Scheduling nab-paclitaxel combined with gemcitabine as first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nabP+gemcitabine) offers modest survival gains for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Sequential scheduling of nabP+gemcitabine in a PDAC mouse model improved efficacy; this hypothesis was tested in a clinical trial. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated metastatic PDAC were randomised to receive nabP+gemcitabine administered either concomitantly on the same day, or sequentially, with gemcitabine administered 24 h after nabP. The primary outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcome measures were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety, quality of life (QoL) and predictive biomarkers. RESULTS: In total, 71 patients received sequential (SEQ) and 75 concomitant (CON) treatment. Six-month PFS was 46% with SEQ and 32% with CON scheduling. Median PFS (5.6 versus 4.0 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.47-0.95, p = 0.022) and ORR (52% versus 31%, p = 0.023) favoured the SEQ arm; median OS was 10.2 versus 8.2 months (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.33, p = 0.70). CTCAE Grade ≥3 neutropaenia incidence doubled with SEQ therapy but was not detrimental to QoL. Strongly positive tumour epithelial cytidine deaminase (CDA) expression favoured benefit from SEQ therapy (PFS HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: SEQ delivery of nabP+gemcitabine improved PFS and ORR, with manageable toxicity, but did not significantly improve OS. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN71070888; ClinialTrials.gov (NCT03529175).

Circulating tumor DNA predicts survival in patients with resected high-risk stage II/III melanoma.

Background: Patients with high-risk stage II/III resected melanoma commonly develop distant metastases. At present, we cannot differentiate between patients who will recur or those who are cured by surgery. We investigated if circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can predict relapse and survival in patients with resected melanoma. Patients and methods: We carried out droplet digital polymerase chain reaction to detect BRAF and NRAS mutations in plasma taken after surgery from 161 stage II/III high-risk melanoma patients enrolled in the AVAST-M adjuvant trial. Results: Mutant BRAF or NRAS ctDNA was detected (≥1 copy of mutant ctDNA) in 15/132 (11%) BRAF mutant patient samples and 4/29 (14%) NRAS mutant patient samples. Patients with detectable ctDNA had a decreased disease-free interval [DFI; hazard ratio (HR) 3.12; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.79-5.47; P < 0.0001] and distant metastasis-free interval (DMFI; HR 3.22; 95% CI 1.80-5.79; P < 0.0001) versus those with undetectable ctDNA. Detectable ctDNA remained a significant predictor after adjustment for performance status and disease stage (DFI: HR 3.26, 95% CI 1.83-5.83, P < 0.0001; DMFI: HR 3.45, 95% CI 1.88-6.34, P < 0.0001). Five-year overall survival rate for patients with detectable ctDNA was 33% (95% CI 14%-55%) versus 65% (95% CI 56%-72%) for those with undetectable ctDNA. Overall survival was significantly worse for patients with detectable ctDNA (HR 2.63; 95% CI 1.40-4.96); P = 0.003) and remained significant after adjustment for performance status (HR 2.50, 95% CI 1.32-4.74, P = 0.005). Conclusion: ctDNA predicts for relapse and survival in high-risk resected melanoma and could aid selection of patients for adjuvant therapy. Clinical trial number: ISRCTN 81261306.

Adjuvant bevacizumab for melanoma patients at high risk of recurrence: survival analysis of the AVAST-M trial.

