Stroma AReactive Invasion Front Areas (SARIFA) improves prognostic risk stratification of perioperative chemotherapy treated oesophagogastric cancer patients from the MAGIC and the ST03 trial.

BACKGROUND: Tumour-associated fat cells without desmoplastic stroma reaction at the invasion front (Stroma AReactive Invasion Front Areas (SARIFA)) is a prognostic biomarker in gastric and colon cancer. The clinical utility of the SARIFA status in oesophagogastric cancer patients treated with perioperative chemotherapy is currently unknown. METHODS: The SARIFA status was determined in tissue sections from patients recruited into the MAGIC (n = 292) or ST03 (n = 693) trials treated with surgery alone (S, MAGIC) or perioperative chemotherapy (MAGIC, ST03). The relationship between SARIFA status, clinicopathological factors, overall survival (OS) and treatment was analysed. RESULTS: The SARIFA status was positive in 42% MAGIC trial S patients, 28% MAGIC and 48% ST03 patients after pre-operative chemotherapy. SARIFA status was related to OS in MAGIC trial S patients and was an independent prognostic biomarker in ST03 trial patients (HR 1.974, 95% CI 1.555-2.507, p < 0.001). ST03 patients with lymph node metastasis (ypN + ) and SARIFA-positive tumours had poorer OS than patients with ypN+ and SARIFA-negative tumours (plogrank < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The SARIFA status has clinical utility as prognostic biomarker in oesophagogastric cancer patients irrespective of treatment modality. Whilst underlying biological mechanisms warrant further investigation, the SARIFA status might be used to identify new drug targets, potentially enabling repurposing of existing drugs targeting lipid metabolism.

Computational modeling of ovarian cancer dynamics suggests optimal strategies for therapy and screening.

High-grade serous tubo-ovarian carcinoma (HGSC) is a major cause of cancer-related death. Treatment is not uniform, with some patients undergoing primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy (PDS) and others being treated directly with chemotherapy and only having surgery after three to four cycles (NACT). Which strategy is optimal remains controversial. We developed a mathematical framework that simulates hierarchical or stochastic models of tumor initiation and reproduces the clinical course of HGSC. After estimating parameter values, we infer that most patients harbor chemoresistant HGSC cells at diagnosis and that, if the tumor burden is not too large and complete debulking can be achieved, PDS is superior to NACT due to better depletion of resistant cells. We further predict that earlier diagnosis of primary HGSC, followed by complete debulking, could improve survival, but its benefit in relapsed patients is likely to be limited. These predictions are supported by primary clinical data from multiple cohorts. Our results have clear implications for these key issues in HGSC management.

Pathological regression of primary tumour and metastatic lymph nodes following chemotherapy in resectable OG cancer: pooled analysis of two trials.

BACKGROUND: No definitive largescale data exist evaluating the role of pathologically defined regression changes within the primary tumour and lymph nodes (LN) of resected oesophagogastric (OG) adenocarcinoma following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the impact on survival. METHODS: Data and samples from two large prospective randomised trials (UK MRC OE05 and ST03) were pooled. Stained slides were available for central pathology review from 1619 patients. Mandard tumour regression grade (TRG) and regression of tumour within LNs (LNR: scored as present/absent) were assessed and correlated with overall survival (OS) using a Cox regression model. An exploratory analysis to define subgroups with distinct prognoses was conducted using a classification and regression tree (CART) analysis. RESULTS: Neither trial demonstrated a relationship between TRG score and the presence or absence of LNR. In univariable analysis, lower TRG, lower ypN stage, lower ypT stage, presence of LNR, presence of well/moderate tumour differentiation, and absence of tumour at resection margin were all associated with better OS. However, the multivariable analysis demonstrated that only ypN, ypT, grade of differentiation and resection margin (R0) were independent indicators of prognosis. Exploratory CART analysis identified six subgroups with 3-year OS ranging from 83% to 22%; with ypN stage being the most important single prognostic variable. CONCLUSIONS: Pathological LN stage within the resection specimen was the single most important determiner of survival. Our results suggest that the assessment of regression changes within the primary tumour or LNs may not be necessary to define the prognosis further.

