Ambulatory management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax: an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Primary spontaneous pneumothorax occurs in otherwise healthy young patients. Optimal management is not defined and often results in prolonged hospitalisation. Data on efficacy of ambulatory options are poor. We aimed to describe the duration of hospitalisation and safety of ambulatory management compared with standard care. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised controlled trial, adults (aged 16-55 years) with symptomatic primary spontaneous pneumothorax were recruited from 24 UK hospitals during a period of 3 years. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment with either an ambulatory device or standard guideline-based management (aspiration, standard chest tube insertion, or both). The primary outcome was total length of hospital stay including re-admission up to 30 days after randomisation. Patients with available data were included in the primary analysis and all assigned patients were included in the safety analysis. The trial was prospectively registered with the International Standard Randomised Clinical Trials Number, ISRCTN79151659. FINDINGS: Of 776 patients screened between July, 2015, and March, 2019, 236 (30%) were randomly assigned to ambulatory care (n=117) and standard care (n=119). At day 30, the median hospitalisation was significantly shorter in the 114 patients with available data who received ambulatory treatment (0 days [IQR 0-3]) than in the 113 with available data who received standard care (4 days [IQR 0-8]; p<0·0001; median difference 2 days [95% CI 1-3]). 110 (47%) of 236 patients had adverse events, including 64 (55%) of 117 patients in the ambulatory care arm and 46 (39%) of 119 in the standard care arm. All 14 serious adverse events occurred in patients who received ambulatory care, eight (57%) of which were related to the intervention, including an enlarging pneumothorax, asymptomatic pulmonary oedema, and the device malfunctioning, leaking, or dislodging. INTERPRETATION: Ambulatory management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax significantly reduced the duration of hospitalisation including re-admissions in the first 30 days, but at the expense of increased adverse events. This data suggests that primary spontaneous pneumothorax can be managed for outpatients, using ambulatory devices in those who require intervention. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Results of a phase II clinical trial of 6-mercaptopurine (6MP) and methotrexate in patients with BRCA-defective tumours.

BACKGROUND: Tumour cells with BRCA1/2 gene mutations demonstrate increased sensitivity to platinum and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. 6-mercaptopurine (6MP) was found to selectively kill BRCA-defective cells in a xenograft model as effectively as the PARP inhibitor AG014699, even after these cells acquired resistance to a PARP inhibitor or cisplatin. METHODS: This phase II single-arm trial investigated the activity of 6MP 55-75 mg/m2 per day, and methotrexate 15-20 mg/m2 per week in advanced breast or platinum-resistant ovarian cancer patients with a BRCA1/2 germline mutation, who had progressed after ≥1 previous line of chemotherapy. The primary outcome was objective response including stable disease (SD) as an assessment of clinical benefit rate (CBR), at 8 weeks, by RECIST v1.1. Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: In total, 67 evaluable patients were recruited; 55 ovarian and 11 breast cancer patients. In total, 21 patients had SD (31%), one had a partial response (1.5%); CBR was 33% at 8 weeks. In total, 12/67 patients (18%) had SD at 16 weeks. In total, five ovarian cancer patients had SD for over 200 days. Median OS was 10.3 months (95% CI 6.9-14.5), median PFS 1.9 months (1.7-2.8). CONCLUSIONS: The overall activity of 6MP and methotrexate in these patients was low; however, there was a small group of patients who appeared to derive longer-term clinical benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01432145 http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov.

A phase II open label, randomised study of ipilimumab with temozolomide versus temozolomide alone after surgery and chemoradiotherapy in patients with recently diagnosed glioblastoma: the Ipi-Glio trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Median survival for patients with glioblastoma is less than a year. Standard treatment consists of surgical debulking if feasible followed by temozolomide chemo-radiotherapy. The immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab targets cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and has shown clinical efficacy in preclinical models of glioblastoma. The aim of this study is to explore the addition of ipilimumab to standard therapy in patients with glioblastoma. METHODS/DESIGN: Ipi-Glio is a phase II, open label, randomised study of ipilimumab with temozolomide (Arm A) versus temozolomide alone (Arm B) after surgery and chemoradiotherapy in patients with recently diagnosed glioblastoma. Planned accrual is 120 patients (Arm A: 80, Arm B: 40). Endpoints include overall survival, 18-month survival, 5-year survival, and adverse events. The trial is currently recruiting in seven centres in the United Kingdom. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN84434175. Registered 12 November 2018.

