Randomised, double-blind, multicentre, mixed-methods, dose-escalation feasibility trial of mirtazapine for better treatment of severe breathlessness in advanced lung disease (BETTER-B feasibility).

New treatments are required for severe breathlessness in advanced disease. We conducted a randomised feasibility trial of mirtazapine over 28 days in adults with a modified medical research council breathlessness scale score ≥3. Sixty-four patients were randomised (409 screened), achieving our primary feasibility endpoint of recruitment. Most patients had COPD or interstitial lung disease; 52 (81%) completed the trial. There were no differences between placebo and mirtazapine in tolerability or safety, and blinding was maintained. Worst breathlessness ratings at day 28 (primary clinical activity endpoint) were, 7.1 (SD 2.3, placebo) and 6.3 (SD 1.8, mirtazapine). A phase III trial of mirtazapine is indicated. Trial registration: ISRCTN 32236160; European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT no: 2015-004064-11).

PRISM protocol: a randomised phase II trial of nivolumab in combination with alternatively scheduled ipilimumab in first-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of nivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD-1) targeted monoclonal antibody, with the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) targeted antibody, ipilimumab, represents a new standard of care in the first-line setting for patients with intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on recent phase III data. Combining ipilimumab with nivolumab increases rates of grade 3 and 4 toxicity compared with nivolumab alone, and the optimal scheduling of these agents when used together remains unknown. The aim of the PRISM study is to assess whether less frequent dosing of ipilimumab (12-weekly versus 3-weekly), in combination with nivolumab, is associated with a favourable toxicity profile without adversely impacting efficacy. METHODS: The PRISM trial is a UK-based, open label, multi-centre, phase II, randomised controlled trial. The trial population consists of patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC, and aims to recruit 189 participants. Participants will be randomised on a 2:1 basis in favour of a modified schedule of 4 doses of 12-weekly ipilimumab versus a standard schedule of 4 doses of 3-weekly ipilimumab, both in combination with standard nivolumab. The proportion of participants experiencing a grade 3 or 4 adverse reaction within 12 months forms the primary endpoint of the study, but with 12-month progression free survival a key secondary endpoint. The incidence of all adverse events, discontinuation rates, overall response rate, duration of response, overall survival rates and health related quality of life will also be analysed as secondary endpoints. In addition, the potential of circulating and tissue-based biomarkers as predictors of therapy response will be explored. DISCUSSION: The combination of nivolumab with ipilimumab is active in patients with mRCC. Modifying the frequency of ipilimumab dosing may mitigate toxicity rates and positively impact quality of life without compromising efficacy, a hypothesis being explored in other tumour types such as non-small cell lung cancer. The best way to give this combination to patients with mRCC must be similarly established. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PRISM is registered with ISRCTN (reference ISRCTN95351638, 19/12/2017). TRIAL STATUS: At the time of submission, PRISM is open to recruitment and data collection is ongoing.

Individual participant data from digital sources informed and improved precision in the evaluation of predictive biomarkers in Bayesian network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop a network meta-analytic model for the evaluation of treatment effectiveness within predictive biomarker subgroups, by combining evidence from individual participant data (IPD) from digital sources (in the absence of randomized controlled trials) and aggregate data (AD). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A Bayesian framework was developed for modeling time-to-event data to evaluate predictive biomarkers. IPD were sourced from electronic health records, using a target trial emulation approach, or digitized Kaplan-Meier curves. The model is illustrated using two examples: breast cancer with a hormone receptor biomarker, and metastatic colorectal cancer with the Kirsten Rat Sarcoma (KRAS) biomarker. RESULTS: The model allowed for the estimation of treatment effects in two subgroups of patients defined by their biomarker status. Effectiveness of taxanes did not differ in hormone receptor positive and negative breast cancer patients. Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors were more effective than chemotherapy in KRAS wild type colorectal cancer patients but not in patients with KRAS mutant status. Use of IPD reduced uncertainty of the subgroup-specific treatment effect estimates by up to 49%. CONCLUSION: Utilization of IPD allowed for more detailed evaluation of predictive biomarkers and cancer therapies and improved precision of the estimates compared to use of AD alone.

The Validity of Surrogate Endpoints in Sub Groups of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Defined by Treatment Class and KRAS Status.