Prognostic Significance of Negative Lymph Node Long Axis in Esophageal Cancer: Results From the Randomized Controlled UK MRC OE02 Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the relationship between negative lymph node (LNneg) size as a possible surrogate marker of the host antitumor immune response and overall survival (OS) in esophageal cancer (EC) patients. BACKGROUND: Lymph node (LN) status is a well-established prognostic factor in EC patients. An increased number of LNnegs is related to better survival in EC. Follicular hyperplasia in LNneg is associated with better survival in cancer-bearing mice and might explain increased LN size. METHODS: The long axis of 304 LNnegs was measured in hematoxylin-eosin stained sections from resection specimens of 367 OE02 trial patients (188 treated with surgery alone (S), 179 with neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery (C+S)) as a surrogate of LN size. The relationship between LNneg size, LNneg microarchitecture, clinicopathological variables, and OS was analyzed. RESULTS: Large LNneg size was related to lower pN category ( P = 0.01) and lower frequency of lymphatic invasion ( P = 0.02) in S patients only. Irrespective of treatment, (y)pN0 patients with large LNneg had the best OS. (y)pN1 patients had the poorest OS irrespective of LNneg size ( P < 0.001). Large LNneg contained less lymphocytes ( P = 0.02) and had a higher germinal centers/lymphocyte ratio ( P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to investigate LNneg size in EC patients randomized to neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery or surgery alone. Our pilot study suggests that LNneg size is a surrogate marker of the host antitumor immune response and a potentially clinically useful new prognostic biomarker for (y)pN0 EC patients. Future studies need to confirm our results and explore underlying biological mechanisms.

A comparison of different population-level summary measures for randomised trials with time-to-event outcomes, with a focus on non-inferiority trials.

BACKGROUND: The population-level summary measure is a key component of the estimand for clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes. This is particularly the case for non-inferiority trials, because different summary measures imply different null hypotheses. Most trials are designed using the hazard ratio as summary measure, but recent studies suggested that the difference in restricted mean survival time might be more powerful, at least in certain situations. In a recent letter, we conjectured that differences between summary measures can be explained using the concept of the non-inferiority frontier and that for a fair simulation comparison of summary measures, the same analysis methods, making the same assumptions, should be used to estimate different summary measures. The aim of this article is to make such a comparison between three commonly used summary measures: hazard ratio, difference in restricted mean survival time and difference in survival at a fixed time point. In addition, we aim to investigate the impact of using an analysis method that assumes proportional hazards on the operating characteristics of a trial designed with any of the three summary measures. METHODS: We conduct a simulation study in the proportional hazards setting. We estimate difference in restricted mean survival time and difference in survival non-parametrically, without assuming proportional hazards. We also estimate all three measures parametrically, using flexible survival regression, under the proportional hazards assumption. RESULTS: Comparing the hazard ratio assuming proportional hazards with the other summary measures not assuming proportional hazards, relative performance varies substantially depending on the specific scenario. Fixing the summary measure, assuming proportional hazards always leads to substantial power gains compared to using non-parametric methods. Fixing the modelling approach to flexible parametric regression assuming proportional hazards, difference in restricted mean survival time is most often the most powerful summary measure among those considered. CONCLUSION: When the hazards are likely to be approximately proportional, reflecting this in the analysis can lead to large gains in power for difference in restricted mean survival time and difference in survival. The choice of summary measure for a non-inferiority trial with time-to-event outcomes should be made on clinical grounds; when any of the three summary measures discussed here is equally justifiable, difference in restricted mean survival time is most often associated with the most powerful test, on the condition that it is estimated under proportional hazards.

Transdermal oestradiol for androgen suppression in prostate cancer: long-term cardiovascular outcomes from the randomised Prostate Adenocarcinoma Transcutaneous Hormone (PATCH) trial programme.

BACKGROUND: Androgen suppression is a central component of prostate cancer management but causes substantial long-term toxicity. Transdermal administration of oestradiol (tE2) circumvents first-pass hepatic metabolism and, therefore, should avoid the cardiovascular toxicity seen with oral oestrogen and the oestrogen-depletion effects seen with luteinising hormone releasing hormone agonists (LHRHa). We present long-term cardiovascular follow-up data from the Prostate Adenocarcinoma Transcutaneous Hormone (PATCH) trial programme. METHODS: PATCH is a seamless phase 2/3, randomised, multicentre trial programme at 52 study sites in the UK. Men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer were randomly allocated (1:2 from August, 2007 then 1:1 from February, 2011) to either LHRHa according to local practice or tE2 patches (four 100 µg patches per 24 h, changed twice weekly, reducing to three patches twice weekly if castrate at 4 weeks [defined as testosterone ≤1·7 nmol/L]). Randomisation was done using a computer-based minimisation algorithm and was stratified by several factors, including disease stage, age, smoking status, and family history of cardiac disease. The primary outcome of this analysis was cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Cardiovascular events, including heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, thromboembolic stroke, and other thromboembolic events, were confirmed using predefined criteria and source data. Sudden or unexpected deaths were attributed to a cardiovascular category if a confirmatory post-mortem report was available and as other relevant events if no post-mortem report was available. PATCH is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN70406718; the study is ongoing and adaptive. FINDINGS: Between Aug 14, 2007, and July 30, 2019, 1694 men were randomly allocated either LHRHa (n=790) or tE2 patches (n=904). Overall, median follow-up was 3·9 (IQR 2·4-7·0) years. Respective castration rates at 1 month and 3 months were 65% and 93% among patients assigned LHRHa and 83% and 93% among those allocated tE2. 157 events from 145 men met predefined cardiovascular criteria, with a further ten sudden deaths with no post-mortem report (total 167 events in 153 men). 26 (2%) of 1694 patients had fatal cardiovascular events, 15 (2%) of 790 assigned LHRHa and 11 (1%) of 904 allocated tE2. The time to first cardiovascular event did not differ between treatments (hazard ratio 1·11, 95% CI 0·80-1·53; p=0·54 [including sudden deaths without post-mortem report]; 1·20, 0·86-1·68; p=0·29 [confirmed group only]). 30 (34%) of 89 cardiovascular events in patients assigned tE2 occurred more than 3 months after tE2 was stopped or changed to LHRHa. The most frequent adverse events were gynaecomastia (all grades), with 279 (38%) events in 730 patients who received LHRHa versus 690 (86%) in 807 patients who received tE2 (p<0·0001) and hot flushes (all grades) in 628 (86%) of those who received LHRHa versus 280 (35%) who received tE2 (p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Long-term data comparing tE2 patches with LHRHa show no evidence of a difference between treatments in cardiovascular mortality or morbidity. Oestrogens administered transdermally should be reconsidered for androgen suppression in the management of prostate cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London.