RADVAN: a randomised phase 2 trial of WBRT plus vandetanib for melanoma brain metastases - results and lessons learnt.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases occur in up to 75% of patients with advanced melanoma. Most are treated with whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT), with limited effectiveness. Vandetanib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor and rearranged during transfection tyrosine kinases, is a potent radiosensitiser in xenograft models. We compared WBRT with WBRT plus vandetanib in the treatment of patients with melanoma brain metastases. METHODS: In this double-blind, multi-centre, phase 2 trial patients with melanoma brain metastases were randomised to receive WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions) plus 3 weeks of concurrent vandetanib 100 mg once daily or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in brain (PFS brain). The main study was preceded by a safety run-in phase to confirm tolerability of the combination. A post-hoc analysis and literature review considered barriers to recruiting patients with melanoma brain metastases to clinical trials. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were recruited, six to the safety phase and 18 to the randomised phase. The study closed early due to poor recruitment. Median PFS brain was 3.3 months (90% confidence interval (CI): 1.6-5.6) in the vandetanib group and 2.5 months (90% CI: 0.2-4.8) in the placebo group (P=0.34). Median overall survival (OS) was 4.6 months (90% CI: 1.6-6.3) and 2.5 months (90% CI: 0.2-7.2), respectively (P=0.54). The most frequent adverse events were fatigue, alopecia, confusion and nausea. The most common barrier to study recruitment was availability of alternative treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of WBRT plus vandetanib was well tolerated. Compared with WBRT alone, there was no significant improvement in PFS brain or OS, although we are unable to provide a definitive result due to poor accrual. A review of barriers to trial accrual identified several factors that affect study recruitment in this difficult disease area.

NCRI phase II study of CHOP in combination with ofatumumab in induction and maintenance in newly diagnosed Richter syndrome.

Richter syndrome (RS) is associated with chemotherapy resistance and a poor historical median overall survival (OS) of 8-10 months. We conducted a phase II trial of standard CHOP-21 (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone every 21 d) with ofatumumab induction (Cycle 1: 300 mg day 1, 1000 mg day 8, 1000 mg day 15; Cycles 2-6: 1000 mg day 1) (CHOP-O) followed by 12 months ofatumumab maintenance (1000 mg given 8-weekly for up to six cycles). Forty-three patients were recruited of whom 37 were evaluable. Seventy-three per cent were aged >60 years. Over half of the patients received a fludarabine and cyclophosphamide-based regimen as prior CLL treatment. The overall response rate was 46% (complete response 27%, partial response 19%) at six cycles. The median progression-free survival was 6·2 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 4·9-14·0 months) and median OS was 11·4 months (95% CI 6·4-25·6 months). Treatment-naïve and TP53-intact patients had improved outcomes. Fifteen episodes of neutropenic fever and 46 non-neutropenic infections were observed. There were no treatment-related deaths. Seven patients received platinum-containing salvage at progression, with only one patient obtaining an adequate response to proceed to allogeneic transplantation. CHOP-O with ofatumumab maintenance provides minimal benefit beyond CHOP plus rutuximab. Standard immunochemotherapy for RS remains wholly inadequate for unselected RS. Multinational trials incorporating novel agents are urgently needed.

