135 (23.6%). At multivariable OS analysis, CIN was significantly predictive of prognosis although its prognostic value was entirely driven by severe CIN (hazard ratio [HR] of death 0.71; 95%CI: 0.53-0.95) while it was not evident with mild CIN (HR 1.21; 95%CI: 0.92-1.58). Consistent results were observed in the out-of-landmark group (including 957 patients), where both severe and mild CIN were significantly associated with a reduced risk of death. CONCLUSION: The pooled analysis of six large trials of NSCLC treatment shows that CIN occurrence is significantly associated with a longer overall survival, particularly in patients developing severe CIN, confirming our previous findings.

Bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel in the first line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer patients: the phase IV MITO-16A/MaNGO-OV2A study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical and biological prognostic factors for advanced ovarian cancer patients receiving first-line treatment with carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bevacizumab. METHODS: A multicenter, phase IV, single arm trial was performed. Patients with advanced (FIGO (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) stage IIIB-IV) or recurrent, previously untreated, ovarian cancer received carboplatin (AUC (area under the curve) 5), paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) plus bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) on day 1 for six 3-weekly cycles followed by bevacizumab single agent (15 mg/kg) until progression or unacceptable toxicity up to a maximum of 22 total cycles. Here we report the final analysis on the role of clinical prognostic factors. The study had 80% power with a two-tailed 0.01 α error to detect a 0.60 hazard ratio with a factor expressed in at least 20% of the population. Both progression-free and overall survival were used as endpoints. RESULTS: From October 2012 to November 2014, 398 eligible patients were treated. After a median follow-up of 32.3 months (IQR 24.1-40.4), median progression-free survival was 20.8 months (95% CI 19.1 to 22.0) and median overall survival was 41.1 months (95% CI 39.1 to 43.5). Clinical factors significantly predicting progression-free and overall survival were performance status, stage, and residual disease after primary surgery. Neither baseline blood pressure/antihypertensive treatment nor the development of hypertension during bevacizumab were prognostic. There were two deaths possibly related to treatment, but no unexpected safety signal was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel and as maintenance were comparable to previous data. Hypertension, either at baseline or developed during treatment, was not prognostic. Performance status, stage, and residual disease after primary surgery remain the most important clinical prognostic factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT 2012-003043-29; NCT01706120.

Nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine combination is more effective than gemcitabine alone in locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer - A GISCAD phase II randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of combination chemotherapy has not yet been established in unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) lacking dedicated randomized trials. METHODS: This phase II trial tested the efficacy of Nab-paclitaxel (NAB-P)/Gemcitabine (G) versus G alone. Patients were randomized, 1:1 to G 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days versus NAB-P 125 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days plus G 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days. Disease progression rate after three cycles of chemotherapy was the primary end-point. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and response rate were secondary end-points. FINDINGS: A total of124 patients were enrolled. The study showed a reduction of a progressive disease from 45.6% with G to 25.4% with NAB-P/G (P = 0.01) at 3 months. Noteworthy, at 6 months in the G arm, 35.6% of patients present a metastatic spread versus 20.8% in the NAB/G arm. The response rate was 5.3% in the G arm and 27% in the NAB/G arm. Median PFS was 4 months for the G arm and 7 months for the NAB-P/G arm. Median OS was 10.6 in the G arm and 12.7 months in the NAB-P/G arm. One patient died during treatment with G due to a stroke. INTERPRETATION: NAB-P/G reduced the rate of LAPC patients progressing after three cycles of chemotherapy compared with G, especially in terms of distant relapses. It positively affects PFS. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first randomized trial providing evidence that combination chemotherapy is superior to gemcitabine alone in this setting. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02043730.