Background: Bevacizumab is a recombinant humanised monoclonal antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor shown to improve survival in advanced solid cancers. We evaluated the role of adjuvant bevacizumab in melanoma patients at high risk of recurrence. Patients and methods: Patients with resected AJCC stage IIB, IIC and III cutaneous melanoma were randomised to receive either adjuvant bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg i.v. 3 weekly for 1 year) or standard observation. The primary end point was detection of an 8% difference in 5-year overall survival (OS) rate; secondary end points included disease-free interval (DFI) and distant metastasis-free interval (DMFI). Tumour and blood were analysed for prognostic and predictive markers. Results: Patients (n=1343) recruited between 2007 and 2012 were predominantly stage III (73%), with median age 56 years (range 18-88 years). With 6.4-year median follow-up, 515 (38%) patients had died [254 (38%) bevacizumab; 261 (39%) observation]; 707 (53%) patients had disease recurrence [336 (50%) bevacizumab, 371 (55%) observation]. OS at 5 years was 64% for both groups [hazard ratio (HR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-1.16, P = 0.78). At 5 years, 51% were disease free on bevacizumab versus 45% on observation (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74-0.99, P = 0.03), 58% were distant metastasis free on bevacizumab versus 54% on observation (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.78-1.07, P = 0.25). Forty four percent of 682 melanomas assessed had a BRAFV600 mutation. In the observation arm, BRAF mutant patients had a trend towards poorer OS compared with BRAF wild-type patients (P = 0.06). BRAF mutation positivity trended towards better OS with bevacizumab (P = 0.21). Conclusions: Adjuvant bevacizumab after resection of high-risk melanoma improves DFI, but not OS. BRAF mutation status may predict for poorer OS untreated and potential benefit from bevacizumab. Clinical Trial Information: ISRCTN 81261306; EudraCT Number: 2006-005505-64.

Treatment costs associated with interventional cancer clinical trials conducted at a single UK institution over 2 years (2009-2010).

BACKGROUND: The conduct of clinical trials should be an integral part of routine patient care. Treating patients in trials incurs additional costs over and above standard of care (SOC), but the extent of the cost burden is not known. We undertook a retrospective cost attribution analysis to quantitate the treatment costs associated with cancer clinical trial protocols conducted over a 2 year period. METHODS: All patients entered into oncology (non-haematology) clinical trials involving investigational medicinal products in 2009 and 2010 in a single UK institution were identified. The trial protocols on which they were treated were analysed to identify the treatment costs for the experimental arm(s) of the trial and the equivalent SOC had the patient not been entered in the trial. The treatment cost difference was calculated by subtracting the experimental treatment cost from SOC cost. For randomised trials, an average treatment cost was estimated by taking into account the number of arms and randomisation ratio. An estimate of the annual treatment costs was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 357 adult oncology patients were treated on 53 different trial protocols: 40 phase III, 2 randomised II/III and 11 phase II design. A total of 27 trials were academic, non-commercial sponsored trials and 26 were commercial sponsored trials. When compared with SOC, the average treatment cost per patient was an excess of £431 for a non-commercial trial (range £6393 excess to £6005 saving) and a saving of £9294 for a commercial trial (range £0 to £71,480). There was an overall treatment cost saving of £388,719 in 2009 and £496,556 in 2010, largely attributable to pharmaceutical company provision of free drug supplies. CONCLUSION: On an average, non-commercial trial protocols were associated with a small per patient excess treatment cost, whereas commercial trials were associated with a substantially higher cost saving. Taking into account the total number of patients recruited annually, treatment of patients on clinical trial protocols was associated with considerable cost savings across both the non-commercial and commercial portfolio.

Is community treatment best? a randomised trial comparing delivery of cancer treatment in the hospital, home and GP surgery.

BACKGROUND: Care closer to home is being explored as a means of improving patient experience as well as efficiency in terms of cost savings. Evidence that community cancer services improve care quality and/or generate cost savings is currently limited. A randomised study was undertaken to compare delivery of cancer treatment in the hospital with two different community settings. METHODS: Ninety-seven patients being offered outpatient-based cancer treatment were randomised to treatment delivered in a hospital day unit, at the patient's home or in local general practice (GP) surgeries. The primary outcome was patient-perceived benefits, using the emotional function domain of the EORTC quality of life (QOL) QLQC30 questionnaire evaluated after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included additional QOL measures, patient satisfaction, safety and health economics. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant QOL difference between treatment in the combined community locations relative to hospital (difference of -7.2, 95% confidence interval: -19·5 to +5·2, P=0.25). There was a significant difference between the two community locations in favour of home (+15·2, 1·3 to 29·1, P=0.033). Hospital anxiety and depression scale scores were consistent with the primary outcome measure. There was no evidence that community treatment compromised patient safety and no significant difference between treatment arms in terms of overall costs or Quality Adjusted Life Year. Seventy-eight percent of patients expressed satisfaction with their treatment whatever their location, whereas 57% of patients preferred future treatment to continue at the hospital, 81% at GP surgeries and 90% at home. Although initial pre-trial interviews revealed concerns among health-care professionals and some patients regarding community treatment, opinions were largely more favourable in post-trial interviews. INTERPRETATION: Patient QOL favours delivering cancer treatment in the home rather than GP surgeries. Nevertheless, both community settings were acceptable to and preferred by patients compared with hospital, were safe, with no detrimental impact on overall health-care costs.