Background and Aim: Findings from the literature suggest that the validity of surrogate endpoints in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) may depend on a treatments' mechanism of action. We explore this and the impact of Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) status on surrogacy patterns in mCRC. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for pharmacological therapies in mCRC. Bayesian meta-analytic methods for surrogate endpoint evaluation were used to evaluate surrogate relationships across all RCTs, by KRAS status and treatment class. Surrogate endpoints explored were progression free survival (PFS) as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS), and tumour response (TR) as a surrogate for PFS and OS. Results: 66 RCTs were identified from the systematic review. PFS showed a strong surrogate relationship with OS across all data and in subgroups by KRAS status. The relationship appeared stronger within individual treatment classes compared to the overall analysis. The TR-PFS and TR-OS relationships were found to be weak overall but stronger within the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor + Chemotherapy (EGFR + Chemo) treatment class; both overall and in the wild type (WT) patients for TR-PFS, but not in patients with the mutant (MT) KRAS status where data were limited. Conclusions: PFS appeared to be a good surrogate endpoint for OS. TR showed a moderate surrogate relationship with PFS and OS for the EGFR + Chemo treatment class. There was some evidence of impact of the mechanism of action on the strength of the surrogacy patterns in mCRC, but little evidence of the impact of KRAS status on the validity of surrogate endpoints.

Radical Cystectomy Against Intravesical BCG for High-Risk High-Grade Nonmuscle Invasive Bladder Cancer: Results From the Randomized Controlled BRAVO-Feasibility Study.

PURPOSE: High-grade nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (HRNMIBC) is a heterogeneous disease. Treatments include intravesical maintenance Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (mBCG) and radical cystectomy (RC). We wanted to understand whether a randomized trial comparing these options was possible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a two-arm, prospective multicenter randomized study to determine the feasibility in Bacillus Calmette-Guerin-naive patients. Participants had new high-risk HRNMIBC suitable for both treatments. Random assignment was stratified by age, sex, center, stage, presence of carcinoma in situ, and prior low-risk bladder cancer. Qualitative work investigated how to maintain equipoise. The primary outcome was the number of patients screened, eligible, recruited, and randomly assigned. RESULTS: We screened 407 patients, approached 185, and obtained consent from 51 (27.6%) patients. Of these, one did not proceed and therefore 50 were randomly assigned (1:1). In the mBCG arm, 23/25 (92.0%) patients received mBCG, four had nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) after induction, three had NMIBC at 4 months, and four received RC. At closure, two patients had metastatic BC. In the RC arm, 20 (80.0%) participants received cystectomy, including five (25.0%) with no tumor, 13 (65.0%) with HRNMIBC, and two (10.0%) with muscle invasion in their specimen. At follow-up, all patients in the RC arm were free of disease. Adverse events were mostly mild and equally distributed (15/23 [65.2%] patients with mBCG and 13/20 [65.0%] patients with RC). The quality of life (QOL) of both arms was broadly similar at 12 months. CONCLUSION: A randomized controlled trial comparing mBCG and RC will be challenging to recruit into. Around 10% of patients with high-risk HRNMIBC have a lethal disease and may be better treated by primary radical treatment. Conversely, many are suitable for bladder preservation and may maintain their prediagnosis QOL.

Radical cystectomy (bladder removal) against intravesical BCG immunotherapy for high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (BRAVO): a protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: High-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (HRNMIBC) is a heterogeneous disease that can be difficult to predict. While around 25% of cancers progress to invasion and metastases, the remaining majority of tumours remain within the bladder. It is uncertain whether patients with HRNMIBC are better treated with intravesical maintenance BCG (mBCG) immunotherapy or primary radical cystectomy (RC). A definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare these two different treatments but may be difficult to recruit to and has not been attempted to date. Before undertaking such an RCT, it is important to understand whether such a comparison is possible and how best to achieve it. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: BRAVO is a multi-centre, parallel-group, mixed-methods, individually randomised, controlled, feasibility study for patients with HRNMIBC. Participants will be randomised to receive either mBCG immunotherapy or RC. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of performing the definitive phase III trial via estimation of eligibility and recruitment rates, assessing uptake of allocated treatment and compliance with mBCG, determining quality-of-life questionnaire completion rates and exploring reasons expressed by patients for declining recruitment into the study. We aim to recruit 60 participants from six centres in the UK. Surgical trials with disparate treatment options find recruitment challenging from both the patient and clinician perspective. By building on the experiences of other similar trials through implementing a comprehensive training package aimed at clinicians to address these challenges (qualitative substudy), we hope that we can demonstrate that a phase III trial is feasible. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has ethical approval (16/YH/0268). Findings will be made available to patients, clinicians, the funders and the National Health Service through traditional publishing and social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12509361; Pre results.