Impact of a web-based tool (WebCONSORT) to improve the reporting of randomised trials: results of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The CONSORT Statement is an evidence-informed guideline for reporting randomised controlled trials. A number of extensions have been developed that specify additional information to report for more complex trials. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of using a simple web-based tool (WebCONSORT, which incorporates a number of different CONSORT extensions) on the completeness of reporting of randomised trials published in biomedical publications. METHODS: We conducted a parallel group randomised trial. Journals which endorsed the CONSORT Statement (i.e. referred to it in the Instruction to Authors) but do not actively implement it (i.e. require authors to submit a completed CONSORT checklist) were invited to participate. Authors of randomised trials were requested by the editor to use the web-based tool at the manuscript revision stage. Authors registering to use the tool were randomised (centralised computer generated) to WebCONSORT or control. In the WebCONSORT group, they had access to a tool allowing them to combine the different CONSORT extensions relevant to their trial and generate a customised checklist and flow diagram that they must submit to the editor. In the control group, authors had only access to a CONSORT flow diagram generator. Authors, journal editors, and outcome assessors were blinded to the allocation. The primary outcome was the proportion of CONSORT items (main and extensions) reported in each article post revision. RESULTS: A total of 46 journals actively recruited authors into the trial (25 March 2013 to 22 September 2015); 324 author manuscripts were randomised (WebCONSORT n = 166; control n = 158), of which 197 were reports of randomised trials (n = 94; n = 103). Over a third (39%; n = 127) of registered manuscripts were excluded from the analysis, mainly because the reported study was not a randomised trial. Of those included in the analysis, the most common CONSORT extensions selected were non-pharmacologic (n = 43; n = 50), pragmatic (n = 20; n = 16) and cluster (n = 10; n = 9). In a quarter of manuscripts, authors either wrongly selected an extension or failed to select the right extension when registering their manuscript on the WebCONSORT study site. Overall, there was no important difference in the overall mean score between WebCONSORT (mean score 0.51) and control (0.47) in the proportion of CONSORT and CONSORT extension items reported pertaining to a given study (mean difference, 0.04; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to show a beneficial effect of a customised web-based CONSORT checklist to help authors prepare more complete trial reports. However, the exclusion of a large number of inappropriately registered manuscripts meant we had less precision than anticipated to detect a difference. Better education is needed, earlier in the publication process, for both authors and journal editorial staff on when and how to implement CONSORT and, in particular, CONSORT-related extensions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01891448 [registered 24 May 2013].

Single arm NCRI phase II study of CHOP in combination with Ofatumumab in induction and maintenance for patients with newly diagnosed Richter's syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Transformation of B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (B-CLL) to diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (Richter's syndrome (RS)) is a rare (2-15% of patients) but catastrophic complication of B-CLL. Dose-intense chemotherapy regimens investigated in small single institution trials, but with the exception of bone marrow transplantation for a minority of patients, little has improved the median overall survival of patients with RS beyond eight months. Patients are often elderly, immunosuppressed, possess co-morbidities and have a deteriorating performance status. TP53 disruption is a common molecular abnormality noted in RS and contributes to the tumour's chemotherapy resistance. Ofatumumab is a fully human anti-CD20 monoclonal IgG1κ antibody that targets a unique epitope on B lymphocytes. It has displayed increased binding affinity and a longer dissociation time when compared to rituximab resulting in improved complement dependent cellular cytotoxicity (CDCC); a mechanism with the potential to overcome apoptosis-resistance in TP53 disruption. Given the prevalence of TP53 disruption in RS, Ofatumumab was considered a relatively non-toxic agent with a sound rationale to test in a prospective multicentre trial as an adjunct to CHOP induction and subsequent ofatumumab maintenance therapy in responding patients. METHODS/DESIGN: The CHOP-OR study is a prospective phase II study to evaluate the safety, feasibility and activity of a CHOP chemotherapy in combination with ofatumumab in induction and subsequent maintenance for patients with newly diagnosed RS. The primary objective will be the overall response rate (ORR) in patients with RS after six cycles of CHOP-O. The secondary objectives include feasibility of recruitment, progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. The study will be accompanied by exploratory analysis of the genomic landscape of RS in newly diagnosed patients. DISCUSSION: The CHOP-OR trial evaluates the safety, feasibility and activity of CHOP plus Ofatumumab induction and Ofatumumab maintenance in new RS patients. The study is currently recruiting and has met the interim analysis criteria, with more than 7 of the first 25 participants achieving a CR or PR after six cycles of CHOP-O. The study has the potential to identify predictive biomarkers for this treatment modality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01171378.