Increasing frequency of gene copy number aberrations is associated with immunosuppression and predicts poor prognosis in gastric adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Epstein-Barr virus-positive gastric cancers or those with microsatellite instability appear to have a favourable prognosis. However, the prognostic value of the chromosomal status (chromosome-stable (CS) versus chromosomal instable (CIN)) remains unclear in gastric cancer. METHODS: Gene copy number aberrations (CNAs) were determined in 16 CIN-associated genes in a retrospective study including test and validation cohorts of patients with gastric cancer. Patients were stratified into CS (no CNA), CINlow (1-2 CNAs) or CINhigh (3 or more CNAs). The relationship between chromosomal status, clinicopathological variables, and overall survival (OS) was analysed. The relationship between chromosomal status, p53 expression, and tumour infiltrating immune cells was also assessed and validated externally. RESULTS: The test and validation cohorts included 206 and 748 patients, respectively. CINlow and CINhigh were seen in 35.0 and 15.0 per cent of patients, respectively, in the test cohort, and 48.5 and 20.7 per cent in the validation cohort. Patients with CINhigh gastric cancer had the poorest OS in the test and validation cohorts. In multivariable analysis, CINlow, CINhigh and pTNM stage III-IV (P < 0.001) were independently associated with poor OS. CIN was associated with high p53 expression and low immune cell infiltration. CONCLUSION: CIN may be a potential new prognostic biomarker independent of pTNM stage in gastric cancer. Patients with gastric cancer demonstrating CIN appear to be immunosuppressed, which might represent one of the underlying mechanisms explaining the poor survival and may help guide future therapeutic decisions.

Histological intratumoral heterogeneity in pretreatment esophageal cancer biopsies predicts survival benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results from the UK MRC OE02 trial.

Despite the use of multimodal treatment, survival of esophageal cancer (EC) patients remains poor. One proposed explanation for the relatively poor response to cytotoxic chemotherapy is intratumor heterogeneity. The aim was to establish a statistical model to objectively measure intratumor heterogeneity of the proportion of tumor (IHPoT) and to use this newly developed method to measure IHPoT in the pretreatment biopsies from from EC patients recruited to the OE02 trial. A statistical mixed effect model (MEM) was established for estimating IHPoT based on variation in hematoxylin/eosin (HE) stained pretreatment biopsy pieces from the same individual in 218 OE02 trial patients (103 treated by chemotherapy and surgery (chemo+surgery); 115 patients treated by surgery alone). The relationship between IHPoT, prognosis, chemotherapy survival benefit, and clinicopathological variables was assessed. About 97 (44.5%) and 121 (55.5%) ECs showed high and low IHPoT, respectively. There was no significant difference in IHPoT between surgery (median [range], 0.1637 [0-3.17]) and chemo+surgery (median [range], 0.1692 [0-2.69]) patients (P = 0.43). Chemo+surgery patients with low IHPoT had a significantly longer survival than surgery patients (HR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.20-2.75, P = 0.005). There was no survival difference between chemo+surgery and surgery patients with high IHPoT (HR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.72-1.81, P = 0.566). This is the first study suggesting that IHPoT measured in the pretreatment biopsy can predict chemotherapy survival benefit in EC patients. IHPoT may represent a clinically useful biomarker for patient treatment stratification. Future studies should determine if pathologists can reliably estimate IHPoT.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus debulking surgery in advanced tubo-ovarian cancers: pooled analysis of individual patient data from the EORTC 55971 and CHORUS trials.