Carboplatin-based doublet plus bevacizumab beyond progression versus carboplatin-based doublet alone in patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab is approved in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of ovarian cancer, either in first-line therapy or for patients with recurrent disease not previously treated with the same drug. We aimed to test the value of continuing bevacizumab beyond progression after first-line treatment with the same drug. METHODS: In our open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 82 sites in four countries, we enrolled women (aged ≥18 years) who had previously received first-line platinum-based therapy including bevacizumab, and had recurrent (≥6 months since last platinum dose), International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics stage IIIB-IV ovarian cancer with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a carboplatin-based doublet intravenously (carboplatin area under the concentration curve [AUC] 5 on day 1 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 on day 1, every 21 days; carboplatin AUC 4 on day 1 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, every 21 days; or carboplatin AUC 5 on day 1 plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin 30 mg/m2 on day 1, every 28 days), or a carboplatin-based doublet plus bevacizumab (10 mg/kg intravenous every 14 days combined with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin-carboplatin, or 15 mg/kg every 21 days combined with gemcitabine-carboplatin or paclitaxel-carboplatin). Evaluable disease according to RECIST 1.1 guidelines was required before randomisation. Randomisation was done through the trial website with a minimisation procedure, stratified by centre, time of recurrence, performance status, and type of second-line chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01802749 and EudraCT 2012-004362-17. FINDINGS: Between Dec 6, 2013, and Nov 11, 2016, 406 patients were recruited (203 [50%] assigned to the bevacizumab group and 203 [50%] to the standard chemotherapy group). 130 patients (64%) in the bevacizumab group and 131 (65%) in the standard chemotherapy group had progressed after receiving a last dose of platinum more than 12 months before, and 146 patients (72%) in the bevacizumab group and 147 (72%) in the standard chemotherapy group had progressed after completion of first-line bevacizumab maintenance. 161 participants (79%) progressed in the standard chemotherapy group, as did 143 (70%) in the bevacizumab group. Median progression-free survival was 8·8 months (95% CI 8·4-9·3) in the standard chemotherapy group and 11·8 months (10·8-12·9) in the bevacizumab group (hazard ratio 0·51, 95% CI 0·41-0·65; log-rank p<0·0001). Most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (20 [10%] in the standard chemotherapy group vs 58 (29%) in the bevacizumab group), neutrophil count decrease (81 [41%] vs 80 [40%]), and platelet count decrease (43 [22%] vs 61 [30%]). 68 patients (33%) died in the standard chemotherapy group and 79 (39%) died in the bevacizumab group; two deaths (1%) in the standard chemotherapy group and one death (<1%) in the bevacizumab group were deemed to be treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: Continuing bevacizumab beyond progression combined with chemotherapy in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer improves progression-free survival compared with standard chemotherapy alone and might be considered in clinical practice. FUNDING: Hoffmann-La Roche and Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro.

A qualitative analysis and development of a conceptual model assessing financial toxicity in cancer patients accessing the universal healthcare system.

PURPOSE: This paper illustrates a conceptual model for a new patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) aimed at measuring financial toxicity (FT) in oncological setting in Italy, where citizens are provided universal healthcare coverage. METHODS: Focus groups with overall 34 patients/caregivers in three different Italian centers (from Northern, Centre, and Southern Italy) and an open-ended survey with 97 medical oncologists were undertaken. Transcripts from focus groups and the open-ended survey were analyzed to identify themes and links between themes. Themes from the qualitative research were supplemented with those reported in the literature; concepts identified formed the basis for item development that were then tested through the importance analysis (with 45 patients) and the cognitive debriefing (with other 45 patients) to test relevance and comprehension of the first draft PRO instrument. RESULTS: Ten domains were extracted by analyzing 156 concepts generated from focus groups and the open-ended survey. After controlling for redundancy, 55 items were generated and tested through the importance analysis. After controlling comprehension and feasibility through cognitive debriefing interviews, a first version of the questionnaire consisting of 30 items was devised. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study represents the first part of a study conducted to develop a new PROM to assess FT in Italy, by using a bottom-up approach that makes the most of patients' experiences and the health system analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03473379 first posted on March 22, 2018.

