Defining predictors of responsiveness to advanced therapies in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis: protocol for the IBD-RESPONSE and nested CD-metaRESPONSE prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study in precision medicine.

INTRODUCTION: Characterised by chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) symptoms including diarrhoea, abdominal pain and fatigue can significantly impact patient's quality of life. Therapeutic developments in the last 20 years have revolutionised treatment. However, clinical trials and real-world data show primary non-response rates up to 40%. A significant challenge is an inability to predict which treatment will benefit individual patients.Current understanding of IBD pathogenesis implicates complex interactions between host genetics and the gut microbiome. Most cohorts studying the gut microbiota to date have been underpowered, examined single treatments and produced heterogeneous results. Lack of cross-treatment comparisons and well-powered independent replication cohorts hampers the ability to infer real-world utility of predictive signatures.IBD-RESPONSE will use multi-omic data to create a predictive tool for treatment response. Future patient benefit may include development of biomarker-based treatment stratification or manipulation of intestinal microbial targets. IBD-RESPONSE and downstream studies have the potential to improve quality of life, reduce patient risk and reduce expenditure on ineffective treatments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This prospective, multicentre, observational study will identify and validate a predictive model for response to advanced IBD therapies, incorporating gut microbiome, metabolome, single-cell transcriptome, human genome, dietary and clinical data. 1325 participants commencing advanced therapies will be recruited from ~40 UK sites. Data will be collected at baseline, week 14 and week 54. The primary outcome is week 14 clinical response. Secondary outcomes include clinical remission, loss of response in week 14 responders, corticosteroid-free response/remission, time to treatment escalation and change in patient-reported outcome measures. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 5 (ref: 21/WA/0228). Recruitment is ongoing. Following study completion, results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings. Publications will be summarised at www.ibd-response.co.uk. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN96296121.

Results of a randomised Phase II trial of olaparib, chemotherapy or olaparib and cediranib in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: OCTOVA compared the efficacy of olaparib (O) versus weekly paclitaxel (wP) or olaparib + cediranib (O + C) in recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). AIMS: The main aim of the OCTOVA trial was to determine the progression-free survival (PFS) of olaparib (O) versus the oral combination of olaparib plus cediranib (O + C) and weekly paclitaxel (wP) in recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: In total, 139 participants who had relapsed within 12 months of platinum therapy were randomised to O (300 mg twice daily), wP (80 mg/m2 d1,8,15, q28) or O + C (300 mg twice daily/20 mg daily, respectively). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) of olaparib (O) versus olaparib plus cediranib (O + C) or weekly paclitaxel (wP). The sample size was calculated to observe a PFS hazard ratio (HR) 0.64 in favour of O + C compared to O (20% one-sided type I error, 80% power). RESULTS: The majority had platinum-resistant disease (90%), 22% prior PARPi, 34% prior anti-angiogenic therapy, 30% germline BRCA1/2 mutations. The PFS was increased for O + C vs O (O + C 5.4 mo (2.3, 9.6): O 3.7 mo (1.8, 7.6) HR = 0.73; 60% CI: 0.59, 0.89; P = 0.1) and no different between wP and O (wP 3.9 m (1.9, 9.1); O 3.7 mo (1.8, 7.6) HR = 0.89, 60% CI: 0.72, 1.09; P = 0.69). The main treatment-related adverse events included manageable diarrhoea (4% Grade 3) and hypertension (4% Grade 3) in the O + C arm. DISCUSSION: OCTOVA demonstrated the activity of O + C in women with recurrent disease, offering a potential non-chemotherapy option. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14784018, registered on 19th January 2018 http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14784018 .

Randomised phase II trial of olaparib, chemotherapy or olaparib and cediranib in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (OCTOVA): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Patients relapsing within 12 months of platinum-based chemotherapy usually have a poorer response to subsequent treatments. To date, extensive research into the mechanism of resistance to platinum agents in the treatment of ovarian cancer has not resulted in improved responses or longer survival. Further experimental work and clinical trials with novel agents are therefore justified to address this unmet need.Patients with ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer that has relapsed within 12 months of platinum-based chemotherapy will be randomised with stratification for BReast CAncer gene (BRCA) status, prior poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) exposure and prior antiangiogenic therapy into weekly paclitaxel (chemotherapy), olaparib or the combination of cediranib and olaparib. They will be followed until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity develops. Our trial design permits two investigations. We will compare the efficacy and tolerability of single-agent olaparib with weekly paclitaxel. We will also compare the efficacy and tolerability of olaparib with the combination of olaparib and cediranib. The required sample size of 138 participants (46 per arm) was calculated using a 20% one-sided type I error, 80% power and 15% dropout rate. Recruitment will last 34 months with a follow-up of 18 months. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will be conducted under a UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency Clinical Trials Authorisation. Approval to conduct the study was obtained from the responsible authority before beginning the study. The sponsor will retain ownership of all data arising from the trial. We aim to publish this research in a specialist peer-reviewed scientific journal on study completion. EudraCT number: 2016-000559-28, ethics reference number: 16/LO/2150. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: ISRCTN14784018, clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03117933; Pre-results.

Challenges in implementing model-based phase I designs in a grant-funded clinical trials unit.

BACKGROUND: For a clinical trials unit to run its first model-based, phase I trial, the statistician, chief investigator, and trial manager must all acquire a new set of skills. These trials also require a different approach to funding and data collection. CHALLENGES AND DISCUSSION: From the statisticians' viewpoint, we highlight what is needed to move from running rule-based, early-phase trials to running a model-based phase I study as we experienced it in our trials unit located in the United Kingdom. Our example is CHARIOT, a dose-finding trial using the time-to-event continual reassessment method. It consists of three stages and aims to discover the maximum tolerated dose of the combination of radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and the ataxia telangiectasia mutated Rad3-related inhibitor M6620 (previously known as VX-970) in patients with oesophageal cancer. We present the challenges we faced in designing this trial and how we overcame them as a way of demystifying the conduct of a model-based trial in a grant-funded clinical trials unit. CONCLUSIONS: Although we appreciate that undertaking model-based trials requires additional time and effort, they are feasible to implement and, once suitable tools such as guiding publications and document templates become available, the design and set-up process will be easier and more efficient.

Evolution of mir-92a underlies natural morphological variation in Drosophila melanogaster.

Identifying the genetic mechanisms underlying phenotypic change is essential to understanding how gene regulatory networks and ultimately the genotype-to-phenotype map evolve. It is recognized that microRNAs (miRNAs) have the potential to facilitate evolutionary change [1-3]; however, there are no known examples of natural morphological variation caused by evolutionary changes in miRNA expression. Therefore, the contribution of miRNAs to evolutionary change remains unknown [1, 4]. Drosophila melanogaster subgroup species display a portion of trichome-free cuticle on the femur of the second leg called the "naked valley." It was previously shown that Ultrabithorax (Ubx) is involved in naked valley variation between D. melanogaster and D. simulans [5, 6]. However, naked valley size also varies among populations of D. melanogaster, ranging from 1,000 up to 30,000 µm(2). We investigated the genetic basis of intraspecific differences in the naked valley in D. melanogaster and found that neither Ubx nor shavenbaby (svb) [7, 8] contributes to this morphological difference. Instead, we show that changes in mir-92a expression underlie the evolution of naked valley size in D. melanogaster through repression of shavenoid (sha) [9]. Therefore, our results reveal a novel mechanism for morphological evolution and suggest that modulation of the expression of miRNAs potentially plays a prominent role in generating organismal diversity.