BACKGROUND: Individual patient data from two randomised trials comparing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with upfront debulking surgery in advanced tubo-ovarian cancer were analysed to examine long-term outcomes for patients and to identify any preferable therapeutic approaches for subgroup populations. METHODS: We did a per-protocol pooled analysis of individual patient data from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 55971 trial (NCT00003636) and the Medical Research Council Chemotherapy Or Upfront Surgery (CHORUS) trial (ISRCTN74802813). In the EORTC trial, eligible women had biopsy-proven International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC or IV invasive epithelial tubo-ovarian carcinoma. In the CHORUS trial, inclusion criteria were similar to those of the EORTC trial, and women with apparent FIGO stage IIIA and IIIB disease were also eligible. The main aim of the pooled analysis was to show non-inferiority in overall survival with neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with upfront debulking surgery, using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method. Tests for heterogeneity were based on Cochran's Q heterogeneity statistic. FINDINGS: Data for 1220 women were included in the pooled analysis, 670 from the EORTC trial and 550 from the CHORUS trial. 612 women were randomly allocated to receive upfront debulking surgery and 608 to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 7·6 years (IQR 6·0-9·6; EORTC, 9·2 years [IQR 7·3-10·4]; CHORUS, 5·9 years [IQR 4·3-7·4]). Median age was 63 years (IQR 56-71) and median size of the largest metastatic tumour at diagnosis was 8 cm (IQR 4·8-13·0). 55 (5%) women had FIGO stage II-IIIB disease, 831 (68%) had stage IIIC disease, and 230 (19%) had stage IV disease, with staging data missing for 104 (9%) women. In the entire population, no difference in median overall survival was noted between patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and upfront debulking surgery (27·6 months [IQR 14·1-51·3] and 26·9 months [12·7-50·1], respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·86-1·09; p=0·586). Median overall survival for EORTC and CHORUS patients was significantly different at 30·2 months (IQR 15·7-53·7) and 23·6 months (10·5-46·9), respectively (HR 1·20, 95% CI 1·06-1·36; p=0·004), but was not heterogeneous (Cochran's Q, p=0·17). Women with stage IV disease had significantly better outcomes with neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with upfront debulking surgery (median overall survival 24·3 months [IQR 14·1-47·6] and 21·2 months [10·0-36·4], respectively; HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·58-1·00; p=0·048; median progression-free survival 10·6 months [7·9-15·0] and 9·7 months [5·2-13·2], respectively; HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·59-1·00; p=0·049). INTERPRETATION: Long-term follow-up data substantiate previous results showing that neoadjuvant chemotherapy and upfront debulking surgery result in similar overall survival in advanced tubo-ovarian cancer, with better survival in women with stage IV disease with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This pooled analysis, with long-term follow-up, shows that neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a valuable treatment option for patients with stage IIIC-IV tubo-ovarian cancer, particularly in patients with a high tumour burden at presentation or poor performance status. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute and Vlaamse Liga tegen kanker (Flemish League against Cancer).

Prognostic value of pathological lymph node status and primary tumour regression grading following neoadjuvant chemotherapy - results from the MRC OE02 oesophageal cancer trial.

AIMS: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) remains an important therapeutic option for advanced oesophageal cancer (OC). Pathological tumour regression grade (TRG) may offer additional information by directing adjuvant treatment and/or follow-up but its clinical value remains unclear. We analysed the prognostic value of TRG and associated pathological factors in OC patients enrolled in the Medical Research Council (MRC) OE02 trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Histopathology was reviewed in 497 resections from OE02 trial participants randomised to surgery (S group; n = 244) or NAC followed by surgery [chemotherapy plus surgery (CS) group; n = 253]. The association between TRG groups [responders (TRG1-3) versus non-responders (TRG4-5)], pathological lymph node (LN) status and overall survival (OS) was analysed. One hundred and ninety-five of 253 (77%) CS patients were classified as 'non-responders', with a significantly higher mortality risk compared to responders [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.05-2.24, P = 0.026]. OS was significantly better in patients without LN metastases irrespective of TRG [non-responders HR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.33-2.63, P < 0.001 versus responders HR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.11-4.10, P = 0.024]. In multivariate analyses, LN status was the only independent factor predictive of OS in CS patients (HR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.42-2.62, P < 0.001). Exploratory subgroup analyses excluding radiotherapy-exposed patients (n = 48) showed similar prognostic outcomes. CONCLUSION: Lymph node status post-NAC is the most important prognostic factor in patients with resectable oesophageal cancer, irrespective of TRG. Potential clinical implications, e.g. adjuvant treatment or intensified follow-up, reinforce the importance of LN dissection for staging and prognostication.