A randomised study evaluating the use of pyridoxine to avoid capecitabine dose modifications.

BACKGROUND: Pyridoxine is frequently used to treat capecitabine-induced hand-foot syndrome (HFS), although the evidence of benefit is lacking. We performed a randomised placebo-controlled trial to determine whether pyridoxine could avoid the need for capecitabine dose modifications and improve outcomes. METHODS: A total of 106 patients planned for palliative single-agent capecitabine (53 in each arm, 65%/35% colorectal/breast cancer) were randomised to receive either concomitant pyridoxine (50 mg po) or matching placebo three times daily. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, pyridoxine use was associated with an increased rate of avoiding capecitabine dose modifications (37% vs 23%, relative risk 0.59, 95% CI 0.29, 1.20, P=0.15) and fewer grade 3/4 HFS-related adverse events (9% vs 17%, odds ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.15-1.6, P=0.26). Use of pyridoxine did not improve response rate or progression-free survival. CONCLUSION: Pyridoxine may reduce the need for capecitabine dose modifications and the incidence of severe HFS, but does not impact on antitumour effect.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Antibody Seroprevalence among UK Healthcare Professionals Working with Cancer Patients during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

AIMS: The proportion of UK oncology healthcare professionals (HCPs) infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic's first wave is unknown. The primary aim of this study was to determine the SARS-CoV-2 infection and seroprevalence rates among HCPs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient-facing oncology HCPs working at three large UK hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic's first wave underwent polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antibody testing [Luminex and point-of-care (POC) tests] on two occasions 28 days apart (June-July 2020). RESULTS: In total, 434 HCPs were recruited: nurses (58.3%), doctors (21.2%), radiographers (10.4%), administrators (10.1%); 26.3% reported prior symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2. All participants were PCR negative during the study, but 18.4% were Luminex seropositive on day 1, of whom 42.5% were POC seropositive. Nurses had the highest seropositive prevalence trend (21.3%, P = 0.2). Thirty-eight per cent of seropositive HCPs reported previous SARS-CoV-2 symptoms: 1.9 times higher odds than seronegative HCPs (P = 0.01). Of 400 participants retested on day 28, 13.3% were Luminex seropositive (92.5% previously, 7.5% newly). Thirty-two per cent of initially seropositive HCPs were seronegative on day 28. CONCLUSION: In this large cohort of PCR-negative patient-facing oncology HCPs, almost one in five were SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive at the start of the pandemic's first wave. Our findings that one in three seropositive HCPs retested 28 days later became seronegative support regular SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody testing until widespread immunity is achieved by effective vaccination.

A phase I study of extended dosing with lomeguatrib with temozolomide in patients with advanced melanoma.

Lomeguatrib, an O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase inactivator, was evaluated in an extended dosing regimen with temozolomide, designed according to pharmacodynamic data from previous studies. Patients with unresectable stage 3 or 4 cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma metastases were treated with lomeguatrib 40 mg, b.i.d. for 10 or 14 days and temozolomide 75-100 mg m(-2) on days 1-5. Drugs were administered orally with cycles repeated every 28 days, for up to six cycles. A total of 32 patients were recruited to the study. Lomeguatrib for 10 days with temozolomide 75 mg m(-2) was established as the optimal extended lomeguatrib dosing schedule, with haematological toxicity being dose limiting. There were two partial responses to treatment giving an overall response rate of 6.25%. Extending lomeguatrib administration beyond that of temozolomide requires a reduced dose of the latter agent. Only limited clinical activity was seen, suggesting no advantage for this regimen over conventional temozolomide administration in the treatment of melanoma.