A phase II clinical trial of 6-mercaptopurine (6MP) and methotrexate in patients with BRCA defective tumours: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are critical in homologous recombination DNA repair and have been implicated in familial breast and ovarian cancer tumorigenesis. Tumour cells with these mutations demonstrate increased sensitivity to cisplatin and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. 6MP was identified in a screen for novel drugs and found to selectively kill BRCA-defective cells in a xenograft model as effectively as the PARP inhibitor AGO14699, even after these cells had acquired resistance to a PARP inhibitor or cisplatin. Exploiting the genetic basis of these tumours enables us to develop a more tailored approach to therapy for patients with BRCA mutated cancers. METHODS: This multi-centre phase II single arm trial was designed to investigate the activity and safety of 6-mercaptopurine (6MP) 55 mg/m² per day, and methotrexate 15 mg/m² per week in patients with advanced breast or ovarian cancer, ECOG PS 0-2, progressing after ≥ one prior regimen and known to bear a BRCA1/2 germ line mutation. Accrual was planned in two stages, with treatment continuing until progression or unacceptable toxicity; in the first, if less than 3/30 evaluable patients respond at 8 weeks after commencing treatment, the trial will be stopped for futility; if not, then accrual would proceed to a second stage, in which if more than 9/65 evaluable patients are found to respond at 8 weeks, the treatment will be regarded as potentially effective and a phase III trial considered subject to satisfactory safety and tolerability. The primary outcome is objective response at 8 weeks, defined by RECISTS v1.1 as complete response, partial response or stable disease. Secondary outcomes include safety, progression- free and overall survival, and quality of life. DISCUSSION: This study aims to investigate whether 6MP might be an effective treatment for BRCA deficient tumours even after the development of resistance to PARP inhibitors or platinum drugs. The study has surpassed the first stage analysis criteria of more than 3 out of 30 evaluable patients responding at 8 weeks, and is currently in the second stage of recruitment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01432145 http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov.

PemBla: A Phase 1 study of intravesical pembrolizumab in recurrent non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the anti-PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab as a potential agent for use in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) by conducting a Phase 1 safety run-in study to assess the safety and tolerability of intravesical pembrolizumab after transurethral resection of the bladder tumour (TURBT). Patients and methods: Eligible patients had recurrent NMIBC for which adjuvant treatment post TURBT was a reasonable treatment option, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0-1 and adequate end-organ function. Pembrolizumab was administered by intravesical instillation once weekly for a total of six doses. Intra-patient dose escalation was performed in three paired patient cohorts with doses starting at 50 mg and increasing through 100 mg to a maximum of 200 mg. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.03 with dose limiting toxicity (DLT) defined as a clinically significant, drug-related, Grade 4 haematological or Grade 3 or higher non-haematological toxicity occurring within 7 days of administration of the first treatment at a given dose for that patient. Results: Six patients were treated with no DLTs seen during dose escalation. Drug-related AEs were of low grade and included dysuria and fatigue. All patients completed six doses of treatment as planned. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assays did not detect any pembrolizumab in the serum following repeated intravesical administration, and no changes in peripheral immune cell populations were observed. Conclusions: Administration of intravesical pembrolizumab was well tolerated and did not raise any safety concerns in patients with NMIBC following TURBT. There was no evidence of systemic absorption or systemic immune effects following intravesical administration. Further studies are required to assess whether intravesical administration has anti-tumour activity.