Neoadjuvant cisplatin and fluorouracil versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine followed by resection in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (UK MRC OE05): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery improves survival compared with surgery alone for patients with oesophageal cancer. The OE05 trial assessed whether increasing the duration and intensity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy further improved survival compared with the current standard regimen. METHODS: OE05 was an open-label, phase 3, randomised clinical trial. Patients with surgically resectable oesophageal adenocarcinoma classified as stage cT1N1, cT2N1, cT3N0/N1, or cT4N0/N1 were recruited from 72 UK hospitals. Eligibility criteria included WHO performance status 0 or 1, adequate respiratory, cardiac, and liver function, white blood cell count at least 3 × 109 cells per L, platelet count at least 100 × 109 platelets per L, and a glomerular filtration rate at least 60 mL/min. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) using a computerised minimisation program with a random element and stratified by centre and tumour stage, to receive two cycles of cisplatin and fluorouracil (CF; two 3-weekly cycles of cisplatin [80 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1] and fluorouracil [1 g/m2 per day intravenously on days 1-4]) or four cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX; four 3-weekly cycles of epirubicin [50 mg/m2] and cisplatin [60 mg/m2] intravenously on day 1, and capecitabine [1250 mg/m2] daily throughout the four cycles) before surgery, stratified according to centre and clinical disease stage. Neither patients nor study staff were masked to treatment allocation. Two-phase oesophagectomy with two-field (abdomen and thorax) lymphadenectomy was done within 4-6 weeks of completion of chemotherapy. The primary outcome measure was overall survival, and primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (number 01852072) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00041262), and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2005, and Oct 31, 2011, 897 patients were recruited and 451 were assigned to the CF group and 446 to the ECX group. By Nov 14, 2016, 327 (73%) of 451 patients in the CF group and 302 (68%) of 446 in the ECX group had died. Median survival was 23·4 months (95% CI 20·6-26·3) with CF and 26·1 months (22·5-29·7) with ECX (hazard ratio 0·90 (95% CI 0·77-1·05, p=0·19). No unexpected chemotherapy toxicity was seen, and neutropenia was the most commonly reported event (grade 3 or 4 neutropenia: 74 [17%] of 446 patients in the CF group vs 101 [23%] of 441 people in the ECX group). The proportions of patients with postoperative complications (224 [56%] of 398 people for whom data were available in the CF group and 233 [62%] of 374 in the ECX group; p=0·089) were similar between the two groups. One patient in the ECX group died of suspected treatment-related neutropenic sepsis. INTERPRETATION: Four cycles of neoadjuvant ECX compared with two cycles of CF did not increase survival, and cannot be considered standard of care. Our study involved a large number of centres and detailed protocol with comprehensive prospective assessment of health-related quality of life in a patient population confined to people with adenocarcinomas of the oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal junction (Siewert types 1 and 2). Alternative chemotherapy regimens and neoadjuvant chemoradiation are being investigated to improve outcomes for patients with oesophageal carcinoma. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London.

Role of radiotherapy fractionation in head and neck cancers (MARCH): an updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in squamous cell Carcinomas of Head and neck (MARCH) showed that altered fractionation radiotherapy is associated with improved overall and progression-free survival compared with conventional radiotherapy, with hyperfractionated radiotherapy showing the greatest benefit. This update aims to confirm and explain the superiority of hyperfractionated radiotherapy over other altered fractionation radiotherapy regimens and to assess the benefit of altered fractionation within the context of concomitant chemotherapy with the inclusion of new trials. METHODS: For this updated meta-analysis, we searched bibliography databases, trials registries, and meeting proceedings for published or unpublished randomised trials done between Jan 1, 2009, and July 15, 2015, comparing primary or postoperative conventional fractionation radiotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy (comparison 1) or conventional fractionation radiotherapy plus concomitant chemotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy alone (comparison 2). Eligible trials had to start randomisation on or after Jan 1, 1970, and completed accrual before Dec 31, 2010; had to have been randomised in a way that precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment; and had to include patients with non-metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx undergoing first-line curative treatment. Trials including a non-conventional radiotherapy control group, investigating hypofractionated radiotherapy, or including mostly nasopharyngeal carcinomas were excluded. Trials were grouped in three types of altered fractionation: hyperfractionated, moderately accelerated, and very accelerated. Individual patient data were collected and combined with a fixed-effects model based on the intention-to-treat principle. The primary endpoint was overall survival. FINDINGS: Comparison 1 (conventional fractionation radiotherapy vs altered fractionation radiotherapy) included 33 trials and 11 423 patients. Altered fractionation radiotherapy was associated with a significant benefit on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·90-0·98; p=0·0033), with an absolute difference at 5 years of 3·1% (95% CI 1·3-4·9) and at 10 years of 1·2% (-0·8 to 3·2). We found a significant interaction (p=0·051) between type of fractionation and treatment effect, the overall survival benefit being restricted to the hyperfractionated group (HR 0·83, 0·74-0·92), with absolute differences at 5 years of 8·1% (3·4 to 12·8) and at 10 years of 3·9% (-0·6 to 8·4). Comparison 2 (conventional fractionation radiotherapy plus concomitant chemotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy alone) included five trials and 986 patients. Overall survival was significantly worse with altered fractionation radiotherapy compared with concomitant chemoradiotherapy (HR 1·22, 1·05-1·42; p=0·0098), with absolute differences at 5 years of -5·8% (-11·9 to 0·3) and at 10 years of -5·1% (-13·0 to 2·8). INTERPRETATION: This update confirms, with more patients and a longer follow-up than the first version of MARCH, that hyperfractionated radiotherapy is, along with concomitant chemoradiotherapy, a standard of care for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancers. The comparison between hyperfractionated radiotherapy and concomitant chemoradiotherapy remains to be specifically tested. FUNDING: Institut National du Cancer; and Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer.