TOCIVID-19 - A multicenter study on the efficacy and tolerability of tocilizumab in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia is the most frequent complication of COVID-19, due to an aberrant host immune response that is associated with an acute respiratory distress syndrome, and, in most critical patients, with a "cytokine storm". IL-6 might play a key role in the cytokine storm and might be a potential target to treat severe and critical COVID-19. Tocilizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody, directed against IL-6 receptor. METHODS: This multicentre study project includes a single-arm phase 2 study and a further parallel cohort, enrolling hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and oxygen saturation at rest in ambient air ≤93% or requiring respiratory support. Patients receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg (up to 800 mg) as one intravenous administration. A second administration (same dose) after 12 h is optional. Two-week and one-month lethality rates are the co-primary endpoints. Sample size planned for the phase 2 study is 330 patients. The parallel cohort will include patients who cannot enter the phase 2 study because being intubated from more than 24 h, or having already received tocilizumab, or the phase 2 study has reached sample size. Primary analysis will include patients enrolled in the phase 2 study. Results of the primary analysis will be validated in the prospective cohort of patients consecutively registered after phase 2 closure from March 20 to March 24, who were potentially eligible for the phase 2 study. CONCLUSION: This trial aims to verify the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab in the Italian population with COVID-19 pneumonia and respiratory impairment. EudraCT Number: 2020-001110-38; Clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT04317092.

Tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. The single-arm TOCIVID-19 prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab blocks pro-inflammatory activity of interleukin-6 (IL-6), involved in pathogenesis of pneumonia the most frequent cause of death in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A multicenter, single-arm, hypothesis-driven trial was planned, according to a phase 2 design, to study the effect of tocilizumab on lethality rates at 14 and 30 days (co-primary endpoints, a priori expected rates being 20 and 35%, respectively). A further prospective cohort of patients, consecutively enrolled after the first cohort was accomplished, was used as a secondary validation dataset. The two cohorts were evaluated jointly in an exploratory multivariable logistic regression model to assess prognostic variables on survival. RESULTS: In the primary intention-to-treat (ITT) phase 2 population, 180/301 (59.8%) subjects received tocilizumab, and 67 deaths were observed overall. Lethality rates were equal to 18.4% (97.5% CI: 13.6-24.0, P = 0.52) and 22.4% (97.5% CI: 17.2-28.3, P < 0.001) at 14 and 30 days, respectively. Lethality rates were lower in the validation dataset, that included 920 patients. No signal of specific drug toxicity was reported. In the exploratory multivariable logistic regression analysis, older age and lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio negatively affected survival, while the concurrent use of steroids was associated with greater survival. A statistically significant interaction was found between tocilizumab and respiratory support, suggesting that tocilizumab might be more effective in patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab reduced lethality rate at 30 days compared with null hypothesis, without significant toxicity. Possibly, this effect could be limited to patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline. Registration EudraCT (2020-001110-38); clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04317092).

A phase 2, open label, multicenter, single arm study of tocilizumab on the efficacy and tolerability of tocilizumab in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (TOCIVID-19 trial): Statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab, an IL-6 receptor antagonist, was suggested as a possible treatment of severe or critical COVID-19 pneumonia in a small Chinese study. The TOCIVID-19 trial evaluates efficacy and tolerability of tocilizumab in the treatment of patients with severe or critical COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: TOCIVID-19 is an academic multicenter, single-arm, open-label, phase 2 study. All the patients are being offered a single shot of 8 mg/kg of Tocilizumab (up to a maximum of 800 mg), with an eventual second administration at the discretion of the Investigator. A companion prospective cohort, added to corroborate internal validity, includes either patients not eligible for phase 2 or subjects eligible for phase 2 but exceeding the planned sample size. 14- and 30-days lethality rates are the two co-primary endpoints in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary objectives are to evaluate mortality and clinical improvement in the modified-ITT population of subjects who received the drug. Details of the methodological and statistical approaches are reported here reflecting the amendments impelled by the continuously increasing knowledge on COVID-19 progression and challenges in data collection. CONCLUSION: This paper provides details of planned statistical analyses for TOCIVID19 trial to reduce the risk of reporting bias and increase validity of the study findings.TOCIVID-19 trial is registered in the EudraCT database with number 2020-001110-38 and in clinicaltrials.gov with ID NCT04317092.