Design, analysis and reporting of multi-arm trials and strategies to address multiple testing.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear how multiple treatment comparisons are managed in the analysis of multi-arm trials, particularly related to reducing type I (false positive) and type II errors (false negative). METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of clinical-trial protocols that were approved by research ethics committees in the UK, Switzerland, Germany and Canada in 2012. We examined the use of multiple-testing procedures to control the overall type I error rate. We created a decision tool to determine the need for multiple-testing procedures. We compared the result of the decision tool to the analysis plan in the protocol. We also compared the pre-specified analysis plans in trial protocols to their publications. RESULTS: Sixty-four protocols for multi-arm trials were identified, of which 50 involved multiple testing. Nine of 50 trials (18%) used a single-step multiple-testing procedures such as a Bonferroni correction and 17 (38%) used an ordered sequence of primary comparisons to control the overall type I error. Based on our decision tool, 45 of 50 protocols (90%) required use of a multiple-testing procedure but only 28 of the 45 (62%) accounted for multiplicity in their analysis or provided a rationale if no multiple-testing procedure was used. We identified 32 protocol-publication pairs, of which 8 planned a global-comparison test and 20 planned a multiple-testing procedure in their trial protocol. However, four of these eight trials (50%) did not use the global-comparison test. Likewise, 3 of the 20 trials (15%) did not perform the multiple-testing procedure in the publication. The sample size of our study was small and we did not have access to statistical-analysis plans for the included trials in our study. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to reduce type I and type II errors are inconsistently employed in multi-arm trials. Important analytical differences exist between planned analyses in clinical-trial protocols and subsequent publications, which may suggest selective reporting of analyses.

Association between trial registration and positive study findings: cross sectional study (Epidemiological Study of Randomized Trials-ESORT).

Objective To assess whether randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that were registered were less likely to report positive study findings compared with RCTs that were not registered and whether the association varied by funding source.Design Cross sectional study.Study sample All primary RCTs published in December 2012 and indexed in PubMed by November 2013. Trial registration was determined based on the report of a trial registration number in published RCTs or the identification of the trial in a search of trial registries. Trials were separated into prospectively and retrospectively registered studies.Main outcome measure Association between trial registration and positive study findings.Results 1122 eligible RCTs were identified, of which 593 (52.9%) were registered and 529 (47.1%) were not registered. Overall, registration was marginally associated with positive study findings (adjusted risk ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.98), even with stratification as prospectively and retrospectively registered trials (0.87, 0.74 to 1.03 and 0.88, 0.78 to 1.00, respectively). The interaction term between overall registration and funding source was marginally statistically significant and relative risk estimates were imprecise (0.75, 0.63 to 0.89 for non-industry funded and 1.03, 0.79 to 1.36 for industry funded, P interaction=0.046). Furthermore, a statistically significant interaction was not maintained in sensitivity analyses. Within each stratum of funding source, relative risk estimates were also imprecise for the association between positive study findings and prospective and retrospective registration.Conclusion Among published RCTs, there was little evidence of a difference in positive study findings between registered and non-registered clinical trials, even with stratification by timing of registration. Relative risk estimates were imprecise in subgroups of non-industry and industry funded trials.

Outcome of Azacitidine Therapy in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Is not Improved by Concurrent Vorinostat Therapy but Is Predicted by a Diagnostic Molecular Signature.

Purpose: Azacitidine (AZA) is a novel therapeutic option in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), but its rational utilization is compromised by the fact that neither the determinants of clinical response nor its mechanism of action are defined. Co-administration of histone deacetylase inhibitors, such as vorinostat (VOR), is reported to improve the clinical activity of AZA, but this has not been prospectively studied in patients with AML.Experimental Design: We compared outcomes in 259 adults with AML (n = 217) and MDS (n = 42) randomized to receive either AZA monotherapy (75 mg/m2 × 7 days every 28 days) or AZA combined with VOR 300 mg twice a day on days 3 to 9 orally. Next-generation sequencing was performed in 250 patients on 41 genes commonly mutated in AML. Serial immunophenotyping of progenitor cells was performed in 47 patients.Results: Co-administration of VOR did not increase the overall response rate (P = 0.84) or overall survival (OS; P = 0.32). Specifically, no benefit was identified in either de novo or relapsed AML. Mutations in the genes CDKN2A (P = 0.0001), IDH1 (P = 0.004), and TP53 (P = 0.003) were associated with reduced OS. Lymphoid multipotential progenitor populations were greatly expanded at diagnosis and although reduced in size in responding patients remained detectable throughout treatment.Conclusions: This study demonstrates no benefit of concurrent administration of VOR with AZA but identifies a mutational signature predictive of outcome after AZA-based therapy. The correlation between heterozygous loss of function CDKN2A mutations and decreased OS implicates induction of cell-cycle arrest as a mechanism by which AZA exerts its clinical activity. Clin Cancer Res; 23(21); 6430-40. ©2017 AACR.