Endothelin-1 and endothelin B receptor expression in pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Endothelin-1 (ET-1) acting through endothelin A and B receptors (ETAR and ETBR) has been implicated in the development of cancer. The endothelin axis has not previously been characterised in human pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC). METHODS: Expression of ET-1, ETAR, ETBR, vascular endothelial growth factor and microvessel density (MVD) was determined by immunohistochemistry in 45 surgically resected human PACs and 15 non-cancer human pancreas samples. RESULTS: PAC had the highest staining intensity for ET-1 and ETBR: 38% PAC samples scored 2+ or more compared with 7% non-cancer sample in ET-1; 58% PAC samples scored 2+ compared with 0% non-cancer samples in ETBR. MVD was significantly lower in PAC compared with non-cancer tissue (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: PAC was characterised by greater expression of ET-1 and ETBR compared with normal pancreas.

Comparison of the ex vivo chemosensitivity of uveal and cutaneous melanoma.

Cutaneous and uveal melanoma both have a poor prognosis and chemotherapy is usually unsuccessful. We have previously reported the activity of a number of cytotoxic agents against metastatic cutaneous and primary choroidal uveal melanoma using an ex vivo adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-based chemosensitivity assay (ATP-TCA). In this study we compare the results obtained with the two types of melanoma. Cutaneous melanoma deposits in skin and lymph nodes (n = 58) and choroidal melanomas (n = 77) were tested using the ATP-TCA. Analysis of the data based on an arbitrary threshold for sensitivity shows that both types of melanoma exhibit heterogeneity of sensitivity to all the agents and combinations tested. With all the single agents except gemcitabine, cutaneous melanomas showed greater sensitivity in the assay, though this did not achieve statistical significance. This was also true with the drug combinations, with the exception of treosulfan + gemcitabine, which had similar activity in each type of melanoma. Of all the single agents tested, doxorubicin (47% of specimens classed as sensitive), vinorelbine (43%), treosulfan (41%) and paclitaxel (33%) showed the greatest activity with cutaneous melanoma. In the uveal melanoma samples, mitoxantrone (33%), gemcitabine (22%) and treosulfan (21%) showed the greatest activity. In contrast to the cutaneous melanomas, 13% of the uveal melanomas were sensitive to paclitaxel, 4% were sensitive to doxorubicin and 11% were found to be sensitive to vinorelbine. Both tumour types showed greater sensitivity to combinations of cytotoxic agents. The combination of treosulfan + gemcitabine was universally effective, with 72% of cutaneous melanomas and 80% of uveal melanomas exhibiting activity at the level selected to indicate sensitivity in the assay, though this will not necessarily indicate a similar level of clinical sensitivity.

Severe gemcitabine-induced capillary-leak syndrome mimicking cardiac failure in a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer and high-risk cardiovascular disease.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is the fourth most common cause of cancer-related mortality in the developed world. The nucleoside analogue gemcitabine is established standard therapy for advanced disease. Gemcitabine can occasionally cause non-dose-dependent pulmonary toxicity, and the systemic complication of capillary-leak syndrome, which may mimic cardiogenic pulmonary oedema. Here, we present a case of capillary-leak syndrome in a patient with pancreatic cancer treated with gemcitabine, with a past history of severe cardiovascular dysfunction and coronary arteriosclerosis.

Targeting angiogenesis in melanoma: prospects for the future.