Hamilton scale and MADRS are interchangeable in meta-analyses but can disagree at trial level.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Major depressive disorder is a multidimensional disease, in which demonstrating the efficacy of treatments is difficult. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) cover different domains but are used interchangeably as primary measures of the outcome in trials and-with standardized measures-in meta-analyses. We aimed at understanding (i) whether the choice of the outcome measurement tool can influence the outcome of a trial, and if so, (ii) whether one systematically outperforms the other, and (iii) whether using standardized measures of the effect in meta-analysis is justified. METHODS: Short-term randomized trials in patients with major depressive disorder that used both the scales were systematically searched and the results were collected. To quantify the differences in the results-both in terms of the standardized mean difference (SMD) and odds ratio (OR) for response-and their range, data were analyzed and plotted with the Bland-Altman method. RESULTS: 161 comparisons from 80 studies were included, involving a total of 18,189 patients. Neither of the two scales appears systematically more sensitive to the treatment effect than the other in terms of SMDs (P-value = 0.06, 95% CI -0.044 to 0.001) or ORs (P-value = 0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.04). However, the variability of differences between the HRSD and MADRS largely depends on the number of patients included in the comparison. CONCLUSION: No systematic differences between the two scales were found supporting the use of standardized measures in meta-analyses. However, the same trial may give very different results with either scale, especially in small trials. Further research is needed to understand the causes of this variability.

Prospective validation of the International Warfarin Pharmacogenetics Consortium algorithm in high-risk elderly people (VIALE study).

We assessed the predictive accuracy of the Warfarin Pharmacogenetics Consortium (IWPC) algorithm in a prospective cohort of 376 high-risk elderly patients (≥65 years) who required new treatment with warfarin for either medical (non valvular atrial fibrillation) or surgical conditions (heart valve replacement), had ≥1 comorbid conditions, and regularly used ≥2 other drugs. Follow-up visits were performed according to clinical practice and lasted for a maximum of 1 year. Two hundred and eighty-three (75%) patients achieved a stable maintenance dose. Warfarin maintenance doses were low on average (median 20.3 mg/week, interquartile range, 14.1-27.7 mg/week) and were substantially overestimated by the IWPC algorithm. Overall the percentage of patients whose predicted dose of warfarin was within 20% of the actual stable dose was equal to 37.5%, (95% CI 32.0-43.3%). IWPC algorithm explained only 31% of the actual warfarin dose variability. Modifications of the IWPC algorithm are needed in high-risk elderly people.

Development and validation of a patient-reported outcome tool to assess cancer-related financial toxicity in Italy: a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Financial toxicity (FT) is a well-recognised problem in oncology. US-based studies have shown that: (a) cancer patients have a 2.7 times risk of bankruptcy; (b) patients who declare bankruptcy have a 79% greater hazard of death; (c) financial burden significantly impairs quality of life (QoL) and (d) reduces compliance and adherence to treatment prescriptions. The aim of the project is to develop and validate a patient-reported-outcome (PRO) measure to assess FT of cancer patients in Italy, where, despite the universal health coverage provided by the National Health Service, FT is an emerging issue. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our hypothesis is that a specific FT measure, which considers the relevant sociocultural context and healthcare system, would allow us to understand the main determinants of cancer-related FT in Italy, in order to address and reduce these factors. According to the International Society for Pharmaco-economics and Outcomes Research guidelines on PROs, the project will include the following steps: (1) concept elicitation (from focus groups with patients and caregivers; literature; oncologists; nurses) and analysis, creating a coding library; (2) item generation (using a format that includes a question and a response on a 4-point Likert scale) and analysis through patients' cognitive interviews of item importance within different coding categories to produce the draft instrument; (3) factor analysis and internal validation (with Cronbach's alpha and test-retest for reliability) to produce the final instrument; (4) external validation with QoL anchors and depression scales. The use of the FT measure in prospective trials is also planned. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol is approved by the ethical committees of all the participating centres. The project will tentatively produce a validated tool by the spring 2021. The project might also represent a model and the basis for future cooperation with other European countries, with different healthcare systems and socioeconomic conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03473379.