Gefitinib and EGFR Gene Copy Number Aberrations in Esophageal Cancer.

Purpose The Cancer Esophagus Gefitinib trial demonstrated improved progression-free survival with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib relative to placebo in patients with advanced esophageal cancer who had disease progression after chemotherapy. Rapid and durable responses were observed in a minority of patients. We hypothesized that genetic aberration of the EGFR pathway would identify patients benefitting from gefitinib. Methods A prespecified, blinded molecular analysis of Cancer Esophagus Gefitinib trial tumors was conducted to compare efficacy of gefitinib with that of placebo according to EGFR copy number gain (CNG) and EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutation status. EGFR CNG was determined by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) using prespecified criteria and EGFR FISH-positive status was defined as high polysomy or amplification. Results Biomarker data were available for 340 patients. In EGFR FISH-positive tumors (20.2%), overall survival was improved with gefitinib compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.00; P = .05). In EGFR FISH-negative tumors, there was no difference in overall survival with gefitinib compared with placebo (HR for death, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.18; P = .46). Patients with EGFR amplification (7.2%) gained greatest benefit from gefitinib (HR for death, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.64; P = .006). There was no difference in overall survival for gefitinib versus placebo for patients with EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations, or for any mutation versus none. Conclusion EGFR CNG assessed by FISH appears to identify a subgroup of patients with esophageal cancer who may benefit from gefitinib as a second-line treatment. Results of this study suggest that anti-EGFR therapies should be investigated in prospective clinical trials in different settings in EGFR FISH-positive and, in particular, EGFR-amplified esophageal cancer.

Prediction models for cardiovascular disease risk in the general population: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE:  To provide an overview of prediction models for risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the general population. DESIGN:  Systematic review. DATA SOURCES:  Medline and Embase until June 2013. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION:  Studies describing the development or external validation of a multivariable model for predicting CVD risk in the general population. RESULTS:  9965 references were screened, of which 212 articles were included in the review, describing the development of 363 prediction models and 473 external validations. Most models were developed in Europe (n=167, 46%), predicted risk of fatal or non-fatal coronary heart disease (n=118, 33%) over a 10 year period (n=209, 58%). The most common predictors were smoking (n=325, 90%) and age (n=321, 88%), and most models were sex specific (n=250, 69%). Substantial heterogeneity in predictor and outcome definitions was observed between models, and important clinical and methodological information were often missing. The prediction horizon was not specified for 49 models (13%), and for 92 (25%) crucial information was missing to enable the model to be used for individual risk prediction. Only 132 developed models (36%) were externally validated and only 70 (19%) by independent investigators. Model performance was heterogeneous and measures such as discrimination and calibration were reported for only 65% and 58% of the external validations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:  There is an excess of models predicting incident CVD in the general population. The usefulness of most of the models remains unclear owing to methodological shortcomings, incomplete presentation, and lack of external validation and model impact studies. Rather than developing yet another similar CVD risk prediction model, in this era of large datasets, future research should focus on externally validating and comparing head-to-head promising CVD risk models that already exist, on tailoring or even combining these models to local settings, and investigating whether these models can be extended by addition of new predictors.