Dexamethasone and supportive care with or without whole brain radiotherapy in treating patients with non-small cell lung cancer with brain metastases unsuitable for resection or stereotactic radiotherapy (QUARTZ): results from a phase 3, non-inferiority, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and dexamethasone are widely used to treat brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although there have been no randomised clinical trials showing that WBRT improves either quality of life or overall survival. Even after treatment with WBRT, the prognosis of this patient group is poor. We aimed to establish whether WBRT could be omitted without a significant effect on survival or quality of life. METHODS: The Quality of Life after Treatment for Brain Metastases (QUARTZ) study is a non-inferiority, phase 3 randomised trial done at 69 UK and three Australian centres. NSCLC patients with brain metastases unsuitable for surgical resection or stereotactic radiotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to optimal supportive care (OSC) including dexamethasone plus WBRT (20 Gy in five daily fractions) or OSC alone (including dexamethasone). The dose of dexamethasone was determined by the patients' symptoms and titrated downwards if symptoms improved. Allocation to treatment group was done by a phone call from the hospital to the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London using a minimisation programme with a random element and stratification by centre, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), gender, status of brain metastases, and the status of primary lung cancer. The primary outcome measure was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). QALYs were generated from overall survival and patients' weekly completion of the EQ-5D questionnaire. Treatment with OSC alone was considered non-inferior if it was no more than 7 QALY days worse than treatment with WBRT plus OSC, which required 534 patients (80% power, 5% [one-sided] significance level). Analysis was done by intention to treat for all randomly assigned patients. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN3826061. FINDINGS: Between March 2, 2007, and Aug 29, 2014, 538 patients were recruited from 69 UK and three Australian centres, and were randomly assigned to receive either OSC plus WBRT (269) or OSC alone (269). Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups, and the median age of participants was 66 years (range 38-85). Significantly more episodes of drowsiness, hair loss, nausea, and dry or itchy scalp were reported while patients were receiving WBRT, although there was no evidence of a difference in the rate of serious adverse events between the two groups. There was no evidence of a difference in overall survival (hazard ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·90-1·26), overall quality of life, or dexamethasone use between the two groups. The difference between the mean QALYs was 4·7 days (46·4 QALY days for the OSC plus WBRT group vs 41·7 QALY days for the OSC group), with two-sided 90% CI of -12·7 to 3·3. INTERPRETATION: Although the primary outcome measure result includes the prespecified non-inferiority margin, the combination of the small difference in QALYs and the absence of a difference in survival and quality of life between the two groups suggests that WBRT provides little additional clinically significant benefit for this patient group. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, and the National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia.

Quality-of-life outcomes from the Prostate Adenocarcinoma: TransCutaneous Hormones (PATCH) trial evaluating luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists versus transdermal oestradiol for androgen suppression in advanced prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To compare quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes at 6 months between men with advanced prostate cancer receiving either transdermal oestradiol (tE2) or luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists (LHRHa) for androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer participating in an ongoing randomised, multicentre UK trial comparing tE2 versus LHRHa for ADT were enrolled into a QoL sub-study. tE2 was delivered via three or four transcutaneous patches containing oestradiol 100 µg/24 h. LHRHa was administered as per local practice. Patients completed questionnaires based on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire 30-item core (EORTC QLQ-C30) with prostate-specific module QLQ PR25. The primary outcome measure was global QoL score at 6 months, compared between randomised arms. RESULTS: In all, 727 men were enrolled between August 2007 and October 2015 (412 tE2, 315 LHRHa) with QoL questionnaires completed at both baseline and 6 months. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between arms: median (interquartile range) age of 74 (68-79) years and PSA level of 44 (19-119) ng/mL, and 40% (294/727) had metastatic disease. At 6 months, patients on tE2 reported higher global QoL than those on LHRHa (mean difference +4.2, 95% confidence interval 1.2-7.1; P = 0.006), less fatigue, and improved physical function. Men in the tE2 arm were less likely to experience hot flushes (8% vs 46%), and report a lack of sexual interest (59% vs 74%) and sexual activity, but had higher rates of significant gynaecomastia (37% vs 5%). The higher incidence of hot flushes among LHRHa patients appear to account for both the reduced global QoL and increased fatigue in the LHRHa arm compared to the tE2 arm. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving tE2 for ADT had better 6-month self-reported QoL outcomes compared to those on LHRHa, but increased likelihood of gynaecomastia. The ongoing trial will evaluate clinical efficacy and longer term QoL. These findings are also potentially relevant for short-term neoadjuvant ADT.