Angiogenesis has been identified as a relevant target for melanoma experimental therapeutics, based on preclinical and clinical studies. A variety of angiogenesis inhibitors are currently being tested in both metastatic and adjuvant melanoma clinical trials. To date, the most promising evidence of benefit is based on a statistically nonsignificant trend in survival gain reported in a randomized phase II trial combining bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting vascular endothelial growth factor, with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Larger phase III studies are required to determine the true extent of clinical benefit with this class of agents. Key to these clinical trials is the need to include translational endpoints, since correlation of biological and clinical data will provide the opportunity to identify biomarkers predictive of treatment response. These biological studies will also aid our, as yet, poor understanding of the mechanism of action of angiogenesis inhibitors, as well as drug-related side effects. Finally, if these trials show meaningful clinical benefit, then careful consideration will need to be given when designing second-generation trials, in the light of novel gene-directed therapies currently showing promise in melanoma.

A phase I trial of lomeguatrib and irinotecan in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Expression of the DNA repair protein O (6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) correlates with resistance to irinotecan in colorectal cancer cell lines. This phase I study evaluated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of lomeguatrib, an inactivating pseudosubstrate of MGMT, in combination with irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and assessed the safety, toxicity and clinical pharmacology of combination treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer received lomeguatrib (10-80 mg PO) on days 1-5 with irinotecan (250-350 mg/m(2) IV) on day 4 of a 21-day cycle. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients, pre-treated with a median of 2 lines of chemotherapy, received 104 cycles of treatment. The MTD was defined as 80 mg/day lomeguatrib with 300 mg/m(2) irinotecan. The main toxicities observed were neutropaenia and diarrhoea. Lomeguatrib of 80 mg/day produced complete MGMT depletion in all available peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and paired tumour biopsies (one patient). There was no pharmacokinetic interaction between the drugs. In 22 patients assessable for tumour response, one achieved a partial response and 16 had stable disease. CONCLUSION: This study defined a tolerable dose of irinotecan in combination with lomeguatrib in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Combination treatment gave a similar response rate to irinotecan monotherapy in this heavily pre-treated patient group.

Revised UK guidelines for the management of cutaneous melanoma 2010.

These guidelines for the management of cutaneous melanoma present an evidence-based guidance for treatment, with identification of the strength of evidence available at the time of preparation of the guidelines, and a brief overview of epidemiology, diagnosis, investigation, and follow-up.

Phase I trial combining gemcitabine and treosulfan in advanced cutaneous and uveal melanoma patients.

Gemcitabine and treosulfan are DNA-damaging agents. Preclinical studies suggest that synergism exists when melanoma cells are exposed to both drugs concurrently. We conducted a phase I trial in advanced melanoma patients to determine the optimal dose of gemcitabine to be combined with treosulfan. Cohorts of three patients received increasing doses of gemcitabine, commencing at 0.5 g m(-2), followed by a fixed dose of 5.0 g m(-2) treosulfan on day one of a 21-day cycle. Patients alternately received a first cycle of single-agent gemcitabine or treosulfan before subsequent cycles of both drugs. Peripheral blood lymphocytes were collected in cycles 1 and 2 at various time points until 48 h post-treatment. The single-cell gel electrophoresis (Comet) assay was used to measure chemotherapy-induced DNA damage. A total of 27 patients were enrolled, no objective responses were observed, but two uveal melanoma patients had minor responses. Dose-limiting myelosuppression was reached at 3.0 g m(-2) gemcitabine. DNA single-strand breaks were detected 4 h post-gemcitabine, repaired by 24 h. DNA interstrand crosslinks were detected 4 h post-treosulfan, fully removed by 48 h. Following combination chemotherapy, treosulfan-induced DNA crosslinks persisted, still being detectable 48 h post-treatment, supporting the hypothesis that gemcitabine potentiates treosulfan-induced cytotoxicity. The recommended regimen for further study is 2.5 g m(-2) gemcitabine combined with 5.0 g m(-2) treosulfan.

Treatment of neuroendocrine tumours with infusional 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and streptozocin.

A standardised, effective systemic therapy for metastatic neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) has not been established to date. We reviewed the management of 15 patients with inoperable, metastatic NET treated systematically with a combination chemotherapy regimen of infusional 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and streptozocin. Overall objective response rate was 53% and tolerability was excellent.