Clinical Trial of Oral Nelfinavir before and during Radiation Therapy for Advanced Rectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Nelfinavir, a PI3K pathway inhibitor, is a radiosensitizer that increases tumor blood flow in preclinical models. We conducted an early-phase study to demonstrate the safety of nelfinavir combined with hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) and to develop biomarkers of tumor perfusion and radiosensitization for this combinatorial approach. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Ten patients with T3-4 N0-2 M1 rectal cancer received 7 days of oral nelfinavir (1,250 mg b.i.d.) and a further 7 days of nelfinavir during pelvic RT (25 Gy/5 fractions/7 days). Perfusion CT (p-CT) and DCE-MRI scans were performed pretreatment, after 7 days of nelfinavir and prior to the last fraction of RT. Biopsies taken pretreatment and 7 days after the last fraction of RT were analyzed for tumor cell density (TCD). RESULTS: There were 3 drug-related grade 3 adverse events: diarrhea, rash, and lymphopenia. On DCE-MRI, there was a mean 42% increase in medianKtrans, and a corresponding median 30% increase in mean blood flow on p-CT during RT in combination with nelfinavir. Median TCD decreased from 24.3% at baseline to 9.2% in biopsies taken 7 days after RT (P= 0.01). Overall, 5 of 9 evaluable patients exhibited good tumor regression on MRI assessed by tumor regression grade (mrTRG). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to evaluate nelfinavir in combination with RT without concurrent chemotherapy. It has shown that nelfinavir-RT is well tolerated and is associated with increased blood flow to rectal tumors. The efficacy of nelfinavir-RT versus RT alone merits clinical evaluation, including measurement of tumor blood flow.

Epidermal Growth Factor (EGFR) copy number aberrations in esophageal and gastro-esophageal junctional carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials of agents targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in esophageal carcinoma (EC) have indicated a minority subgroup responsive to anti-EGFR therapies. Other investigations suggest increases in EGFR copy number are associated with poor prognosis in EC, but have used a variety of different techniques and tested numbers remain small. A validated assay for EGFR copy number in EC is needed, to allow investigation of EGFR copy number gain as a predictive biomarker for the anti-EGFR responsive subgroup of patients. We developed a scoring system in EC based upon established systems for EGFR fluorescence in-situ hybridisation (FISH) in lung cancer, and applied this in a series of 160 UK patients with advanced EC. RESULTS: Dual colour FISH on formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) biopsies were scored independently by two operators as: disomy (score = 1), low trisomy (score = 2), high trisomy (score = 3), low polysomy (score = 4), high polysomy (score = 5) and amplification (score = 6). EGFR FISH positive cases (scores 5 and 6) were found in 32/160 (20 %) tumours, with high polysomy in 22 (13.8 %) and amplification in 10 (6.3 %). Two independent operator scores for FISH positivity were 100 % concordant. EGFR FISH positive status was not associated with clinic-pathological features. EGFR amplification was associated with worse survival (HR = 2.64, 95 % CI 1.04 to 6.71, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Our FISH scoring system for EGFR in advanced EC identifies a significant subgroup (20.0 %) of FISH positive patients. EGFR amplification, which is found in 6.3 %, is associated with poor survival. It is not known if there is a role for EGFR targeted treatment in this subgroup of patients, however we are now utilising this EGFR FISH assay and scoring system in biopsies from clinical trials utilising anti-EGFR targeted therapies.

Barrett's Oesophagus Surveillance versus endoscopy at need Study (BOSS): protocol and analysis plan for a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The absolute annual risk of patients with Barrett's oesophagus (BO) developing oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) is ≤ 0.5%. Screening BO patients for malignant progression using endoscopic surveillance is widely practised. To assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of this, we developed a protocol for a randomized controlled trial of surveillance versus 'at need' endoscopy. METHODS: In a multicentre trial, 3400 BO patients randomized to either 2-yearly endoscopic surveillance or 'at need' endoscopy will be followed up for 10 years. Urgent endoscopy will be offered to all patients who develop symptoms of dysphagia, unexplained weight loss > 7lb (3.2 kg), iron deficiency anaemia, recurrent vomiting, or worsening upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Participants must have endoscopically and histologically confirmed BO, with circumferential BO ≥ 1 cm or maximal tongue/island length ≥ 2 cm. Candidates with existing oesophageal high-grade dysplasia or cancer, or previous upper gastrointestinal cancer will be excluded. Primary outcome will be overall survival. Secondary outcomes will be cost effectiveness (cost per life year saved and quality adjusted life years); cancer-specific survival; time to OAC diagnosis and stage at diagnosis; morbidity and mortality related to any interventions; and frequency of endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial will provide data to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of screening BO patients for OAC.