Primary chemotherapy versus primary surgery for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (CHORUS): an open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The international standard of care for women with suspected advanced ovarian cancer is surgical debulking followed by platinum-based chemotherapy. We aimed to establish whether use of platinum-based primary chemotherapy followed by delayed surgery was an effective and safe alternative treatment regimen. METHODS: In this phase 3, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled trial (CHORUS) undertaken in 87 hospitals in the UK and New Zealand, we enrolled women with suspected stage III or IV ovarian cancer. We randomly assigned women (1:1) either to undergo primary surgery followed by six cycles of chemotherapy, or to three cycles of primary chemotherapy, then surgery, followed by three more cycles of completion chemotherapy. Each 3-week cycle consisted of carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2), or an alternative carboplatin combination regimen, or carboplatin monotherapy. We did the random assignment by use of a minimisation method with a random element, and stratified participants according to the randomising centre, largest radiological tumour size, clinical stage, and prespecified chemotherapy regimen. Patients and investigators were not masked to group assignment. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. To establish non-inferiority, the upper bound of a one-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) had to be less than 1.18. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN74802813, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2004, and Aug 30, 2010, we randomly assigned 552 women to treatment. Of the 550 women who were eligible, 276 were assigned to primary surgery and 274 to primary chemotherapy. All were included in the intention-to-treat analysis; 251 assigned to primary surgery and 253 to primary chemotherapy were included in the per-protocol analysis. As of May 31, 2014, 451 deaths had occurred: 231 in the primary-surgery group versus 220 in the primary-chemotherapy group. Median overall survival was 22.6 months in the primary-surgery group versus 24.1 months in primary chemotherapy. The HR for death was 0.87 in favour of primary chemotherapy, with the upper bound of the one-sided 90% CI 0.98 (95% CI 0.72-1.05). Grade 3 or 4 postoperative adverse events and deaths within 28 days after surgery were more common in the primary-surgery group than in the primary-chemotherapy group (60 [24%] of 252 women vs 30 [14%] of 209, p=0.0007, and 14 women [6%] vs 1 woman [<1%], p=0.001). The most common grade 3 or 4 postoperative adverse event was haemorrhage in both groups (8 women [3%] in the primary-surgery group vs 14 [6%] in the primary-chemotherapy group). 110 (49%) of 225 women receiving primary surgery and 102 (40%) of 253 receiving primary chemotherapy had a grade 3 or 4 chemotherapy related toxic effect (p=0.0654), mostly uncomplicated neutropenia (20% and 16%, respectively). One fatal toxic effect, neutropenic sepsis, occurred in the primary-chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION: In women with stage III or IV ovarian cancer, survival with primary chemotherapy is non-inferior to primary surgery. In this study population, giving primary chemotherapy before surgery is an acceptable standard of care for women with advanced ovarian cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

Standard chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in advanced ovarian cancer: quality-of-life outcomes from the International Collaboration on Ovarian Neoplasms (ICON7) phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: In the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup International Collaboration on Ovarian Neoplasms 7 (ICON7) trial, bevacizumab improved progression-free survival in patients with ovarian cancer when used in combination with first-line chemotherapy and as a single-drug continuation treatment for 18 cycles. In a preliminary analysis of a high-risk subset of patients, there was also an improvement in overall survival. This study aims to describe the health-related quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes from ICON7. METHODS: ICON7 is a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 3 trial. Between Dec 18, 2006, and Feb 16, 2009, after a surgical procedure aiming to debulk the disease, women with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) high-risk stage I-IV epithelial ovarian cancer were randomly allocated (1:1) by computer program and block randomisation to receive either six cycles of standard chemotherapy (total 18 weeks) with carboplatin (area under the curve 5 or 6) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) alone or with bevacizumab (7·5 mg/kg) given intravenously with chemotherapy and continued as a single drug thereafter (total 54 weeks). The primary QoL endpoint was global QoL from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaire-core 30 at week 54, analysed by ANOVA and adjusted for baseline score. Analyses were by intention to treat. The ICON7 trial has completed recruitment and remains in follow-up. This study is registered, number ISRCTN91273375. FINDINGS: 764 women were randomly assigned to the standard chemotherapy group and 764 to the bevacizumab group. At baseline, 684 (90%) of women in the standard chemotherapy group and 691 (90%) of those in the bevacizumab group had completed QoL questionnaires. At week 54, 502 (66%) women in the bevacizumab group and 388 (51%) women in the standard chemotherapy group provided QoL data. Overall, the mean global QoL score improved during chemotherapy by 7·2 points (SD 24·4) when analysed for all women with data at baseline and week 18. The mean global QoL score at 54 weeks was higher in the standard chemotherapy group than in the bevacizumab group (76·1 [SD 18·2] vs 69·7 [19·1] points; difference 6·4 points, 95% CI 3·7-9·0, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Bevacizumab continuation treatment seems to be associated with a small but clinically significant decrement in QoL compared with standard treatment for women with ovarian cancer. The trade-off between the prolongation of progression-free survival and the quality of that period of time needs to be considered in clinical practice when making treatment decisions. FUNDING: Roche and the National Institute for Health Research through the UK National Cancer Research Network.

Prognostic and predictive impact of sex in locally advanced microsatellite instability high gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: An individual patient data pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Surgery plus peri-operative/adjuvant chemotherapy is the standard of care for locally advanced GC/GEJC, though with unsatisfactory results. dMMR/MSI-high tumors have better prognosis and scant benefit from chemotherapy as compared to pMMR/MSS ones. The differential outcome of therapies in terms of safety and efficacy according to sex is still debated in GC/GEJC patients. METHODS: We previously performed an individual patient data pooled analysis of MAGIC, CLASSIC, ITACA-S, and ARTIST trials including GC/GEJC patients treated with surgery alone or surgery plus peri-operative/adjuvant chemotherapy to assess the value of MSI status. We performed a secondary analysis investigating the prognostic and predictive role of sex (female versus male) in the pooled analysis dataset in the overall population and patients stratified for MSI status (MSI-high versus MSS/MSI-low). Disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated. RESULTS: Patients with MSI-high tumors had improved survival as compared to MSS/MSI-low ones irrespective of sex, whereas in those with MSS/MSI-low tumors, females had numerically longer OS and DFS (5-year OS was 63.2% versus 57.6%, HR 0.842; p = 0.058, and 5-year DFS was 55.8% versus 50.8%, HR 0.850; p = 0.0504 in female versus male patients). The numerical difference for the detrimental effect of chemotherapy in MSI-high GC was higher in females than males, while the significant benefit of chemotherapy over surgery alone was confirmed in MSS/MSI-low GC irrespective of sex. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis including four randomized trials highlights a relevant impact of sex in the prognosis and treatment efficacy of MSI-high and MSS/MSI-low non-metastatic GC/GEJC.

Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy vs Chemotherapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Importance: The prognosis of patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction (AEG) is poor. From current evidence, it remains unclear to what extent preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy achieve better outcomes than surgery alone. Objective: To assess the association of preoperative CRT and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy in patients with AEG with overall survival and other outcomes. Data Sources: Literature search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was performed from inception to April 21, 2023. Study Selection: Two blinded reviewers screened for randomized clinical trials comparing preoperative CRT plus surgery with preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery, 1 intervention with surgery alone, or all 3 treatments. Only data from participants with AEG were included from trials that encompassed mixed histology or gastric cancer. Among 2768 initially identified studies, 17 (0.6%) met the selection criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed for extracting data and assessing data quality by 2 independent extractors. A bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using the 2-stage approach. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall and disease-free survival, postoperative morbidity, and mortality. Results: The analyses included 2549 patients (2206 [86.5%] male; mean [SD] age, 61.0 [9.4] years) from 17 trials (conducted from 1989-2016). Both preoperative CRT plus surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% credible interval (CrI), 0.62-0.90]; 3-year difference, 105 deaths per 1000 patients) and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery (HR, 0.78 [95% CrI, 0.64-0.91]; 3-year difference, 90 deaths per 1000 patients) showed longer overall survival than surgery alone. Comparing the 2 modalities yielded similar overall survival (HR, 1.04 [95% CrI], 0.83-1.28]; 3-year difference, 15 deaths per 1000 patients fewer for CRT). Similarly, disease-free survival was longer for both modalities compared with surgery alone. Postoperative morbidity was more frequent after CRT plus surgery (odds ratio [OR], 2.94 [95% CrI, 1.01-8.59]) than surgery alone. Postoperative mortality was not significantly more frequent after CRT plus surgery than surgery alone (OR, 2.50 [95% CrI, 0.66-10.56]) or after chemotherapy plus surgery than CRT plus surgery (OR, 0.44 [95% CrI, 0.08-2.00]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis of patients with AEG, both preoperative CRT and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy were associated with longer survival without relevant differences between the 2 modalities. Thus, either of the 2 treatments may be recommended to patients.