Adjuvant zoledronic acid and letrozole plus ovarian function suppression in premenopausal breast cancer: HOBOE phase 3 randomised trial.

AIM: The aim of the study is to analyse whether letrozole (L) and zoledronic acid plus L (ZL) are more effective than tamoxifen (T) as adjuvant endocrine treatment of premenopausal patients with breast cancer with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) tumours. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a phase 3 trial, 1065 premenopausal patients with HR + early breast cancer received triptorelin to suppress ovarian function and were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to adjuvant T, L or ZL for 5 years. Cancer recurrence, second breast or non-breast cancer and death were considered events for the intention-to-treat disease-free survival (DFS) analysis. RESULTS: With a 64-month median follow-up and 134 reported events, the disease-free rate at 5 years was 85.4%, 93.2% and 93.3% with T, L and ZL, respectively (overall P = 0.008). The hazard ratio for a DFS event was 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34 to 0.80; P = 0.003) with ZL vs T, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.48 to 1.07; P = 0.06) with L vs T and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.44 to 1.12; P = 0.22) with ZL vs L. With 36 deaths, there was no significant difference in overall survival (P = 0.14). Treatment was stopped for toxicity or refusal in 7.3%, 7.3% and 16.6% patients, and in the safety population, grade 3-4 side-effects were reported in 4.2%, 6.9% and 9.1% patients treated with T, L or ZL, respectively. CONCLUSION: HOBOE study shows that in premenopausal patients with early breast cancer undergoing ovarian function suppression with triptorelin, ZL significantly improves DFS, while worsening compliance and toxicity, as compared with T. (NCT00412022).

Effect on quality of life of cisplatin added to single-agent chemotherapy as first-line treatment for elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Joint analysis of MILES-3 and MILES-4 randomised phase 3 trials.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect on quality of life (QOL) of the addition of cisplatin to single-agent chemotherapy in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) enrolled in two parallel phase 3 trials, MILES-3 and MILES-4. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Advanced NSCLC pts, >70 years old, performance status (PS) 0-1, were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy without or with cisplatin. EORTC QLQ C30 and LC13 questionnaires were planned at baseline, end of cycle 1 and end of cycle 2 in both trials and were used for joint QOL analysis. Trial-specific data including questionnaires at non-shared time-points were used for additional analyses. Intention-to-treat strategy was applied. Analyses were adjusted for baseline QOL, stage, performance status, gender, age, size of centre, trial, histotype and non-platinum companion drug. RESULTS: Overall, 458/531 pts (86%) answered baseline questionnaire and missing rates over treatment were slightly higher among patients receiving cisplatin. Mean change in sore mouth after cycle 2 was worse with cisplatin (P = 0.02). The size of differences between arms was in the small-medium range for peripheral neuropathy and alopecia (0.25 and 0.31 after one and 0.28 and 0.36 after two cycles, respectively) and for nausea/vomiting, sore mouth and dysphagia after two cycles (0.26, 0.38 and 0.25, respectively) always in the direction of worsening with cisplatin. Using a 10% change from baseline as clinically relevant threshold to categorize response, there was no significant difference between the arms. Time to deterioration of sore mouth and alopecia, with progression/death as competitive risk, was shorter with cisplatin (HR 1.72 95%CI 1.02-2.89, P = 0.04 and HR 1.84 95%CI 1.09-3.10, P = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSION: The addition of cisplatin to single agent chemotherapy worsens sore mouth and alopecia and does not improve any QOL items in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC.